Out of Touch

[Canadian]

Hi all,

I had an active come up to me after a community (non-fraternity) event and harrangue me for a few minutes about how I was "disrespecting my brothers" and "out of touch" with the chapter and fraternity. I'm a AAA (assistant alumnus advisor) and have been one since last summer as our chapter is relatively new and we haven't got a lot of local alumni. Most of our graduates move back to Calgary or points beyond.

This individual is about to be placed on suspension for financial reasons, but I fear he has a point. We've been very rigid about risk management and the Code of Conduct (essentially a para-legal document which outlines unacceptable and illegal behaviours which we can not condone or permit) because I as a founding father am completely unwilling to let our charter be yanked because we choose to throw a kegger or an open party or use illicit substances which are seen as "not a big deal" by some members.

This individual is very popular and is known as a bit of a party animal. He frequently organizes unofficial events which are kept secret from anybody in the fraternity except those he invites (although this differs from a private party in that he generally only invites brothers).

What he specifically pointed out was that I have a policy of total enforcement, not selective enforcement. He'd like to make it okay for our members to police themselves, rather than relying on an American made document. I see this as illogical. If we start changing the rules to allow whatever behaviour we want, it creates a disrespect for the fraternity as a whole.

Is it wrong for an alumnus member placed in a position of authority to expect that the rules be kept? I realise it's an undergrad chapter and they need to make their own mistakes, but I just don't want to see my chapter dragged under because we are bound to trip up if we let the most lenient of us decide policy.

Something I hear a lot is "Chapter X lets it slide, so why can't we?". Does anybody else hear this a lot? Chapter X may let it happen, but Chapter Y got busted and lost their charter. I'm getting kind of sick of hearing it, but it's turning the alumni and founders against the undergrads.

Canadian

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Canadian

Is it wrong for an alumnus member placed in a position of authority to expect that the rules be kept?

Of course not. You all aren't stalking the actives and acting like they can't breathe unless you all know about it. You have lives of your own. You all are telling them that anything done in the "name of" the fraternity must be done according to the guidelines.

Undergrads want alum support and presence when they want it and when they don't want it they want alum to go away. That's understandable and fine to an extent. But when it comes to rules and regulations, it isn't up to the undergrads.

If they are so in love with how Chapter Y does it, they should transfer.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Canadian

He'd like to make it okay for our members to police themselves, rather than relying on an American made document.

Your drinking age is 19 up there still, right? If that's the case and your international HQ has rules to the effect of no undergrads can drink at any function, regardless of state or local rules, then yeah, I can see why he's upset.

Quite frankly, if that is the case, you should have chosen a fraternity to colonize with that is a little more understanding of Canada's laws than one who just says "no booze for undergrads ever."

I would contact the HQ and ask if there is a way that you guys can have a dispensation, as it were.

As for the illegal substances, well, no. They're illegal and you can't have a giant bong sitting in the middle of your chapter room.

[Canadian]

33girl,

The rule is not "no booze for undergrads". It is that booze must be consumed in a legal manner. The drinking age is 18, so virtually all our members are legal. The issue comes in that there are a number of rules about the dispensation and purchase of alcohol beyond what is dictated by Canadian law. Things like "no kegs, party balls or oversized bottles of liquor - ie a Texas Mickey" are an issue. After a chat with the ADGM and AA, we're well aware of the reasons for this. I just worry that pledges and actives are thinking that it's a select group of alumni that are preventing "fun".

Quite honestly, beer is beer and wine is wine whether consumed from a 5L party ball or a can or half bottle. The people who are causing the trouble are the ones who demand "keggers" or open parties. We have rules concerning fundraisers (no alcohol can be served at a fundraiser) and very strict rules about a party to protect the fraternity legally, so some people are angry with the alumni who expect that the rules will be followed.

For the record, I am not the party animal in question. I'm an alumnus and an advisor.

[skylark]

I think that as an advisor, you play a significant communication role between HQ and a chapter. I'll share with you this story from my past:

I remember when I was an active that we had a lawyer/advisor who continually harped on us about what the rules were (not just big rules, but minor ones, too) and often her interpretation of the rules was even more strict than what they were on paper. There was one rule, in particular, that was really hurting our PR and the intent of the rule didn't make sense on our campus (I don't want to go into details, here, but the rule served no point on our campus other than to hurt the chapter). The advisor was so adament about the rule, though, that no one questioned whether it had to be followed. Fast forward to my senior year at convention. I serendipitously am seated next to a pretty important figure in the HQ leadership who asks me what it is that HQ could do to help my chapter. I bring up this rule as an example of one that may make sense on other campuses but end up hurting us on our small campus with few GLOs. HQ lady looks confused and asks why we never asked for an exemption because they are regularly given to chapters in our situation.

As a now current advisor I think it is my job to be the one to go to HQ in such situations. HQ doesn't want to hurt your chapter and they may not have yet considered the pros and cons of their policy in a Canadian setting. In American courts, there is a potential liability difference for kegs v. beer cans. It might not be so under Canadian law, or the risk minimal, and your HQ might consider a revision so long as certain other rules are followed to minimize liability for overconsumption.

My point is: if all you are doing is standing up for HQ and the chapter doesn't see you raising the chapter's legitimate concerns to HQ, they rightfully perceive you as being out of touch with the chapter. You have to find kind of a happy medium (you're not their buddy, but you're not there to be the HQ scapegoat either). I think it might go a long way with the chapter if you at least show them that you're willing to raise the issue with HQ, even if the answer you get turns out to be "no."

[33girl]

Originally Posted by skylark

In American courts, there is a potential liability difference for kegs v. beer cans. It might not be so under Canadian law, or the risk minimal, and your HQ might consider a revision so long as certain other rules are followed to minimize liability for overconsumption.

Yep. We have to sign for kegs and all that stuff - even if we pay in cash - but you can buy lots of cases of beer with no paper trail at all. Of course even these rules vary from state to state.

[Canadian]

Good points. Kegs are forbidden because somebody shows up at a kegger, drinks too much, drives home drunk and kills a pedestrian. A nightmare for Kappa Sigma, even more so if the drunk driver isn't a brother.

I remember a Texas Mickey party when we were a colony. A guy showed up who wasn't a pledge, drank an obscene amount of whiskey and tried to assault me on the way out. Then, after I made it clear that this wasn't Fight Club and I didn't want to fight, he demanded a ride home. I, and my little, who was with me literally had to run for my Ion, hop in and peel it out of the parking lot, because a large, disoriented dude was chasing us.

There is always liability. Even if we simply have a sorocity mixer the girls are required to be covered by our insurance while on property of a brother. Things are further complicated, because we don't have a permanent house yet, while insurance covers people "in the chapter house" or "on the premises".

I just worry that although I regularly bring concerns to the AA and ADGM (who are both personal friends and the ADGM and I are founding fathers and the AA a transplant from Calgary) I'm still out of touch of the needs of the chapter. Perhaps I could write a letter to the ADGM asking for clarification.

[skylark]

Okay, it is good to be aware of liability issues, but you can't let it be the only thing you do as an advisor. There is liability in simply having an organization at all, there is liability in serving alcohol at all (regardless of how and even in the most secure circumstances). I'm not saying that you should try to get all the rules redesigned for your chapter because it is in Canada, but there is a possibility that when HQ created the rule, they were trying to find the "happy medium" for chapters in the US where alcohol is illegal for the strong majority of active members. More risk = more precautions. In Canada, because everyone is of age who is an active member, there is a strong argument that the "happy medium" should be somewhere else on the spectrum. Sure, you may have the attitude that it is better to be safe than sorry and want them to hold themselves up to that higher standard, but at some point you have to say "hey, who would want to join a group that is going to impose ridiculous rules because there is a paranoid advisor." Why not just tell them that you think they should stop drinking at all? That would minimize liability even further. My point is that there are many shades of gray in between playing it 100% safe and high risk policies. Right now you are operating in the U.S. chapters' happy medium presumably set based on factors that do not apply to your chapter (like the US's 21-year-old drinking law) and perhaps if you listened to your chapter and tried to brainstorm with them what other precautions you could make to find your own Canadian happy medium, they would see you as an advisor (in the true sense of the word) rather than as the mean enforcer.

Someone could just as easily go to one of your parties, drink 10 canned beers, drive home and kill a pedestrian. That is no more of a nightmare than if it was at a kegger, so are you going to advise them to stop drinking in order to prevent a lawsuit? In the US, liability for serving alcohol is different if you are serving in individual containers versus larger containers, which is why most GLOs forbid the kegger parties. It might or might not be the same in Canada, but I think that it is worth asking about. Lets say you have a hired DD or cab driver on call for anyone who drinks too much? Or lets say it is a "brothers only" keg party and one brother is sober and available to anyone who drank and needs a ride home. That might minimize the liability risk under your laws. I have no idea, but my point is that you don't either until you raise the issue.

You keep bringing up that you are a founding father. While that gives you a little more respect than the average alum advisor, most likely, it doesn't mean that your opinion counts more than the active members. In fact, my guess is that when they vote, you don't get to weigh in with your own (that's how it is in my GLO at least). Maybe you need to take a minute and remember that you are there to HELP them, not control them. It sounds like you might be dangerously close to crossing the line and that is why they are rebelling against you.

ETA: Maybe if you don't feel comfortable raising the issue, you should tell the president (or else the outspoken active you spoke of above) that if they want to raise the issue, here is the name and email/phone number of the risk management person for HQ and they should raise their issues with that person. I just think that is the bare minimum of what you should do as an advisor when the chapter is unhapy with a policy that for legitimate reasons might need to be revised for that particular chapter.

[skylark]

Just one more thing to think about: imagine 1-2 years from now one of the more intelligent and responsible actives does some research and takes it upon himself to go over your head and approach HQ about making a change to the policy. Imagine that it is a thoughtful, reasoned argument to their Risk Management person or attorney and that person agrees that the canadian chapter could be given some leeway as long as they take extra precautions A,B,and C when hosting a keg party, as a compromise.

And imagine how loyal the chapter will feel towards you, the person who told them that "this is the rule" despite the fact that you knew the actives felt that the rule didn't make sense to them.

HQ may tell you and the chapter that "no, the rule is the rule for every chapter" but at least you've done your part in advocating for the chapter.