While the advisor should have been paying attention, are we really supposed to believe that these women accidentally picked up 3 extra members?

Most other systems punish a minor crime with community service...but we're sorority girls! We love that stuff! Or a financial punishment is used...what's even $1500 when divided up between 140 girls? It's almost unfair that NPC prohibits a punishment of loss of members. If we want chapters to learn from blatently breaking rules, they should be hit where it hurts most.

Does anyone know what kinds of punishments the Green Book permits?

Personally, I think all this talk of crime and punishment for the chapter is sort of silly. They took 3 extra girls during COB because their HQs told them to take to 150. It's 3 women!! It's not as if they had a huge keg party in their own house. Contact your local area advisor for collegiate panhellenics, which is available at http://www.npcwomen.org/college/c_advisors.php, and tell them the situation. They can offer you suggestions and such, but a punishment view is just counter productive for a positive outcome. If you punish the sorority in question, they'll feel as if they've been punished for following an order of their HQs, if you punish the new women by not allowing them to initiate, etc., you hurt girls who want to be a part of your greek system. Talk to the greek advisor, and see what their view is. Talk about it at Panhellenic. I'm sure an amicable solution can be reached for all.

okay, it doesnt' really matter because NPC isn't gong to do anything about it
you pay your dues to npc but they don't rectify a problem
we have 'dirty rushing' every year by the same sorority
it is taken to npc who say they will fix the problem but they never do

so, just let it go. . .that's what we've done. . .

Um, yeah. The chapter knew what campus total was and how many they could take. 3 women may not seem like much to you, but it it unfair to other groups on that campus who may be struggling with numbers. Total is set for a reason, and to brush it off as nothing is silly. If the chapter isn't punished, other chapters will feel they can do the same, plain and simple. I don't think anyone is calling for fire and brimstone, but I believe action is necessary.

phimugirlie--

No need to talk to me about struggling chapters. I just went through a reorganization with my own chapter last year. We went from 16 to 46 in a year, with total being 50. Struggling chapters aren't going to be hurt by 3 women.

I'm not brushing off the fact that total isn't 150, but the Greek Advisor should know the deal and have stepped in. Now, after the fact, there's not much you can do, and THAT'S the point I'm trying to make.

True, but when actions such as those taken by that chapter become habit, other chapters will be hurt. I don't think it is the greek advisor's fault either, the chapter should have known better. They were infromed of how many they could take. I'm not on that campus, but I've heard the system is quite competitive.

I think the point is that if 3 extra women are treated as "nothing" and there is no corrective action taken, next time around it's going to be 4 women, 5 women or more . . . and the other groups are going to start thinking that it's okay to take over total just because one group was allowed to get away with it. Or some group will dirty rush and then try to justify it by saying "Well, XYZ got to take three extra pledges last year and that's not fair either, so why should we get punished for this when they didn't?"

I agree that three women isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but I think the point is to nip it in the bud now before things get out of hand. We have these rules for a reason, and if all the other groups are supposed to follow them, exceptions shouldn't be made for one group who should have known better, and probably DID know better.

But what can you do to nip this in the bud, and also follow the NPC rules of not prohibiting sororities from taking new members as a punishment? A fine is no big deal amongst nearly $150 women. I think that by contacting the NPC area advisor and having them come in and do recruitment workshops and review the green book rules with the chapters AND the Greek Advisor, you have done enough. Make the chapter who took the three extra women pay for the NPC area advisor's travel, hotel, etc. How's that?

I know that doesn't make you happy DeltaBeta, and I wish there was something more to do in the situation, but honestly, there really isn't.

I understand the rule about not punishing chapters by limiting their pledges makes sense in a way. It isn't a fit punishment for risk mangement violations or something like that. But I do think it is appropriate as a punishment for gross recruitment violations.

Can any of you honestly say that, on your campus, there were not serious recruitment violations? I don't mean "their budget was one dollar over." I mean the promising of bids, the underground pledging of girls who aren't eligible yet, etc. This is just a more flagrant, above-ground version of the same.

Quite frankly, negatively impacting a chapter's rush is the ONLY way these behaviors will stop. I wish NPC would allow a real punishment to fit the crime.

I agree that the NPC needs to look over some of the Green Book rules. IMO, the rule that you can't restrict the amount of girls who can pledge a certain sorority was put in place to keep advisors from saying, "Oh, your girls were caught drinking underage at Crush Party last year -- we're only going to let you take half of quota this year as a punishment." That is a ridiculous punishment. But if sororities are using unfair recruitment practices -- promising bids to girls to make sure the PNMs rank them first, COB-ing past total and quota -- and the unfair tactics lead them to get girls they wouldn't otherwise get, then the appropriate reaction to correct that would be to restrict the number of pledges they can have.

That doesn't help the situation here, though, obviously.

would it really be considered restricting the number of girls allowed to pledge in the fall since they technically took three extra early? that seems silly.

i agree that something needs to be done before every chapter on campus thinks this is ok, as long as you "made a mistake." and quite honestly, i see how this could really hurt the smaller chapters. for example, AA is the most popular on campus. one semester, they are below total by 3 women because of early graduations. they decide to hold cob and instead of pledging 3, they take 10! now, BB who has been below total all year are hoping to get 10 girls, but only get 3 bc the other 7 go to AA. "oops, silly us, we just thought total was really something different...hehehehe." this really has a subtle effect on the smaller houses. perhaps those other women would have accepted bids some where else if they hadn't gotten one to AA.

delta, i would love to know what happens to this group!

I found myself thinking about this very late last night (I know, I need a life!). The only "punishment" that I can remember being allowed for a chapter disregarding the strict rules about rush is for the chapter to be on social probation - one full year of NO social activity. No Homecoming, no Greek Week, no mixers - no anything. If I remember correctly, that's about the only punishment other than full probation that's allowed.

Has anyone else heard of this?

honeychile

Major Violation!
 

It's an obvious gross violation of the rules. But it should definitley be verified that there were not any sisters that graduated early, deactivated, or dropped out of school.

I don't think it's particularly fair to the formal rushees to limit the number of pledges during the next formal rush. And saying all the other houses gets 3 more is just another way of saying this house gets 3 less.

Yes, this does affect the smaller chapters. At the minimum it can really hurt their morale. When your constantly rushing, having this happen could make you question why you bother. And if there's no punishment, it'll make you question the fairness of the Greek Advisor. (Who from what I understand, did nothing wrong IMHO.)

Punishment:
150 (the imaginary total) x $100 = $1500
-OR-
the most expensive formal recruitment fine x 3
~which ever is more

-PLUS-
The chapter must make a formal apology to the Greek comunity. Not just to the Panhellenic Exec. Have them go to every chapter's meeting or have a formal all Greek meeting.

-PLUS-
Make a formal presentation to all chapters on the recruitment rules in the Green Book and the local panhellenic recruitment rules.

=
The chapter needs to understand what they did is serious (at least in terms of recruitment rules go) and the other chapters need to understand that they will not be allowed to "oops" their way out of a similar situation.

Re: Major Violation!
 

Actually, 150 x $100 equals = $15,000, not $1,500. :)

I really like your idea about having to give a presentation on recruitment rules, though . . .

No idea why, but I was thinking about this last night as I was in bed. Something I came up with:

If all they tell this sorority is, "You will have to take 4 less next year during formal recruitment," any group who is at total would get the idea that if there are two/four/ten girls that they really, really, really want right now, and know that if they don't get them now they may not join next semester, for whatever reason, that it would be alright since they would've been taking them next semester any way.

I hope that made sense.

Re: Major Violation!
 

I too especially like the idea of a formal presentation concerning the Green Book rules.

SATX*Aphi also makes a very good point that, without a stiff punishment, taking more new members than allowed in the spring term will become quasi-acceptable.

What great minds I've seen on Greek Chat!!

honeychile

Doesn't NPC rules also prohibit going over quota when the group is already at total?

If you are going to follow NPC rules then I think the group should definitely be punished. If they are not punished then every group will take three extra pledges and one sorority might end up with none. They should have their quota lowered by three next semester. That will even the score.

This is so true.

My God people, what are you thinking? You don't punish the girls that pledged.

Make them wait another semester, even though they have already completed the pledge program? No.

'Sides, how would they choose? Draw straws?

What you do, is find where the system went wrong.

I have got a feeling it went wrong because its an honor based system where everyone has known the rules and generally follows them.

You may have to invent a punishment for the problem.

However, if the real issue is fairness, and there is no sanction in place. The best solution may be to raise total by 3 and write a sanction for the next time it happens.

In the absence of a pre existing sanction, any punishment meted out by Pan Hell looks capricious at best.

WADR, James, that is the worst suggestion I have heard. All that does is hurt the smaller chapters even more.

As far as the fines suggested, where do you think that money should go?

NPC treasury is the only place that is logical if you don't have something already set up.

But seriously, its going to look a little strange to make a sanction up on the spot for the group.

What do you have already in place for other types of RUSH infractions? And how could they be adapted to meet this need?

If you are unable/unwilling to place restrictions on the amount of NM the problem group will be able to take next semester and likewise unwilling/unable to give the other groups opportunity to take more, then you have already surrendered any way to make things "right". i.e. Fair.

So let me get this straight..You're saying that because no one has broken this rule before and they don't have a set punishment for it they SHOULDN'T get sactioned??? So let's say, hypothetically speaking, a chapter serves alcohol at a recruitment event. This is against the rules, but since no one else has done it, a precedence for the type of punishment given has not been set. Therfore, they should get a warning??? I don't understand your reasoning.

That is actually what would happen in a lot of situations. Or the chapter would face a larger category charge.

The important thing phimugirlie01 is to make sure there is a fair and consistant process.

Keeping to your hypothetical: Serving alcohol to Rushees is against Green Book Policy . . .

Ok, its a rule. But rules assume consequences. So normally there is an "OR ELSE" implied by "CAN'T".

There is not an "or else" for the RUSH infraction.

In your example, they would still be sanctioned in the absence of an NPC penalty, because they violated the "can't" serve alcohol without a lisence, to minors, etc etc. The "or else" being the sanctions from the school or national that are probably already wirtten down. Maybe even legal. Consequences.

In this case: The rule is a specific NPC RUSH infraction. So the "or else" comes from the NPC and is usually already written out.

That is why I asked what the penalties were, if any, for other types of RUSH infractions. These penalties would provide guidelines for sanctioning the chapter under a more general category of RUSH Infraction.

Otherwise,the local NPC, has to just "make it up" as they go along, in which case why not just a written warning?

Does it depend on how mad the other chapters are with them? Will that determine what happens?

Just here you have a variety of reactions and suggestions.

Creating a process is very important.

Normally, the president of the chapter in trouble goes to mediation with the person who brings the complaint (either a chapter president, panhellenic president, or rho chi), and a fair punishment is worked out. There really is not a hard and fast solution to any recruitment problem.

Contact NPC and get their input.

I'm betting the reason there is no process in place is because this is an infraction that just doesn't happen . There are plenty of rules that do get broken more commonly (promising bids, serving alcohol at informal rush) - but I have NEVER heard this one before. It would be like saying, "Why isn't there a process in place for one chapter going out and killing another's pledges?" That's how strong the taboo is here.

That's also the reason National Panhellenic needs to be involved - it's such a serious infraction. And you see how we all disagree on here about what is the right response - the other sororities on campus who are closer to the situation can hardly be expected to reach a fair, good decision.