Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Check out this year's proposed legislation #SigEpConclave

Going to Conclave as a Delegate or Alternate? Curious about what the hot topics will be this year?

Find out here, then come back and lets discuss:  Check out this year's proposed legislation.

Oh, never mind. Here they are, at least the first eleven of them. You may be certain there will be more by the time we get to Phoenix. 
Links to resolutions:
Resolution 1 - Add LHON as a National Philanthropy
Resolution 2 - SigEp Partnership with the Autism Society of America
Resolution 3 - Chapters to Achieve Above the Local Campus All Men's Average GPA
Resolution 4 - Establish Pledging Periods of 8 weeks or less
Resolution 5 - Financial Reporting of Chapter Operations to Headquarters
Resolution 6 - Clarification of References in the Grand Chapter Bylaws
Resolution 7 - Sigma Phi Epsilon Manpower Requirement for Chartering
Resolution 8 - Order of Succession of Undergraduate Officers
Resolution 9 - Adding the Vice President of Philanthropy to the Executive Committee 
Resolution 10 - Equitable billing for deferred recruitment chapters
Resolution 11 - Veterans of Foreign Wars Foundation as a National Philanthropy Partner

...And there you have them. However I am not very enthusiastic about the crop so far. 

(1,2,9,11) With no less than three philanthropies all attempting to gain "official" recognition I am inclined to endorse "None of the above." When you add to that the proposal to elevate the VP Philanthropy to an EC level - I wonder if the next step is to have the members soliciting on street corners on football weekends.

(5,6,8) The "Housekeeping" resolutions about order of succession, financial reporting, and rewording references, are run-of-the-mill so no drama there.

(3) The chapter GPA alteration may help some chapters qualify for a Buc Cup that otherwise would not, but really - who will really care about a "stern warning letter" from headquarters?

(7) Do we really want to encourage a chapter to form with so few people that it is immediately in danger of manpower related difficulties? Is it economically responsible to allow formation of a chapter that will require resources out of proportion to its contribution to the Fraternity for a probable extended period, only to risk failure after a few years? There really is a minimum chapter size to be viable. 

(4) Setting the pledge period is another symbolic gesture that will upset the 20% of chapters who still use a pledge model. When the schools require it they comply without need of intervention from HQ. Why not (and this is only mildly rhetorical) bite the bullet and declare that the era of the pledge model is over at SigEp? 

(10) "Equitable Billing" may be reasonable. I have heard complaints about how the current system overcharges deferred recruitment chapters. On the other hand, it uses a rather complex formula for calculating who should actually be counted, and it looks like there is a potential loss of revenue for HQ - which will have to be made up somewhere. Of course if the chapters actually did what is called for in the BMP, i.e. continuous recruitment and challenge completion ceremonies based on individual achievement rather than 'by class', wouldn't this become a moot point?

It is probably a good thing I am not a delegate. I might start a Tea-Party style filibuster and we would be in Phoenix until October!
Powered By Blogger