I truly believe that if an alumna wants to be active, she can, in some way. She can:
-donate to the foundation
-advise a collegiate chapter
-help out with a collegiate chapter's recruitment
-be a member of an alumnae chapter
-be involved with the local Alumnae Panhellenic
-volunteering on/donating to a collegiate chapter's corporation board

I think distinguishing between alumnae who are involved in at least one of these areas would create plenty of separation between legacies of active alumnae and legacies of alumnae who haven't done a thing since graduation. How can you say it's so important for your daughter/sister/granddaughter to be in your sorority if you've done nothing since graduation?

Not having an alumnae/collegiate chapter or Alumnae Panhellenic nearby certainly does not prevent an alumna from donating to the foundation, nor should it prevent an alumna from advising a collegiate chapter if she wants to. I know an alumna who lives in Texas who advises a chapter in rural Pennsylvania because they have a need for advisors.

I don't think the amount donated to the foundation should matter, just that the alumna donates regularly. People have different financial situations. I'd rather an alumna donate what she can consistently over the years rather than "Helga von Heli" try to buy her daughter's way in right before recrtuitment after years of nothing. Everyone can afford to donate something.

Being a busy mom doesn't prevent involvement in one of those areas, particularly, donating to the foundation. If her nearby alumnae chapter doesn't have a "mommy" niche, she should advocate for that. Plus, helping with recruitment once a year isn't a terribly huge time commitment, but still shows you care.

If there is a sorority alumna who lives more than 2 hours away from a collegiate chapter, an alumnae chapter, and an alumnae Panhellenic, and is in dire financial straits, working 2 jobs and caring for her kids, seriously ill etc. that can be noted on the RIF. But I think alumnae who truly have no time, no money, and live far away from any chapter are in the minority. For the most part, if an alumna wants to be involved, she can.

You can add Life Loyal membership to that list for organizations that have that option.

I agree with what you said. There are numerous ways to give back if your sorority really means something to you.

As I mentioned in the other thread...what about the rushee whose mother passed away? Phooey on her?

I honestly believe this should be a chapter by chapter decision, rather than alienating alumnae with "tiers" of alumnae "importance" for a matter that many chapters never even have to deal with. If XYZ at Texas wants to say that because of the huge amount of legacies rushing, the only women considered legacies (with the special consideration that entails) are those whose mothers or sisters were in the chapter at Texas, fine. Spell it out and publish it in the magazine/online so there's no one who can scream clueless. And so they know that if they're a Penn State XYZ alum sending their daughter to Texas, there's a good chance that she won't get a bid.

I mean, this is kind of the way it works anyway...I think there would be a lot fewer hurt feelings if it was spelled out. Yeah, there will be women pissed at Texas XYZ, but maybe not so much at XYZ as a whole.

I think for PNMs who have mothers who have passed away, they get a pass. It would be too hard to keep up with whether or not their mothers were active before they died, etc. Of course, none of this will ever happen, but wouldn't it encourage members to cherish their lifetime memberships a little more?

It's no phooey on her any more than it's phooey on Suzy awesome who's not a legacy at all. And odds are it would be noted, one way or the other.

I actually agree with v_p. I don't think it should be multiple tiers, or chapter legacies only, or anything like that, just "active alumnae" and "alumnae." And maybe the difference is only really taken into consideration at chapters that are so competitive that the distinction needs to be made. However it would still be an (inter)national policy as we are (inter) National GLOs.

I don't want to see anything like chapter specific legacies only given official sanction as I don't want it ever to actually be OK. I'd rather that be done way with altogether.

That's exactly it. And then the girl whose mother was hiding out with the SLA gets a pass and....yadda, yadda, yadda.

I also could see it possibly being used as an excuse to cut legacies who the chapter may not particularly love at first sight at schools who don't have the "too many" excuse at all.

"We have too many legacies going through rush" is NOT an organization-wide issue. It is a CHAPTER issue. Therefore, let the chapters use autonomy in how they deal with it.

As far as the legacy relative being deceased, what did she do for the sorority before she died? Just because she is not alive at the time of her recruitment doesn't mean she couldn't be involved when she was alive.

Sure, it should be a chapter by chapter decision, depending on the number of legacies going through and the number of women a chapter has to release per RFM. Chapters who have space to invite all of their legacies back for round 2 absolutely should. It's only going to get worse 20 years from now. I'm sure in the case of a legacy that a chapter is iffy about the involvement of the alumna is taken into consideration. It absolutely should be noted publicly that legacies of involved members are given even more careful consideration.

Ultimately, it needs to be communicated that legacies are not guaranteed bids. Anywhere.

A woman who passes away at a young age is not going to be able to compile a record of involvement on the same level as someone who works for/with the sorority for 20+ years. I don't see how you could "weight" that.

As you said, it just needs to be made clear that legacies are not guaranteed bids and YES, THIS DOES MEAN YOU. I just reread wcsweet's post and it makes a lot of sense...the PNMs might have a lot less stress and strain if they didn't have to worry about legacies either way.

But what v_p and I have both described is not weighting x years vs y dollars but contrasting active with inactive. I think there's a big difference between the two.

But even with that, I think there are just way too many ways it can be stretched, bent, twisted etc.

No more so than any other policy, though. It just needs defining for a particular sorority like any other policy. We have plenty of those that seem vague on the surface but have been given really grounded rules in practice.

The other option would be to say that for specified chapters (if your organization has a problem at certain chapters) no legacy considerations will be given due to the sheer number of legacies going through recruitment, as long as the number exceeds X percentage of expected quota.

Other than that, I think getting rid of legacy policies is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Making alumnae more responsible for their legacies would not be asking too much in my opinion. Then again, I am of an unpopular opinion that these decisions should not be completely up to the chapter. I think ADPi has a good idea with their policy. Recruitment can often be very superficial, and the consequences of releasing a legacy can have far reaching consequences beyond the few women who may be pushing to release the legacy. (We all know that many times these decisions are NOT unanimous.)

Exactly, all I am saying is has the alumna done SOMETHING to give back to the sorority since graduation? I don't care about how much, just have you done what you can with what you have?

Let's not forget that whether a legacy is going to be invited back/given a bid is going to/SHOULD be based on her merits first. Considering her legacy relative's involvement should be secondary.

/co-signs vp for the rest of the thread.