How costs will kill GLO's: used to be:ATTN: Chapter officers - Liability premiums
 

As the Finance Commissioner for Kappa Sigma, we are faced yet again with the rapidly rising costs of purchasing liability insirance for our chapters.

I would like to know how a couple of the options we are currently faced with stacks up against our interfraternal friends.

Could you, IF YOU KNOW FOR A FACT, sound off with the cost of you CURRENT liability insirance assessment from your national organization? Most are a "per member" basis, if not, provide the chapter assessment and how many members you have in your chapter.

Thanks,
Brad

Brad, while the cost of Insurance Keeps going up, we as Greeks only need to ask WHY!:eek:

It is called Risk Management for Groups who screw up and then the Law Suits Fly!

It will continue to escalate until some of the Morinc AssWholes who haze put a stop to it!

We as International or National Groups Do not condone it, it still happens and We All Pay For It!

Even some ot the Memebers Condone it so What do you think! :confused:

As the cost goes up per member to be a member, the membership dwindles! Will there soon be NO GREEK ORGS?:confused:

Someone on the other thread where this is posted says that his chapters cost has gone from $20 to $150 per man.

If you read past posts and threads, you'll find that some of us have been talking about this for a long time.

It is possible, even likely, that in the future, insurance coverage will be so expensive that it will simply be impossible to obtain. A number of companies have already refused to issue policies to fraternities.

Is anyone listening?

Alcohol abuse and hazing are BY FAR the two biggest contributors to this situation.

Tom, are you reading my mind? It is evident to me that if costs continue to soar, that the organizations will be faced with impossible financial constraints.

But I still want to see how this is affecting other orgs in terms of $'s.

Thanks,
Brad

Thanks for the info! Let me help others who read my original post. I am the Finance Comissioner for the fraternity, not a chapter of the fraternity. So the purpose of the request was to examine the rising costs of our poor behavior together. The above numbers look to be a little more recent than the last FEA report I had. But that data tends to trail the "real time" numbers significantly.

Our overall costs will increase dramatically this year. Kappa Sigma decided about 2 years ago to "Tier" our chapters based on violations. So, like your car insurance, if you've got the fraternal equivalent of speeding tickets or wrecks, your chapter pays more. But our chapters on Tier 1 (no violations, etc) will still pay more in the future.

I also know that many orgs are in the market for a renewal/new policy as I write this. I also know that the last two years have been particularly high claim/award years for greeks, and Kappa Sigma too. We've all seen the articles.

The immature decsions that are being made by each of us, affects the future of the system. I predict that if claims continue at their current level, and if settlements and awards continue to increase at their current rate, that NONE of us will be able to afford insuance in 8 to 10 years.

For those who self insure (everyone does to a degree) it won't take more than 10 average major claims to wipe out the richest reserve currently held.

This is the single largest threat to our existence, and it all boils down to two things: alcohol and hazing. Period. Our insurance should be for accidents. Accidents raise premiums, but accidents don't generate NEAR the number and size of jury awards.

So, you hazing proponents - just keep on killing us all.

Brad

Expell members that drink underage. Immediately. They are in violation of the Law and are the single greatest threat to in terms of liability.

If they are drinking underage and get hurt the lawsuit is much more likely to come.

I am not advocating this personally, but this is certainly the where the context of many of our conversations are taking us.

If you are a National Officer why wouldn't you be recomending the expulsion of a person that was in clear violation of the law (underage consumption of alcohol) and therefore a risk management liability to the National Fraternity?

Unless you (as National Officers) are condoning breaking the Law?

My Brother, interesting. Because this is EXACTLY where I intend to go withing Kappa Sigma. Of course, the same will be true for those chapter officers that tolerate, or worse, provide for such violations.

I look forward to counting on your support!

Brad

Bump...

Sorry, but this is too important to get lost. Maybe the single most important issue to GLO's today.

**Double Posted**


You might want to define the parameters of what you are suggesting Brad.

For example, do you mean that at any time someone is seen by a Fraternity member to be drinking underage that person should go before the judicial board and be expelled? By the way, that is the only way for that to work.

Its like execution, for it to work as a deterrant you need to execute automatically for certain offenses.

Following this train of logic, you would also have to place chapter officers and chapter members at risk. Basicially, if they don't report someone underage drinking for expulsion, they would have to face that penalty themselves. Maybe institute an award system for people to turn their brothers in, otherwise people will only turn on the less popular brother.

Doing the above would probably result in both a sharp decrease in overall numbers as well as a shift in the population base that you are drawing from. The Fraternity would probably lose a lot of the mainstream students and start picking up more of the students that would normally opt for Circle-K and Christian Groups.

Another easy solution would be to forbid membership to those under 21.

But anyway, we would need more information on where you are headed Brad, for us to provide more constructive opinions.

Semper

James

So just to allow you to fill out the proposal a little bit . . .

are you actually pushing for expulsion of members that drink illegally? essentially, you're asking that any time a pledge or brother has a sip of alcohol, they are to be removed from the organization via j-board . . .

now, also, if you wouldn't mind doing the leg-work, can you find me any sort of statistics for the approximate percentage of college students who have a drink of alcohol at any point before they turn 21? I think the comparison may end up being fascinating.

Check the web sites
 

Some natl. offices publish their fees/insurance costs and all fees on their websites.

That's your best source for info.

I may be misinterpreting some people here, but I see calls for automatic consequences to actions. In my experience, seeing things in black and white is never the best way to go.

Underage members WILL drink. There is absolutely nothing you can do to control that. You can pass all the rules you want -- the best legislation in the world could not prevent it. This in my eyes is irrefutable.

The question is, what can you do to encourage personal responsability and discourage alcohol abuse? I am sure if you did the research there would be a direct correlation between alcohol ABUSE (defined as being drunk enough to do something that you would not normally do) and liability claims (I think I've read several reports proving that to be true).

I think one of the functions of a fraternity should be to teach its members how to be true men, gentlemen even. A "gentleman" knows that drinking to excess is wrong. Always.

Fraternities cannot simply turn their backs on reality and declare in the name of reduced liability "We will no longer condone alcohol use by members". They must realize that alcohol is always going to be part of college life and the absolute best way to deal with the situation is education rather than prohibition.

LHT
Kevin Taylor
MT 5
University of Central Oklahoma

LEt me play Devil's advocate here for a second.

All of what you are saying is true if you are examining under age drinking as a social problem. Social problems often don't fit well within black and white definitions

Kappasig1 and Delta Alum, just to single out two people, are examining drinking as a legal problem. Legal problems are often very black and white, at least until you get to court.

From a legal perspective, you cannot educate people in how to responsibly break the law(an oxymoron) without creating liability for yourself.

As an example, I can't have a program to explain to you how to comport yourself while doing cocaine and heroin without leaving myself and my organization open to legal repercussions if something goes wrong somewhere.

When you say underage members will drink . . . the answer is maybe. Delta Alum and Kappasig1 seem to be moving in a direction that says: You want to violate the law and drink? Fine, we will expell you. The side effect should be that the fraternities eventually start drawing from populations that don't drink or rarely drink.

DeltaAlum and Kappasig1, if i am mistaking your meaning please correct me

As far as saying that faternities can't turn their backs on underages that drink . . . that is simply not true. If they want to they can.

Falling from Devil's advocate mode for a moment. I agree with you that drinking is a social issue, and that there are other approaches that can be taken. However, I am not sure that National Fraternity Officers as a whole have the necessary knowledge, background, or experience to make that viable.

James,

I agree with your characterization of legal vs. social problems.

Both need to be addressed.

I find myself conflicted in many ways.

Look, I would like very much to see the law changed back to allow 18 year olds to drink beer -- as it was when I was that age. I'm not alone in that wish, I know. One of our chapter advisors is the City Attorney in his college town, and he agrees with me. I know others do as well.

I also don't think it will happen, unfortunately. And, unless there are some cultural changes to moderate our behavior, I'm not sure it should -- no matter how much I want it to.

So I have a number of problems here.

The first is the legal problem. I've said about all I can about that. The law is the law. We don't have to like it, we have to obey it or get it changed.

The second is a social problem. How to drink responsibly so that we don't have alcohol poisoning and deaths. Some fraternities are trying to address this one with programs such as our, "Delts Talk About Alcohol." The jury is out in my mind on whether it is successful, but it is certainly worth the effort. I suspect that if underage folks drank in moderation, the cops and schools would not bother with it. They have more important things to worry about, believe it or not.

The third is a public relations problem. It is absolutely true that binge drinking is a college problem -- not just a Greek one. But all of the numerous surveys I've seen say the same thing -- it's worse in the Greek System than it is in the rest of the college population. And the percentages are fairly dramatic. Our chapters keep on hazing. How do we expect those actions to create any kind of image except bad?

The fourth is a problem of attempted transference. We look at the "bad press" we get from number three and blame the media. That's a cop out. When underage members drink and get hurt or killed, it's news. When chapters close because of that, it's also news. When the accidents or deaths are part of a hazing ritual which includes "forced" drinking, that's a legitimate story. Not that the media (which I was part of for years) is always correct and fair -- but they are more often than not.

The fifth is stupidity. If we understand the law and the rules and break them and lose our charters, that's nobodys fault but our own. Not Nationals. Not the University. Not the cops. Not the media. Ours.

The sixth is living in the past. Just because I was hazed in the sixties doesn't make it OK for me or anyone else to continue that tradition today. The times have changed and so have the rules.

We have backed the universities and others in authority into a corner. Look at the lawsuits. The university, the chapter and the national organization are generally all named. It's pretty clever how we have backed them into one corner and painted ourselves into an opposite one. That takes real talent.

I could probably go on for a while.

I'm not entirely comfortable with automatic expulsion. But I don't have a better idea to offer, unfortunately.

What pains me the most is that even as the evidence stacks up and more of our chapters close, our undergraduates continue to break the rules and the laws. And they continue to act like the agrieved party.

So, we do all of these dumb things, and expect the insurance industry (which is a for profit business, after all) to turn their heads and adapt a "kids will be kids" attitude? Not in this lifetime.

Despite how it sounds, I'm not a crusader. I'm just an old guy who is scared to death that my Fraternity and the rest of the Greek System won't survive unless we change. I have the advantage of some degree of hindsight and life's experience that our undergraduates don't. I've had the opportunity to see the changes over the years, and also raised three children of my own. Many (maybe most) of today's students are a hell of a lot smarter than I am, and I just can't understand why they don't see the handwriting on the wall.

There are a lot of reasons that the Greek System is in danger -- this liability thing is a result of all of those reasons.

Please, let's do something about them, or future generations won't have the opportunities to enjoy the brother and sisterhood that we have and do.

DA has been reading my mind! I don't pretend to have all the answers. What I do know is that if we continue to "do business" as we have for the past 10 years, we will continue to face numerous chapter closings and mounting legal and insuance bills. Make no mistake - this WILL kill the fraternity system as we know it; which in turn WILL kill the sorority system as we know it.

Legal Issue - yes James, my proposed response to expel underage members that are found by the General Fraternity to have been drinking ON OUR PROPERTY or AT OUR FUNCTIONS (ANY - no BS definitions) is aimed sharply at the legal/insurance side of the issue.

Social Issue - underage drinking is a social RESPONSIBILITY issue too. EVERY time someone underage drinks in our houses or at our functions - it becomes someone elses problem too, not just the "lawbreaker." For that matter, EVERY time someone drinks to impaired judgement it is much the same. The largest fraternities have spent the last 10+ years attempting to deal with the social issue - education, sanctions, dry housing, etc.

THE PROBLEM IS, that the legal and insurance ramifications are outpacing ANY arguable progress these efforts have made. I think you're right, we DON'T have the resources in house to fully address the social problem, we DO have the resources to handle the legal problem. I'm I naive enough to believe that ALL of our chapters will self-police - sadly, no. But I can tell you that I truly believe (but could be wrong) during the past 10 years, if we had taken every discipline case that came before an officer of the organization which involved underage drinking - had we expeled those guilty of infractions, including members/officers who contributed, we would indeed be in a very different place today.

What it would look like, I do not know. Would we be drawing from the 30-40% of the student population that doesn't drink regularly, yes. Is that necessarily a bad thing, I don't think so.
FACT: we drink more and more often than our non-greek counterparts. The problems we would face would INDEED be different, but I'm to the point where I'm willing to make that gamble - because if we "let it ride", we will disappear. It could blow up with 10 large judgements in a given year, or it could be a slow "death by insurance cost increase."

Either way, we're dead without revolutionary change.

More subtle changes that will help:

- require the chapters to purchase "special event" insurance for events that meet/exceed certain criteria

- a meaningful risk management policy AND PROCESS, that will help our chapters limit risk during the event planning and implementation process

- Invest big $'s in ongoing local risk managment advisers

- Using the chapter that seem to have no problem with this issue, and believe me there are many that have NEVER had an alcohol related violation, to "imprint" other chapters.

There is no simple solution to the social issues at hand. Colleges and in turn, we, are admitting an increasing percentage of drinkers out of high school. That side of the issue may be too big for us. Not that we shouldn't do our part, but we may have to cry uncle.

The solutions will be complex and painful, but less painful than watching something we love die.

Brad

You wont have any members left if you expell everyone that drinks underage.

Or we might attract more members that don't have underage drinking as a priority.

That's a very unrealistic view. First off, not EVERYONE is interested in the greek system. Otherwise you'd have a much higher membership level.

I'm a believer in the free market system. It would dictate that if there was a demand for fraternities that really cracked down on underage drinking -- explelling underage drinkers for example -- then someone would have success with that idea. There would be a fraternity out there that found a niche and succeeded.

Has that really happened? Have the nationally dry fraternities outpaced the wet ones? Will they ever?

The answer -- not unless the courts intervene. And what's to say that if they put all national fraternities out of business that we'll still not have a successful wet house at the local level? It is my constitutional right after all to associate with anyone that I want to.

If you ignore it and say it's prohibited, sure you'll catch some chapters violating the rules. Maybe you'll even get to yank a few charters. However, nearly every single one of your other chapters that doesn't get caught will still be practicing it. What national GLO wants to commit suicide like that?

The answer is education, good risk reduction practices and strong leadership. New rules would have a very low impact on changing people's behavior.

LHT
Kevin
MT 5
University of Central Oklahoma

Kevin, what do you base your assertion that it is unrealisitic on?

Beyond experience, one expert I found in my archives, Dr. Henry Wecler, of the Harvard School of Public health recently asserted the following:

"Abstract. Underage drinking is a major problem at American colleges, but little is known about the extent of alcohol use in different student groups, in different colleges, and in states with different control policies. We used data from the 2001 and 3 previous Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Studies that compared responses of underage students with those of their 21–23-year-old peers. Underage students drank alcohol less frequently but were more likely to drink to excess when they drank. College educational efforts and deterrent policies were limited in their outreach, and half of underage students obtained alcohol very easily. Underage students in states with extensive laws restricting underage and high-volume drinking were less likely to drink and to binge drink. A majority of underage students supported increasing efforts to control underage drinking. The results suggest that additional policy efforts to control underage drinking may be effective and feasible."

Dry housing does NOTHING to to the underage drinker beyond not allowing him to drink at the house.

Again, if we keep "doing business" as we have been, we will all be gone, it's a matter of time. Please don't attempt to bring associational rights into this - I am perhaps the strongest supporter of those rights you will ever come accross on these boards - BUT, we our associational rights STOP the minute we break statute.....i.e. the drinking age law.

Withg repsect to "organizational suicide," we're already committing it! Were just doing it slowly, if we do nothing we will surely die.

What do you mean by "strong leadership"? We have been educating ourselves for over 10 years with no decrease in behavior. If you've got a solution in "strong leadership" then let's hear it. Personally I agree, strong leadership cannot sit by and watch the self destructive abuse of our policies that are in place to ensure our healthy existence. But, I'm interested in what you mean?

Brad

Dont bet on it. About 95% of college students have experimented with alcohol before the age of 21.

If you want to go dry and only rush students that dont drink, then go ahead. I wont stop you.

PS. You will probalbly still pay the same high insurance as the wet fraternities.

Actually, it might be a good idea to educate each other on the real data. I don't see it as perfect, but it's better than the guesstimations that have been posted. Take a look at:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/Docu...nds/trends.pdf

Sorry - but the real number of has to be less than 80% - considering minors drink at lower rates than their "of age" counterparts.

There are many chapters out there that are doing just that and doing it well. In the past few months on Yahoo "Fraternal News Groups" I have read stories about DU at Syracuse, SAE at Penn, SAE at Duke, TKE at SDSU and they are doing fine.

If you go local you will also save thousands in insurance. Most of your insurance is a waste. Nationals tell you that you need insurance because you are a high risk group and you have high risk activities, but most of the policies are void if you participate in high risk activities such as drinking, hazing ect. If you dont participate in high risk activities then why do you need the insurance?

Ever been sued? Your assertion probably holds water in a state like mine where there is no wage garnishing. But if your state does, how'd you like half you paycheck going to pay off a judgement for the rest of your life? You need insurance, especially as a local - there are no deep pockets to go after, so they will go after every one of the members.

Brad

No we have never been sued and yes are property is insured. Why should we buy additional insurance from a national?

If you think you are right then go prove it. Go dry, only rush students who dont drink, have 4.0 gpa and charge them thousands each for insurance. Then come back and show us the results.

Please read this very carefully.

In fact, please read the entire thread.

Unrealistic?

What is unrealistic is to think that the system can survive if chapters go on with "business as usual." Insurance will bleed us to death financially.

If we expell those who break the law, will it make it impossible to find new members? Will it kill the system? Possible, I suppose, but I think it's equally possible that we might even attract a different kind of member -- one who holds academics and some of the other values upon which many of our organizations were founded higher than underage drinking. I'll bet there are people out there who don't join now because they object to the living circumstances as they exist presently in Greek houses. If that's true, maybe our liability rates would drop instead of skyrocket. Some houses that have gone "dry" actually report an increase in recruitment and membership. I actually have some Fraternity Brothers who don't now, and have never drank. One in particular has seen his chapter closed three times, and the absolutely beautiful house they owned sold to the university. That chapter will probably never open again. Three strikes...

Or did we all just join for the parties?

I don't recall anything in the Delt Ritual about partying. In fact, one part I remember vividly is the one where I pledged not to do "anything to hurt her." Was there anything like that in your ritual? Go back and think about it.

Please take a hard look at who started this thread. Brad is a person who works for a Fraternity at the National level. Someone who can see the "big picture." He doesn't strike me as a temperance worker. In the overall scheme of things, Greek Letter Organizations have many of the same financial responsibilities as a business or any other not-for-profit organization. Not the least of which is perpetuating its' own continued existance. (I guess that's redundant -- you probably can't perpetuate something that doesn't continue, can you? Unless you're perpetuating it memory. Think about that in terms of this discussion.) That's what we pay our professional staff for. That's part of their job.

Now, I'll say this once again -- although I'm sure not for the last time. I'm not against drinking. I like parties. I enjoy alcohol in moderation. (Damn, there's that "M" word again) If we were moderate in these things, we probably wouldn't be in the situation we're in.

What I don't relish is the spectre of sitting around in about ten years -- maybe having a drink with a brother alum -- talking about how great the Greek System WAS! Maybe saying how sad it is that today's undergraduates can't have the experience because it died of neglect when somebody saw the coming demise and did nothing about it.

Fraternally,
DeltAlum

Oh, you mean the same Henry Wechsler who said it's possible to "binge drink" (the big Chris Farley quotes on that one) and not get drunk?? The same ol' Henry media whore Wechsler who doesn't use a TIME FRAME for all these studies? Come on Brad, you're a smart guy - I think you'd know better than to get all Cocker Spaniel eyed over something just cause it's a "Harvard study."

I think what madmax wanted to say (sorry if I am putting words in your mouth) is that 95% of underage college students drink underage. There are more 21+ year olds at college now than ever cause of returning students and more people being on 5-6-7 year plans.

I don't think it has as much to do with drinking **regularly** as much as having the option. When I pledged we had a great many sisters who drank rarely, if at all. That doesn't mean that they wanted to join the WCTU.

If a fraternity wants to kick out every underager that drinks (and sticks to it for every instance, every chapter), fine, go for it. You are within your boundaries to do it, and will probably be lauded for it by many people. But I guarantee you, your fraternity will be very, very different. You might flourish, and you might disintegrate. The only way we can know is if a large national fraternity takes that path.

33 - read the studies and THEN try tear them down. Please.

Brad

I don't know that throwing people out of fraternities is necessarily the solution, but I can't say I do know what is. As college students, the opportunity to drink is there, and many take advantage.

Just a point, nationals do insurance on a chapter by chapter basis most times. If your chapter is on a high risk campus, or if you've been in trouble for alcohol or hazing or risk management, then you pay more for insurance. And yes, if you violate policies that are part of the national organization, then you do forfeit your right to the insurance. It is all part of the insurance policy. If you're a local, the insurance companies put provisions in those policies as well to prevent liability. If you break the law, the insurance company can deny you coverage. If they actually do cover the incident, they will then go after the person or persons who were at fault. It's called subrogation, and insurance companies do it all of the time.

Would it be fair to say that GLOs need insurance because they are high risk but non of their high risk activites are actually covered?

Max,

Insurance is pretty much like anything else.

For instance, if you buy a new car, you get a warranty. If you make unauthorized changes, you void the warranty and the company or dealership won't honor it anymore.

If you have too many moving violations or accidents, an insurance company will cancel your car insurance policy.

If an insurance company sets up certain restrictions and you ignore them, it is the right of the company to void your policy.

High on the list of things that void a policy is breaking the law.

I think that's pretty easy to understand.

.
 

I do understand it.

If a chapter lives in a house and the house is insured why would that chapter buy an additional policy through their nationals if the second policy does NOT offer any additional coverage? A standard policy will cover the run of the mill accidents, such as a fire or a kid slipping on a banana peel.

DeltaAlum. What additional coverage, if any will a chapter get from a policy through their national?

Max,

No way of knowing the answer to your question without reading the policies involved.

I don't think anyone is suggesting more than one policy.

The reason to buy through Nationals generally is that it is cheaper to buy "in quantity," if you will, than for each chapter to make its' own deal. Obviously, Nationals want you to be part of their negotiated plan because they get better rates with more participants. Kind of like group health coverage -- the more people involved, the better the rate. The new corporate buzz word is "economy of scale."

If a chapter can find a comparable policy and a cheaper deal, they should probably take it -- but I would read it VERY carefully to be sure that you are getting equal coverage. Frankly, I would be surprised if that happened. But, I've been wrong before.

You really can't afford to skimp on this. There's too much at stake -- not only for the chapter, but for the officers and advisors personally if the coverage is not good. As Shadowkat pointed out above, the insurance companies are not at all bashful about going after indivduals.

What high risk activities are you having madmax? I know that if we have mixers or activities that involve alcohol, they are held at third party vendors where they do the carding, serving and such, and thus, THEY are liable when something happens to someone, not us. It's the beauty of using third party vendors.

We don't haze, so we don't have to worry about anything high risk there.

My campus had had two large fraternity house fires where the houses burned down and people died, so we do pay more for our insurance on the actual house than other chapters. We do not buy insurance from a local person. Our insurance goes through our national HQs, and each chapter pays for that. There is no insurance done locally. That's the beauty of having a national organization with a development corporation.

So to answer your question, we don't have high risk, other than the fires. Sororities don't pay nearly as much as fraternities. In our national, the average cost per sister for coverage is about $15. Just goes along again with the risk that fraternities have incurred that sororities haven't.

And part of the reason that the sorority premiums are so low is that, at least in theory, all national sororities have "dry" houses.

Before we get started, I'm already on record as saying that I don't necessarily believe that dry housing always works. Again, though, I don't have a better idea.

But that's the way it is.

I do think that third party vendors are the way to go for parties. We were doing some of that way back in the 60's when I was in school.

It also is probably worth pointing out that we're not just talking about a standard homeowners policy here. The liability is much greater. We're insuring chapters, officers and members here -- not single people and personal property. That's a huge difference.

Frankly, with our record over the years, any local broker or company who takes on a fraternity as a client is out of his/her mind.

Not necessarily. All LEGAL, including some high risk activities are covered. Host liability (alcohol) is covered as long as policies and laws are followed; however, it remains a high risk activity.

SOME policies even cover the General Fraternity in cases of hazing, but the chapter members will be "swinging in the wind" from a liability standpoint in those rare cases. Our current coverage does, but with the rising costs, we will likely lose that in the policy we are currently seeking.

The General Fraternity could retain its coverage in most instances, even if the chapter and its members are found to have violated law, policy or found negligent. In those instances, insurance will pay out on claims against the General Fraternity, but will NOT cover claims against the chapter, officers or members. THIS ALL ASSUMES that we are NOT talking about an incorporated fraternity, in which case things get real different.

Brad

Brad, correct me if I am wrong, but I think most if not all of the Greek Nationals are Incorperated!

Max, we may not be understanding what Insurace you are talking about. Are you talking about Property Insurance or Risk Management Insureance? There Is a Big Difference! Most Insurance companys will not insure on Liability of stupidity! They will Insure Your House!

Is that the difference?

Fill us in a bit!:confused:

Expelling law breakers
 

Although I wholeheartedly agree that the "alcohol issue" may well be the bell that tolls for the death of the greek system one day, I think that instituting a policy to expel members who break the law by drinking under the age of 21 would quickly prove to be a legal nightmare.

Under-age drinking is (in all states) a misdemeanor. So are most traffic violations. If an organization expells one member for drinking under age because he/she broke a state law, then why not expell all members who have recieved speeding tickets? I could go on and on.

Expelling members who drink underage, while a noble idea, will not work from a legal or a social standpoint. And asking members to snitch on other members (for any cause)for rewards will break down many of the very fibers that most GLOs attempt to build.

Although the idea of restricting membership to people 21 and older has merit, it is impractical from the standpoint that most students who are GLO types graduate college between the ages of 21 and 25. I graduated at 22, so that would have given me only 1 year as a Kappa...and would have given Kappa only 1 year of my money...not feasible.

It comes down to this, fraternity members: LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE OF SORORITIES. At Indiana U., where I was an active, and at Iowa where I was an advisor, the sororities' chapter houses were DRY. Period. There were no keggers, no room parties. When sorority girls drank, 95% of the time it was at a bar, at a third party vendor event, or at a fraternity house party.

Fraternities, if your underage members want to drink themselves silly at a venue that you have not sponsored and at a site you do not own, that is their prerogative. If they do it on your property or at one of your functions, they should be reprimanded severely and/or expelled.

If the sororities can do it (and they have), I don't understand why you can't see your way clear of following the very clear example.

(And I don't mean to be a pest, but most sororities pay double the insurance premiums they should have to pay--not because the majority of lawsuits and insurance settlements have been caused by sororities, but because they have been incurred by fraternities). We carry your burden, too, and so we have as much stake in trying to help fraternities out of their mess.

I in no way mean to make this a girls vs. boys issue, but I frankly have had it up to here with fraternities being measured by one standard and sororities being measured by another.

Thanks for starting this thread; I think we're getting at some crucial topics that are systemic to the entire Greek System.

this is probably the most informative thread i have read.

good work

I DID read the study (which by the way, didn't use a time frame in the new one either, even after all the criticism). Results of a study do no good if the information gathering and tabulating methods are faulty. In short, GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

And you also have to question the source and reputation of the person conducting the study, and in Wechsler's case I am not the only one doing that.

http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/ar...spx?ref=103095

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info...nTheNews6.html (4th & 5th item down)

Incidentally, members of the Inter-Association Task Force include NIC, NPC, AFA and the Order of Omega.

My point? Check the validity of sources before you cite them, lest you strain your own credibility.

****instrumental break****

Oh, and I'm with Tom - I thought we were discussing incorporation awhile back and came to the conclusion that the majority of GLO's were incorporated (whether or not it is explicitly stated).