Proposal-20110618-vpcd-03

• Council Member Name: Kyle Williams
• Council Position—Proposal Number: VPCD-03
• Meeting Date for Proposal: June 18th, 2011
• Objective this proposal falls under:
• What costs are associated with this proposal? None
• Additional Pertinent Information: (if none state "none")

The following is an addition to the NOP.

Collegiate Chapters are responsible for selecting a Regional Delegate who will be able to assist in the planning and execution of their respective Regional Conference as well as ensuring that either the Regional Delegate or someone from the chapter is in attendance at the event. Any Chapter that does not send a delegate to their respective Regional Conference shall be fined $75.00 and be placed on probation until the total fine is paid in full and the chapter has met the requirements set forth by the National Council.

All Regional fines will be donated directly to the Leadership in Action Fund unless otherwise stipulated by the National Council.

DEFINITION

Article XII, Section 4 of the National Constitution states that each chapter must select a Regional Delegate to help plan and execute their respective Regional Conference and that each Regional Delegate must either attend the chapter’s regional conference or find an alternate to attend in his/her place. However, there was no action in place to address conference non-attendance and the National Fraternity has no way of enforcing this policy. This amendment adds language and action in regards to those chapters that do not send a delegate or have some form of representation at their respective Regional Conference, thus enabling the organization to pragmatically enforce policies and procedures.

While it falls on the delegate to either attend the conference or to ensure that someone else will be their to represent the chapter should he or she not be able to attend, it still falls on the chapter (who in the end will select the Regional Delegate,) to ensure that the they:

• Select a delegate who is willing to make the commitment to attend the conference
• Ensure that the delegate will be able to attend or that the chapter has some form of representation in the event that the delegate is derelict in his/here duties
• Select a delegate who is able to faithfully execute the responsibilities of his or her office
• Make sure that the chapter has some form of representation in the event that the delegate is unable to attend.

In the event that the delegate simply does not inform the chapter that he or she is not going and keeps the chapter out of the loop in the process, the same rules apply as if it were a Grand Chapter Delegate who does the same. In previous Grand Chapters where a delegate fails to attend the event and does not inform the chapter, the chapter is still held culpable for it is their responsibility to ensure that they select a member who is capable of faithfully executing their duties as assigned. This is not to say some degree of leninancy will not be offered in the event of an appeal and legitimate reason for an appeal however. The same principal applies to this as it would any other form of discipline.

In the end however, in the event that a delegate does not attend and there is no other representation from the chapter at the Regional Conference, the chapter will be fined the stated amount and placed on probation. How the chapter chooses to handle this fine (apply it to the delegate, etc) is up to them.

PURPOSE

In passing this addition to the National Operating Policies, the National Fraternity will:

• Have a method of enforcing existing policy as stipulated by the National Constitution
• Have a method of handling delinquent delegates and chapters
• Provide Regional Consultants who serve as guides to an event further resources to encourage delegate attendance and participation
• Reiterate the importance of the Regions and Regional Conference as apart of the structure and strength of Phi Sigma Pi National Honor fraternity

BACKGROUND

In the area of Regional Conference Planning, Each Regional Delegate is tasked with a specific responsibility in regards to the planning and execution of the Conference. From planning the leadership event to assisting with round table discussions, it is imperative that the delegate or someone from the chapter be there to ensures there is representation to fulfill the aspect of the conference he or she was tasked to complete and ensure proper representative of the chapter. Failure to do so typically results in the remaining delegates having to try to cover for the aspect of conference planning that the delinquent delegate was responsible for. This means that several other chapters are affected in some way by delinquency.

Because the chapter is in the end tasked with selecting the delegate (whether by appointing a member or electing a member to the position,) it is the chapter’s responsibility to ensure that they select someone who can fulfill the obligations of the office as per the National Constitution. To that end, it will be the responsibility of the chapter to ensure that either the delegate they select will be in attendance, or that there is some form of representation of the chapter at the event.

As for the question as to the nature of the issue and how many regions are affected and to what extent, with data that I have from 12 out of the 18 Regional Conferences for 2011, thanks to the tremendous efforts of the National Staff and Regional Consultants especially, we had 6 regions that had 100% participation from chapters within their region. These Regions are South, Buckeye, Great Lakes, Lonestar, Mid-Atlantic and Upper Mid-west. The remaining six had the majority of chapters within the region participate and in all six cases, there was only one chapter that failed to send a delegate or have any representation at the event.

Hypothetically, if we were to assume that trends held and that each of the remaining six conferences had one chapter not in attendance, we would see that roughly 109 out of 121 chapters had some form of representation at their regional event. Doing the math, the roughly 90% of all Collegiate Chapters participated, had some form of representation, and had some roll within their Regional Conference. Once again, this is assuming that the remaining six conferences had one delinquent chapter. The final number may fluctuate depending on data received.

From this, we can interpret this data a number of ways. First, if the data holds up, the National Fraternity has made huge strides in not only making the Regional Conferences and the Regions a huge part of the fraternal experience and we are well on our way to making the Regions a large part of fraternal culture. I must reiterate that these efforts are thanks to the support of the National Staff and the Region Consultants who directly interact with the Regions when it comes to planning. Second, given the number of Regions that had 100% representation (whether it be at minimum the Delegate or some other brother) as well as the number of regions that had all but one chapter involved, we see that all collegiate delegates and chapters are seeing the importance of being involved with the Regional Conference process.

I do not view this policy as a means that will bring the fraternity to 100% attendance rates, nor do I view this as the most effective route of going about this goal. It will be through grassroots efforts such as changing the culture of the Regional Conference planning process, stating the importance of attending the regional event, creating a climate where brothers are excited about the possibility of attending conferences, as well as the many efforts of the National Staff to ensure that all events are strong in terms of planning, advertising and programming that will be the most effective means of encouraging delegate attendance and participation.

With that said, what this change to the NOP does is to provide the National Fraternity a means to enforce existing National Policy as stipulated by the National Constitution. (but what about the other aspects of conference planning and other chapter rules.)

DELINQUENCY PROCESS

In the event of delinquency, it is suggested the that National Council handles the situation as follows:

• Delegate does not attend Regional Conference
• This information is reported to National Headquarters via NERMP forms and Regional Conference Reviews from Consultants
• National Council fines delinquent chapter and places them on probation
• Chapter has the options of:

1. Paying the fine

2. Applying the fine to the delegate in case of delinquency

3. Appealing to the National Council

• In the event of appeal, National Council's standard operating procedures apply

CONCERNS

Mandating attendance at weak events

This has been a pressing concern. However, through efforts to improve the overall event quality and programming (via programming guides, changes to the regional structure, addition of LiA modules to conferences, etc.) Also, if the five star proposal were to pass, we would have means to systematically improve the quality of all events weak or strong. Also note that conferences, regardless of whether they can be considered weak or strong had high attendance percentages despite there being no amendment to the NOP.

However, to further assuage concerns, I feel the best option is to ensure that the events we deem as weak or at need have the resources and ability to improve. For example, work is be down towards improving roundtable discussions, improving overall conference event experiences, developing methods to improve conference programming providing guides for host delegates and host chapters, as well as fully developing resources to assist in chapters becoming more capable of reaching 5 star status (depending on if the proposal passes.)

Risk Management

In mandating attendance, it will be the our responsibility and imperative to ensure that the all Conferences have the tools, means, and ability to follow appropriate Risk Management policies and procedures. In fact, this remains a priority regardless of the passing of this proposal or not. Given what we have seen in the past year, it has become increasingly apparent that work must be done to ensure that all levels of Risk Management Policy is effective.

In addressing our policies in regards to Risk Management and our Regional Conferences, action must continue to be taken to ensure that all regional events are sound and in lines with our ideals and policies for Phi Sigma Pi.

Record Keeping

Even though Regional Conferences are held at different dates across the country and attendance records are not as intrinsically tied to the National Office as it would be with National Convention, the National Office has methods and infrastructure to currently keep accurate records of who attended each regional conference. Case in point, every year, consultants will launch a process to review each Regional Conference and make notes from the event.

Information discussed in this overview includes:

• Conference Attendance (How many brothers attended from each chapter)
• What type of Housing was provided
• Whether there was a council member present
• Whether there was a member of staff present
• Conference Events (Scholarship, Fellowship, Leadership)
• Any notes that will be helpful in transitioning the next delegate team

An example of the general overview would look like this (from Lonestar 2011):

• Host Chapter Epsilon Mu
• Host School University of Texas at San Antonio
• Dates January 28-30, 2011
• Cost $45 (registration costs) + $70 (hotel)
• Attendance (Chapters/Numbers) Epsilon Mu: 17, Delta Phi: 25 (including 4 alumni), Delta Psi: 7 (including 2 alumni), Delta Kappa: 7, Delta Upsilon: 5
• Chapters Not Present N/A
• Housing The Menger Hotel in downtown San Antonio, TX on the Riverwalk
• Social Event(s) (Dry) Icebreakers; Amazing Jump
• Service Project(s) Backpack Attack
• Scholarship Activity(ies) True Colors Personality Assessment
• Leadership in Action (LiA) module
• Certified LiA Facilitator Training
• Workshop(s) Roundtables
• Council Member Present Kyle Williams
• Staff Members Present Kevin Kozak
• Chapters Involved in Planning Most (see above)

Also note that because brothers from chapters who attend Regional Conferences must sign Risk Management related waivers, we will be presented other methods of determining accurate records of attendance.

ACTION STEPS

• Amendment is approved by Council and takes effect for the 2012 Regional Conference Season
• Plans, programs, and resources to strengthen weaker conferences continue to be developed and implemented
• Plans of action in regards to ensuring proper Risk Management procedures are followed
• Communication Plan of the new policy is developed and implemented
• New Policy is communicated to chapters and Regional Delegates

IMPLEMENTATION

• What is the motion to be made on this?

I move that we modify the Phi Sigma Pi National Operating Policies to add that:

Collegiate Chapters are responsible for selecting a Regional Delegate who will be able to assist in the planning and execution of their respective Regional Conference as well as ensuring that either the Regional Delegate or someone from the chapter is in attendance at the event. Any Chapter that does not send a delegate to their respective Regional Conference shall be fined $75.00 and be placed on probation until the total fine is paid in full and the chapter has met the requirements set forth by the National Council.

All Regional fines will be donated directly to the Leadership in Action Fund unless otherwise stipulated by the National Council.