Selectivity And Apo
 

HEY HERE IS FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR BROTHERS:

NOW NATIONALLY, ALPHA PHI OMEGA DISCOURAGES SELECTIVITY, HOWEVER I HAVE NOTICED THAT CHAPTERS THAT ARE SOMEWHAT SELECTIVE DO NOT HAVE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT LARGER NON-SELECTIVE CHAPTERS HAVE. CASE IN POINT: ZETA PHI WAS SOMEWHAT SELECTIVE BY GRANTING PROSPECTIVES AN INTERVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY HAD THE RIGHT REASONS FOR JOINING ALPHA PHI OMEGA. AFTER SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF THE END RESULT WAS 13 PHENOMENONAL WOMEN WHO ARE DIE HARD FOR ZETA PHI AND ALPHA PHI OMEGA. PLUS, BY KEEPING OUR CHAPTER NUMBERS UNDER CONTROL, WE REMAIN PRETTY UNIFIED AND CLOSE IN A FRATERNAL SENSE. WHEN MY CHAPTER ATTENDED LEADERSHIP DAY, IN SPEAKING TO LARGER CHAPTERS, THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT LACK OF INTIMACY AND EFFECTIVENESS (MEMBER RETENTION) BECAUSE OF THE CHAPTER BEING TOO LARGE. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS ON THE ISSUE?!?!?!?

QUESTION
 

SHOULD ALPHA PHI OMEGA BE HIGHLY SELECTIVE, SOMEWHAT SELECTIVE OR NON-SELECTIVE?

WELL...
 

I personally like the way that we do things, but it all depends on the group. We did things that way in order to be sure that we would be taking people who truely knew what they wanted and what we were about, and that was especially important b/c we were a pg and needed people who were going to work hard. Now, if it comes down to: she looked at me funny at rush and I don't like her so let's not take her, that's inappropriate and should not be tolerated. But in general, a little selectivity will avoid a lot of trouble later.;)

quality vs. quantity
 

The issue with selectivity comes up every so often. Do we want quality or quantity?

Here are some things to consider.

Do we want to only pledge those we think will be good APO members, or do we think that anyone can be a good apo member and its the purpose of our pledge program to turn them into good members?

How do we know that the people we select for pledgeship are really the 'good' choices? Prehaps by going thru the pledge program, one of the people you turned away might actually become a good member.

The issue I have with being selective is you never know who is the "good" or "bad" choice. Too often I've met people who I thought would be a great asset to APO, only to find out after they became a Brother that they never really got involved. And then there have been people who I wasn't to sure about turn around either during their pledgeship or soon after becoming a member and being a real asset.

Hope this helps

For real??
 

Quality of course! Forget the idea of "everyone can join." I know at "some" chapters, you are lucky to even be granted an interview. Carry on.

I agree...
 

I know that people want APO to pride itself on allowing anyone to join but human nature shows that anything that was obtained easily is not valued. Frankly, I feel that being somewhat selective helps people appreciate the organization because they know that someone else could have taken their place. It also weeds out the wheat (those who are about the principles of the frat) from the chaff (those who just want to wear letters and that good stuff). Also, I find that those who were not selected come correct the second time around to ensure that they are selected.

News @ 9
9-ZP-03 AI
24 Survivors of the APOcalypse

A Phi Que till the day I'm through...
Zeta Phi till the day I die!!!

I agree
 

I agree with my Sisters on this one! I think that selectivity will certainly be an asset to our Organization. In my particular case, 37 people participated in Rush, then 10 of us were approved to pledge but only 8 of us were deemed "True to Alpha Phi Omega". While my particular Chapter did not verbally express selectivity, the nature of the process that they used helped to weed out the poor prospects for membership. I love my every single person on my line and I know that we will always be bound forever. While we were SO diverse (every race imaginable), we really struggled and share our love of APO together. In the end, that's what really counts.

8-LN-03
Doc Mottens

a brother from the philippines
 

hi to everyone, about selectivity we are very strict here! because loyalty in apo is one of our main strength that is why we are united

I agree that Alpha Phi Omega should be selective. We need to forget about letting everyone into the organization and have interview sections and what so forth. I do believe that if we are selective then you can weed out the slackers from the organization and work with those who want and are willing to work. If those don't believe in being selective, then they need to handle thngs at the discretion of their chapter. I am just agreeing to the suggestion, but as I just stated doing things at the discretion of your chapter will work out finely as well.

Bump
 

The older I get in Alpha Phi Omega, the more I realize what a sad topic this really is.

re:bump
 

Care to elaborate?

If one remains active in the fraternity, you can understand better why we are essentially non-selective. Prohibiting people the opportunity to at least start pledging is contrary to what we're all about.

Frequent assessment during the pledge program is key, but no chapter with a rigorous pre-selection process has demonstrated that it builds better brothers. If that was the case, these chapters would have more representation on section and regional staff, national committees, and alumni associations.

The unfortunate truth is that there is nothing which will indicate whether a pledge is in it for the right reasons. It's a mistake to have the type of recruitment process which disqualifies potential members before they have the opportunity to prove themselves worthy.

Senusret- thanks for the response. I think the question was more about where you stood on the question. What you conveyed is what I also believe, which I tried to indicate earlier.

IMO, a good pledge program (by that I mean one that properly teaches the pledges to become Brothers, which can be done without hazing) is a better way to do this then by some kind of bid or selection process.

I've always looked at APO as being selective, but on the tail end of the pledge process: Pledge Review. The chapters I see doing the filtering on the front-end of the process don't have any better rates than those who go with the prescribed process (everyone can try, not everybody succeeds). We are non-selective in our pledges because that is the time period for the individual and the chapter to determine if they are right for each other, not some interview during rush week. To deny someone this opportunity is, in my opinion, contrary to the purpose of pledging and contrary to the membership policies of APO. Assuming that because someone was "chosen" to pledge based off of a couple hours of interaction, that they're guaranteed to have a lifelong commitment to APO need to look at what you're actually supposed to be doing, not what other groups around you do.

Just because someone is pledging does NOT mean that they will be activating into the fraternity. You have pledge requirements, and if they don't meet them during the pledge period of 6 to 10 weeks, then they have done the "weeding out" for you. If a pledge has met the requirements set forth by your chapter, then they have met all the filtering requirements you need in order to join the fraternity, and you need to have a damn good reason to deny them membership. The kind of reason that might necessitate a need to talk to a campus administrator, your section chair/region director, or other figures of authority. Not "s/he looked at me funny", or other garbage like that.

Someone earlier several years ago asked about quality vs. quantity, and which one is better. This is a bad question because they're not mutually exclusive.

Also wanted to add/clarify:

I don't believe interviews during the rush process are a bad thing, but I don't believe they should be evaluative. They can be a good mutual introduction for those who are shy in groups.

I also think Pledge Reviews or other assessments should happen more than once in the process, and closer to the middle than the end.

I basically agree with emb and arv. :)

True, but this is something that must be made clear to people (both in and out of the fraternity).

Each chapter should have clearly defined pledge requirements (in line with the National Pledging Standards). ALL potential pledges must understand they must met them. When it comes to that final pledge review, it should be in the light of "did each pledge met the clearly defined and objective requirements?" If they did, they should be voted in. If they didn't, the chapter can choose to 1) vote that pledge in because they were really really close or 2) give a particular pledge more time to complete requirements or 3) let them re-pledge or 4) tell them they didn't met the requirements.

To me, its a 'self selection' process. Not a bunch of Brothers passing in judgement.

IMO, it is not so much for APO (or any org for that matter) to know who is the good or bad choice. It is for the candidate to convince the org via the fruits of their labor that they are a good choice.

Here is why I am so pro-selectivity: It is one of the key elements of what a fraternity is all about in its truest sense of the word as opposed to merely being a service club with elements of a fraternity. Exclusitivity helps gives a fraternity a sense of mystique about them and makes a person's membership in it more treasured and valued. I really think this is one of the reasons why Alpha Phi Omega isn't held in as high a regard on college campuses as it could be.

Alpha Phi Omega owes NOTHING to a candidate, and as long as the attitude within the org is that a candidate is entitled to membership once they express an interest in joining, the org will continue to suffer from one -and-done members (read: one meeting/service project and they're gone), high percentage of inactive chapters (currently slightly > 50%), and the campus perception that that APO is merely Circle K with a ritual.

Selectivity assesses one key thing out of three that's frequently ignored in APO, the first two keys being aptitude and attitude: FIT! If you don't fit, even though you're a brother, you will end up being a very alienated one. You can't force people to fit in where they simply don't.

APO always asserts that it is not a social fraternity, but ignores the fact that social dynamics is a critical element of brotherhood. Even though we are a service org, we are not robots. If we were, the issue of fit wouldn't be one, because it would be irrelevant. But there definately is a social dynamic that isn't addressed, at least not adequately because we think as long as we're doing service, that's all that matters. Fact is, that is simply not true.

I think implicitly, the understanding of the importance of selectivity was what kept the remaining all-male chapters all-male for so long. I heard that Delta Chapter is going co-ed. If this is true, I'm curious as to how it will affect the chapter in the long term.

Very good post I think you summed up very nicely many of the things people bring up about APO when they complain about it.

I've gone back and forth on the selectivity issue myself over the years. When I first joined I was flat out against it since when I pledged (fall of freshman year) I probably didn't fit the chapter that well and would not have been accepted. However, as I progressed through the years and the chapter turned around and got very large we began to have many of the problems you so clearly laid out. We had a high percentage of brothers that would pledge and you'd never see them again (except when they wore letters to look cool). We also had major cliques form since the chapter was just too large to know everyone well and the perception/ public opinion of us on campus really dropped. Not all of these things could have been fixed by greater selectivity since it is still a fallible process and we can choose the wrong people but it definitely would have made things easier to fix.

[QUOTE=KAPital PHINUst;1852302]
Alpha Phi Omega owes NOTHING to a candidate, and as long as the attitude within the org is that a candidate is entitled to membership once they express an interest in joining, the org will continue to suffer from one -and-done members (read: one meeting/service project and they're gone), high percentage of inactive chapters (currently slightly > 50%), and the campus perception that that APO is merely Circle K with a ritual.

There is a difference between requiring objective criteria and having easy criteria. I've seen pledge programs with Objective Criteria that fulfill the National Pledging Standards that take more time for students than classes (including homework) in their major. 2 hours for the pledge meeting, 2 hours for the chapter meeting, and at least 2-3 other hours per week. While the quizzes may not be as tough as those for their classes, still, add additional study time for that.

Hmm. Pledge quiz as tough as those for classes...
1. Name the first chapter chartered for whom the school name has changed since they chartered. Give the old name of the school.
2. Name the last State to have a chapter chartered in it.
3. Name the only National President for whom the end of their time in office did not co-incide with a National Convention.
4. Name any student who initiated in the 1925-1926 school year *other* than the 14 student founders.
5. Name any section in the Fraternity whose borders have not changed since it was established at Con-con.
6. Where was the 1942 convention *supposed* to be?
7. Where was the 1994 convention *supposed* to be?
8. Name any charter at a closed school.
9. Name the calendar years since the Fraternity was founded in which we did not charter any chapters
10. What were there six of in the fraternity's original crest.

Ciricle K with a ritual indeed.

Why should anyone be asked to pledge if they are not interested in community service? What if the individual has personal issues with a few brothers in the chapter? Why do you want to join? If it is to improve your resume then you are in the wrong place. I've seen a few of those in my time

A difficult, yet attainable pledge program is what forges a brother. The attitude of 'paying a fee, a member you shall be' is unacceptable. If an applicant works hard during pledging, a sense of personal accomplishment and acceptance among the fraternity will carry with that individual his entire life. Membership retention is improved within the chapter that extends to well beyond college to where one an alumni.

Exactly so.

Which is why bidding and 'pre-selection' should be unnecessary. A good pledge program (including proper requirements) without hazing are all that are needed.

This is why I've been so adamant about the need of improving our pledge programs. I actually developed a multi-level training course for this, but have only been able to do the first level at a couple of section conferences & region conferences, never at National. The only pledge training session I attended at Nationals was pretty much 'lets sit in a circle and discuss our pledge programs' instead of instructing the participants in what a good pledge program should do (and not do).

Exactly. I mean, if your pledge program is a piece of poo and isn't weeding out slackers and drama queens, and your chapter is going down the tubes because of it, it's your own fault. APO is a hell of a lot luckier than the NPC sororities who are basically stuck if they give a bid to a jerk - depledging someone almost takes an act of God and the pledge programs often don't do much to ascertain someone's true fitness for membership.

If there are chapters that are using easy peasy pledge programs and letting everyone in, why on earth do you think bidding or preselection would help?? They'd just bid everyone!

Such quizzes with questions to the effect of the above are most definately a start, though I like taking it one step further: questions that allude to the Monty Python treatment, such as "When was Alpha Phi Omega founded--to the nearest second?" and "Which Alpha Phi Omega brother is more deceptive: the foolish wise one or the wise fool?" :p



While your post still doesnt adequately address the issue of fit being a critieria of being an APO brother, and since objectivity is such an issue of weeding out members, I got some really good objective criteria that will stop a lot of brothers at the door from further pursuing APO if their heart really isn't in it that would make the bidding issue a non-starter:

Have candidates submit their past record of service & volunteering on campus and the community and get letters of recommendation from such organizations and event sponsors and planners. Give additional consideration for candidates who served in a leadership capacity and who can quantify the projects and events with measureable numbers. Right there that's two of our three cardinal principles addressed and verified.

The third (friendship) ties into the "fit" issue: Has the candidate attended and/or volunteered at any APO events or service projects? Have they at least offered to help volunteer with APO in some capacity? Do they have strong social rapport with any of the brothers (I personally prefer at least three, but 1-2 will probably suffice)? Can any of the brothers vouch for the candidate and their commitment to service?

And there you have it: objective and measurable criteria to determine if a candidate is fit to be a brother of APO and that addresses all three of our cardinal principles. I doubt if any candidate being taken to task on being screened who isn't serious about joining would further pursue APO. If they did, there's enough evidence that should stop them from being initiated. And for those who are serious and saavy, they should be discerning enough to know why they weren't selected and make any and all necessary corrections to try again in a future semester with their ducks lined up beak to tail to ensure a prompt initiation into the brotherhood on their next go-round.

The members of the National Pan-Hellenic Council are shown below in alphabetical order.


Alpha Kappa Alpha January 15, 1908 (age 101)
Howard University Chicago, Illinois 950+ 1930

Alpha Phi Alpha December 4, 1906 (age 102)
Cornell University Baltimore, Maryland 850+ 1931

Delta Sigma Theta January 13, 1913 (age 96)
Howard University Washington, D.C. 950+ 1930

Iota Phi Theta September 19, 1963 (age 46)
Morgan State University Baltimore, Maryland 200+ 1997

Kappa Alpha Psi January 5, 1911 (age 98)
Indiana University
as Kappa Alpha Nu Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 700+ 1930

Omega Psi Phi November 17, 1911 (age 97)
Howard University Decatur, Georgia 750+ 1930

Phi Beta Sigma January 9, 1914 (age 95)
Howard University Washington, D.C. 700+ 1931

Zeta Phi Beta January 16, 1920 (age 89)
Howard University Washington, D.C. 800+ 1930

Sigma Gamma Rho November 12, 1922 (age 86)
Butler University Cary, North Carolina 500+ 1937


Alpha Phi Omega is not on this list.

Please stop using the expectations of the organizations on this list to apply to it.

Perhaps they should join the list; if nothing else, it'll help step their much-needed membership candidate vetting process game up.

Why should I? It works, doesn't it?

OTOH, maybe I will once Alpha Phi Omega starts to get some backbone and use more stringent criteria to weed out the lame and lazy slackers and no professional game having resume-padders.

Your post confirms my point: Alpha Phi Omega has turned into Circle K with a ritual.

Going to get flamed
 

Here's the thing, though: It doesn't work, at least not for us. In my experience, the chapters that are faltering are the ones who forget what we're about and spend more time looking at the NPHC, NIC, PHC, etc and saying "we should do that". The chapters I see that are successful are the ones that put their message of Leadership, Friendship and Service out there every semester and run a solid pledge program that focuses more on preparing pledges to be functional and active members of the fraternity (which is less about "know your history" and more about learning how the chapter actually operates, how to develop new and exciting projects, and how to grow as leaders), and extend membership to those who lived up to the expectations placed before them.

I'm sorry that APO ended up not being what you thought it was, but you knew what you were joining and had plenty of opportunity to back out if you didn't feel it was a good match. Your pledge period was 6-10 weeks long, surely at some point you realized that this wasn't what you were looking for, right?

And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take serious anybody who talks about how we as a fraternity need to step up our game and that we're when he's continually repping another organization.

When was the last time you actually worked with a chapter outside of your little Viking scope? Or went to a conference instead of cookout? Or volunteered as an advisor to a chapter? How about joined an alumni association other than MOTRS? Why haven't you become an APO LEADS presenter or presented a workshop that can help develop students into campus and community leaders? How about become a Torchbearer? In other words, what have you done for Alpha Phi Omega as a whole lately other than bitch about it online?

You talk a big game and like to throw around "Circle K with a Ritual", but you really don't know what you're talking about. You're clearly unwilling to work within the existing structure to change it, and frankly that rings hollow with me.

Obviously Alpha Phi Omega doesn't mean that much to you or wasn't meeting your needs in some way. I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm glad you found an organization that is more up your alley. I'm seriously happy for you. However, don't think that just because you found what you were looking for means that everybody who joins APO is looking for the same thing.

Frank Reed Horton didn't find the standard of manhood he was looking for in SAE. He didn't take what he developed in APO and tried to change SAE to be more like that, nor did he try to make APO more like SAE. What makes you think it's ok if The Lightbearer wasn't willing to do it?

arvid1978- well said.

Well said, only one thing to add...
 

And it truly doesn't always work for NPHC organizations, either.

According to whom? On what basis? Do you know this for a fact and/or have you even tried to institute it?

Oh, get the fuss outta here with that empty canned rhetoric! Like I said before, one of the key element of a true FRATERNITY lies in its exclusivity and selectivity, usually through a rigorous thorough vetting process. Will it be foolproof or failsafe? Not at all. But it will definately show prospective members that APO isn't an organization which you can shuck and jive you way into joining.

For the record, I was on line 11 weeks (I later found out that I was supposed to cross on April 30, but the Rodney King riots had the campus in an uproar and initiation took a back seat to campus programming which we volunteered for to address issues to that effect).

Do you, then....

Oh, so you want my resume? Trust, it isn't Viking/MOTRS only:

Chapter Historian, Alpha Gamma Theta Chapter, 1992-94. Helped organize a weekly service project where we would help a local community development program assemble fresh fruit and vegetable packages to issue to low income families.

Brother of Rho Theta Chapter, 1995-97. Assisted the Pledgemaster and Assistant Pledgemaster in the training and indoctrination of pledges. Initiated the Last Rites March where pledges and brothers would march across campus by candlelight.

BTW, these chapter are most definately NOT Viking chapters.

As far as attending workshops and conferences:

Chapter Presidents Workshop, 1992
Section 57 (later 56/59) Conference, 1993-97, 2000.
Region V Conference, 1995
National Convention (non-voting) delegate, 1996
Submitted legislation for the 2000 National Convention.

And I hadn't even mentioned that I helped get some women to organize a local chapter of Gamma Sigma Sigma in 1999 to help build synergy with Alpha Phi Omega.

As for joining an alumni association, all they did was have a monthly dinner and socialize, and that was when I was an undergrad. When I finally graduated, the association had faded out.

In 2000, I offered my services as a member of Sectional Staff and no one would contact me to follow up with me. Later that year, I presented a proposal for a workshop I would facilitate for the 2000 National Convention and the Convention co-ordinator refused. At that point, I said that I was done; if APO has that much of an issue with me being pro-all male and pro-Viking (all the while respecting brothers of chapters that wish to be co-ed and being a team player in the process), then I pretty much earned the right to b**ch about Alpha Phi Omega.

(see above)

BULL$#!T!! I have been in this organization for 17 years, I know exactly what I am talking about!

As you can see, it wasn't for lack of trying.

FRH also wanted a fraternity that functioned like a fraternity in substance, not merely in form. When the basic requirements began to be eliminated (had to be a former Boy Scout, etc.), APO went into a whole new direction which permanently changed its image and structure.

RainMan, didn't you renounce your APO membership because you were afraid of the idolatry aspect? You seem to have no problem idolizing Kappa Alpha Psi all over the intraweb.

And if there is anything I got sick of hearing while I was pledging APO, it was the pledgemaster saying "In Crows we did blah blah blah." It's 2 different kinds of organizations. PERIOD.

I agree with you. While it's one thing to compare the best practices of organizations (APO and social fraternities/sororities ARE nonprofit organizations with similar operations), it's another thing to intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent what Alpha Phi Omega is in order to craft a chapter or organization that one thinks it should be.

Some things you outgrow over time. At the very least, you understand what works for your chapter is not likely to be a universal truth in APO.

On the complete other hand all together, there are times in APO when experience with a social GLO scene is beneficial to a local APO experience. A Petitioning Group I am dealing with is made up of mostly BGLO members, and also being a BGLO member myself, I can relate to these students on a level that other volunteers can't or choose not to.

Being a dual member in that case makes some things easier -- all it takes is a conversation saying "In XYZ, you might do *this* but in APO that doesn't work because..."

Selectivity prior to the pledge process is one of those things I advise against.

From the National Pledge Standards:

Membership in Alpha Phi Omega is a great honor earned through hard work, diligent effort, and dedication to our principles.

I don't see much difference between what you've said and the National Pledge Standards. Amen

I got a *real* heads up at my first section conference in terms of "what works in my chapter may not work in yours". My chapter's budget had single *line items* larger that the entire budget for at least three of the other chapters there, some of which were nearly our size. Trying to give the other chapters financial advice was a disaster.

One of the challenges to extension is figuring out what chapters are likely models for a new extension group and which ones are *not*. Trying to use the chapter George Washington University for a Model for a chapter at Howard University would be waste of *everyone*'s effort. (And vice versa). On the other hand, there are schools were existing models work fine. If I'm working on an extension to a Cal State University campus, I'll definitely try out the other Cal State campuses as Models.

There is only one case where I do advise a *certain* level of selectivity and that is in the area of super-rapid expansion. I wouldn't look badly on a chapter that tried to keep the number of pledges to twice the number of active brothers (or 15 if the number of brothers is less than 8). At that point though I'd ask staff to help in coming up with solutions.

One additional point.

A chapter that is running as 'paying a fee, a member you shall be' is in violation of the National Pledging Standards, just as much as a chapter that runs a year long pledging process or one that blackballs.

I'm just trying to imagine what APO would look like if it exactly followed the official NPHC rules regarding admission (post 1993) and *completely* failing...

OTOH, I'm also trying to think what would NPHC groups would look like doing if *they* followed the official NPHC rules and not having much better luck.

How would you possibly gauge "strong social rapport" in a objective manner?

Simply put, why would you join a fraternity of individuals you don't know and never took the time to get to know? In other words, using objective criteria, does the candidate(s) know and have a reasonably good social vibe with at least some the brothers? (in hindsight, perhaps using the word "strong" wasn't necessary). If not, being a brother isn't going to make the brothers like you.

Funny you brought this up, because I have a true story for you that illustrates its importance. I ran into this 40-something adult student at OSU who was a brother (joined about 2001-2002) via seeing his letters on a shirt. I introduced myself as a brother and we began chatting. As it turned out, this guy had did some time at a correctional facility (I don't remember what the crime was, except that it was a violent crime). Long story short, he heard about the Vikings and wanted me to "make him" a Viking because the brothers who initiated him wasn't too comfortable about his past. Needless to say, I declined his request for several reasons, and he would call me frequently wanting to chat, and I would give a few minutes to talk with him and he felt really really alienated and that the chapter essentially gave him the cold shoulder. Then he suddenly stopped calling and I lost touch with him.

It is instances like this that had there been a vetting process, this whole issue could have been avoided. I think the chapter did this guy (and themselves) a disservice by even initiating him.

I think that was one of the coldest acts of brotherhood I have ever seen. Real talk!

Funny you mention this, because in a back issue of the T&T (one of the 1992 issues at that), there is an article that allows campuses to institute an MIP program if their school prohibits formal pledging. And if I'm not mistaken, this MIP program was very similar, if not outright identical to the NPHC's Intake program. I also remember this issue being mentioned at the '92 CPW (either that or the 93 Sectional Conference--I think it was the latter).

I haven't read the article in well over 12-13 years so my memory of the article's details is extremely fuzzy, so if you have any back issues of the T&T from '92 or '93, check those. It is definately in there.