Brothers and Sisters:
One of the resolutions unanimously adopted by your Board of Directors during the Baguio City Meeting was the introduction of electoral reforms. Actually, the reforms instituted were not novel as what was actually done was to clarify the bylaws provision on the registration of official delegates.
*The salient features of the resolution are:*
First. Only chapters/associations in good standing at least six months before the General Assembly may submit their nominees for official delegates and alternates who must themselves be members in good standing as of the same period.
Second. Life Members must likewise “register” with the Board of Directors no later than 6 months prior to the General Assembly if they wish to participate therein.
Third. Petitions for inclusion/exclusion, in the first instance, shall be resolved not later than three (3) months prior to the General Assembly. The resolution of the RAC may be appealed to the Supreme Adjudicatory Council which shall resolve the appeal not later than one and a half months before the General Assembly. Both resolutions shall be published in the official website.
Fourth. The excluded member may be substituted only by a member who is himself/herself a member in good standing as of six months prior to the General Assembly.
On the nature of the General Assembly
An understanding of the conceptual nature of the General Assembly (GA) is necessary for the purpose of understanding its limitations. The previous concept of the former National Convention (now the GA) as the supreme authority of Alpha Phi Omega invested in it the sovereign powers of the organization. Thus as the sovereign power, the powers which may be exercised are limitless – it can even change the very nature of the organization if it so desires giving rise to a rather confusing Code of By-Laws (CBL) as amendments are done in the then famous (or infamous) utterance: “APPROVE WITHOUT THINKING.” The need to stabilize and strengthen processes and institutions was necessary to insure professionalism on how things are done and democratization of its institutions to encourage wider participation.
To begin with, let us revisit the nature of the GA. Just like the previous National Convention, the GA is both an event and an institution. As an event, it denotes the gathering of members for the purpose of performing certain functions necessary for the continued existence of the organization. This is where the similarity ends. As an institution, the GA is a corporeal body which exercises the powers delegated by the sovereign while the NC is the sovereign. The authority of the GA to do any act emanates from or is merely delegated by the sovereign – consisting of the general membership – and exercised by their representatives through the collegiate chapters and alumni associations. Being delegated, the exercise as well as the authority to exercise these functions must strictly comply with the requirements, qualifications and conditions as willed by the delegating authority through the provisions of the CBL. The only instance when the sovereign directly acts is in the ratification process in plebiscite 30 days before the convening of the GA (CBL, art. XI, sec. 4).
*As an institution, there is only one GA, although it has three specialized functions:*
(a) legislative when it formulates policies or “laws”;
(b) constituent when it proposes amendments to the CBL; and,
(c) electoral when its leaders are chosen (CBL, art. III, sec. 3). Upon the other hand, participation in the performance of these functions is limited to two types of delegates: the official and regular delegates. Even the GA, as an Electoral College; (2) There are only 2 kinds of participants to all three functions: the “official and regular delegates.” (or representatives of the sovereign) to the GA: the official and the regular delegates. Although not representing any particular organizational unit (as they do not need accreditation), life members and incumbent officers are considered “official delegates” because they perform the functions of “official delegates” in the crafting of legislation or policy and in electing officers for the next two years (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[c]).
The present practice, then, of further classifying “official delegates” into voting and non-voting delegates does not find any support in the CBL. Indeed, by reclassifying delegates, the COMELEC is, in fact, reviewing the listing already done by the Board of Directors. This is beyond the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, responsible only for the conduct of the elections and in the determination of the qualification of candidates, because the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine who may be “official delegates,” and therefore authorized to participate in the electoral process as members of the Electoral College, is the Board of Directors (CBL, art III, sec. 2[a]), subject only to review, in contested instances, by the Adjudicatory Councils in exclusion/inclusion proceedings.
*The requirement of registration.*
The next concept which ought to be understood is the “registration process.” This is important because it is the act of registration which qualifies the member to participate in the functions of the GA. There is two separate registration process – one for official delegates representing organizational units and another for life members and incumbent officers. However, there is no basis for the supposition.
The CBL provides that –
“(c) Life members and the incumbent officers, although required to register, need not be accredited by any organizational unit to participate in all deliberations and activities of the General Assembly and the Electoral College.” (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[c])
The only advantage given to life members and incumbent officers over other “official delegates” is that they need not be accredited by any organizational unit in order to participate in the GA. Like “official delegates” of organizational units, life members and incumbent members are still required to register before they can participate in the GA sessions although no period is mentioned in the foregoing provision. It seems logical, then, and perhaps even necessary if a vacuum is to be avoided in the determination of when life members and incumbent officers are to register, that the period when “official delegates” are required to register should likewise be applicable to them. Thus, like “official delegates” of organizational units, life members and incumbent officers should likewise be “duly registered x x x in the records of the Board of Directors x x x which the Chair of the Board of Directors shall cause to be published at least six (6) months prior to the General Assembly sessions” (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[a]). Otherwise, allowing life members and incumbent officers to “register” only at the start of the GA sessions would be giving another advantage or privilege to them as against other “official delegates” which is not provided under the CBL.
The importance of fixing the date when an “official delegate” must be registered which is not definite but must commence earlier than 6 months before the GA is to determine whether the organizational unit, as of that time, is qualified to nominate its representatives as “official delegates” and the nominee, also as of that time, is qualified to be an “official delegate.” Thus, as of the time of registration as an official delegate, the nominee must possess the following requirements: (a) He/She must be nominated by a duly chartered organizational unit in good standing; (b) He/She must himself/herself be a member (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[a]). Thus, the Resolution, in requiring that only chartered organizational units in good standing and the nominee (or life member or incumbent officer) must also be member in good standing, BOTH AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION, is merely correcting an error which has been the cause of so much controversy.
There may be issues as to why only life members have been specifically cited in the Resolution as being required to register before the publication of the list of official delegates. The answer is that incumbent officers are automatically because they are duty-bound to participate in the GA as incumbent officers. The “registration” of these incumbent officers is a mere formality as they are already (or are supposed to be) known to all and sundry. In the case of life members, although they ought to be known to all (although this is a tall order considering their number), nevertheless, there can be no presumption that all of them will participate in the GA. Thus, those who wish to participate MUST REGISTER with the BoD as any member in good standing may question the qualification of a life member to become an “official delegate.” After all, the conferment of life membership does not exempt them from complying with the other requirements in order to be considered as a member in good standing, except of course for the payment of dues.
The status of “good standing.”
The CBL provides that –
“SECTION 3. Status. –
“(a) Membership in Good Standing. A member in good standing shall refer to a member falling under any membership category who has paid the membership dues and other assessments, actively participated in the activities of the organizational unit of affiliation, and has not been suspended by the Council of Arbitrators or declared delinquent by the Regional Director in a particular year.
“(b) Delinquent Membership. Delinquent membership shall refer to a member, regardless of membership classification, who has not paid his membership dues and other assessments for five (5) years and/or who has otherwise been suspended by the Adjudicatory Council or had been declared as such by the Regional Director.” (CBL, art. II, sec. 3)
The duty to pay dues is on a yearly basis (CBL, art. VIII, sec. 2[c]). :
Note, however, that the CBL requires that an official delegate must be “in good standing” in order to be an “official delegate.” It does not say that the member must be delinquent before he/she can be disqualified to be an “official delegate.” Parenthetically, all that one has to be in order to be disqualified as an “official delegate” is to be “not in good standing” as the CBL does not require him/her to be delinquent, although a delinquent member is automatically disqualified.
The concept of a “member in good standing” and a “delinquent member” are separate and distinct as one does not necessarily constitute the opposite of the other. The distinction lies in the fact that a member loses his/her status as a member in good standing without need for any declaration of delinquency but by simply possessing the disqualifications stated in Section 2(a) of Article II of the CBL (i.e., non-payment of dues, non-participation in activities, declaration of delinquency, suspension by final judgment) whereas a “delinquent member” must be declared to be so by the Regional Director for non-payment of membership dues for at least 5 years or suspension by final judgment of the Adjudicatory Councils.
Upon the other hand, a chartered organizational unit is in good standing if: (a) it complies with all of its financial obligations; (b) it has not been declared inactive or has not been suspended; (c) its charter has not been revoked; and (d) it is not deemed in violation of the policies or the provisions of the CBL (CBL, art. X, sec. 8). Thus, organizational units, in order to enjoy “good standing” status, must pay annual dues “which shall be remitted by the Regional Director on or before the 30th day of June of each year.” (CBL, art. VIII, sec. 2[f] and [g] in rel. sec. 3[a]).
Hence, for purposes of registration with the Board of Directors, members and organizational units must be updated in the payment of their annual dues before November 14, 2014, the date when the list of official delegates are required to be published.
The concept of exclusion and exclusion.
The purpose of the 6-month period for registration is two-fold: first, so that the Board of Directors may have the opportunity to immediately exclude organizational units and/or nominated “official delegates” not in good standing from participating in the GA; second, to enable any member in good standing to dispute the right of any organizational unit or nominated “official delegate” to participate in the GA; and, third, in both instances, to enable the excluded organizational unit or member to appeal therefrom.
The remedy to excise from the list of “official delegates” the disqualified member is by way of “exclusion proceedings” while the process by which an excluded organizational unit (and its nominees) or nominee may be reinstated in the list of “official delegates” is through “inclusion proceedings.”
The pre-requisites for the filing of “exclusion” cases are: (a) the party filing the case must either be a duly chartered organizational unit in good standing and/or by a member in good standing; (b) the organizational unit and/or its nominee/s should have been included in the published list of official delegates; (c) the inclusion of the said organizational unit and/or its nominee/s was improper for any of the causes for the disqualification of organizational units to nominate, or members to be nominated as, “official delegates”; and, (d) the case must be filed immediately after the publication of the list of “official delegates” or within a reasonable time to enable the RAC to resolve the controversy not later than 3 months before the date of the convening of the GA.
The requirements for the filing of “inclusion” proceedings are: (a) the organizational unit or member must be in good standing as of the last day for the filing of nominees for “official delegates”; (b) the organizational unit or official delegate must have filed or have been nominated to be included in the list of “official delegates”; (c) the Board of Directors had unjustifiably or without any cause for disqualification had excluded the organizational unit as among those entitled to nominate “official delegates” and/or the member was excluded without just cause from the list of official delegates; and, (d) the inclusion proceedings was filed immediately after the publication of the list of official delegates or within a reasonable time so as to enable the RAC to resolve the question not later than 3 months from the convening of the GA. The question which may be asked is why inclusion/exclusion proceedings are filed with the RAC when what is being sought to be corrected – the list of official delegates – is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of Directors. The answer lies in the division of powers introduced into our system of governance by the current CBL.
The CBL distributes to three institutions the great powers of any organization: (a) the power to formulate policies or the legislative function to the GA and, when not in session, to the Board of Directors; (b) the power to implement the formulated policies or the executive function to the Executive Council under the leadership and responsibility of the National President; and, (c) the power to determine the correctness or interpret the formulated policies or the judicial function to the Adjudicatory Councils. The existence of a cause for disqualification is evidentiary in nature: for non-payment of dues/assessments, the financial records or receipts showing payment; non-participation in the “activities of the organizational unit of affiliation” by evidence of the leaders or members of the organizational unit; suspension by judgment of the Adjudicatory Councils, the decision suspending the member; or declaration of delinquency, the document showing that the Regional Director has declared the member as delinquent (CBL, art. II, sec. 3[a]). Thus, the Adjudicatory Councils, as the agency of the organization empowered to determine the correctness of the enacted “laws” of the organization and the correctness of the implementation of these “laws,” must look into the evidence or determine facts to prove or disprove any allegation of the incorrectness in the formulation or implementation of the “laws.”
The Resolution, then, seeks to level the playing field: first, by providing remedies for those who have been unjustifiably excluded from, or those who have been unjustifiably included in, the list of official delegates; second, transparency in exclusion/inclusion proceedings through the publication of the results of the proceedings; third, providing for time periods for the resolution of the controversy – not later than 3 months before the convening of the GA in cases filed before the RAC and one and half months prior to such convening in appeals from the decisions of the RAC – thereby freeing the GA from any subsequent controversies which hamper the smooth performance of its functions.
The Resolution likewise requires that an organizational unit substitute for a disqualified nominated “official delegate.” The principle of full participation in the democratic processes requires that all those who are qualified must be allowed to participate. Thus, although a member may have been disqualified for any of the causes which resulted in the loss of his/her good standing status, the qualified organizational unit should, nevertheless, be allowed to be represented in the tri-functions of the General Assembly.
Note, however, that the substitute should himself/herself be a member in good standing as of the date of the registration before 6 months from convening of the GA as, otherwise, the requirement would be rendered useless. A substitute “official delegate” may only step into the shoes of the disqualified member; the substitute cannot have less than what has been required of an “official delegate.”
*Caveat*
The foregoing has not been issued for the purpose of polarizing the brethren to take sides with the undersigned’s argument or the opposite thereof. Rather, by this tract, it is hoped that the brethren will understand the reasons why the Resolution on Electoral Reforms have been adopted. If anyone perceives any flaw in the logic and argument for the adoption of the Resolution, then that someone’s opinion is more than welcome so that, perhaps, we can make further refinements. Although accused of being divisive or, worse, a coward, for not naming names, I have not, the undersigned, unfortunately, has not imbibed the knack of maligning others, especially when there is no need to do so. After all, it is more edifying to discuss ideas, rather than personalities, more conducive to listening when we speak quietly and respectfully, rather than to loudly proclaim our superiority and thereby fail to convey the message. Let us heed the admonition of former US First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt that: “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE BOARD RESOLUTION HERE:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eoa2rnnl95k9dt0/Electoral%20Reform.pdf
Thank you to all and have a great day!
LUIS A. PAREDES
Chairman, Board of Directors
ID No. 0007-1975-05616-Life
Comments