Total Question
 

I have a question about total. It's currently being reviewed at Iowa State (long overdue). They are proposing to lower it from 92 to 85. Currently there are 13 NPC housed chapters on campus and none of them are currently at total. Lowering it to 85 would put 6 chapters at total, which hasn't happen in years and another chapter would be one from total. Two other chapters would be about ten from total, the remaining four would still be between about 28-35 members from total.
If it does pass it goes into effect in January.
My question is does this vote have to be unanimous? If so, I doubt that it will pass which is unfortunate for the Greek Community as a whole.

Whether the vote needs to be unanimous or not will be determined by the CPH's constitution. If their constitution requires all votes to be unanimous, then yes, it would have to be. If their constitution requires 2/3 or 1/2+1, then that's what is needed to pass.

Check the constitution for the CPH - that will tell you what you need to know.

Sounds like lowering total is the right move, though.

NPC provides some pretty clear guidelines on how Total should be set and how frequently it should be reviewed. Regardless of the local rules on what kind of vote it requires, you should consult with your NPC delegate or your national office for some guidance on this really important decision. Given the facts you gave, it sounds like what is being proposed is probably in alignment with the guidelines of NPC and will likely be very good for your system.

I believe either our Advisory Board Chair or the Recruitment Advisor was going to be checking with them. I don't advise recruitment which is why I'm pretty green in this area. The Recruitment Advisor did tell us that the vote would have to be a unanimous vote.

I do think it would be great for our system. I'm concerned that it might be a 'hard sell' to some of the larger chapters. I'm for this change as total hasn't been reviewed in years and years. It's been 92 since at least the early 90s.

Local PH politics can be difficult to navigate when not all member chapters are knowledgeable about NPC rules and agreements. Hopefully, your Greek Advisor will have some influence. Also, if you notifiy your Theta delegate to NPC, I'm sure that she can make some well-placed phone calls to the delegates of the other groups who can help their chapters make the right decision. My experience is that the NPC delegates have good working relationships and are generally on the same page when it comes to things like Total. Use those relationships to your advantage. Good luck!

I would try to have your HQ informed as much as possible - much too often, the Panhellenic Advisor isn't completely clear on issues such as this, and it would be good to have someone who has practically memorized the Green Book at hand.

And yes, according to the figures you gave (and IMHO),I would think that Total being lowered to 85 is certainly a good idea.

I think you ladies ignore the problem. If you lower total all you do is lower the pressure to recruit new members.

So you weaken the strongest chapters to try and strengthen the weaker chapters. This will probably help the middle tier groups, but I would suspect the girls that would have cut the lower tier groups will still cut them.

The only difference will be that they have nowhere else to go now.

One of your threads earlier discussed maximizing Greek membership . . this is the way to minimize it, and yet its a decision consistantly made my Rush advisors.

For those of you that have attneded a lot of conferences . . haven't they covered how this is a losing proposition except on paper for weaker chapters?

James,

Total in some places are based on boom rush numbers, which aren't happening in a lot of places. If you don't have the number of girls coming through recruitment, how can you maintain an impossibly high total?

Yes, exactly. Total at some schools has not been changed since the boom in the 80's and early 90's. It's equivalent to making a school stay in division I athletics if they lose half their student population.

In the original poster's case, NONE of the groups are at total. This is a red flag. It isn't mollycoddling the smaller groups and harming the larger ones.

Exactly right about total not being changed since probably about the early '90s. Since that time - three chapters have left. Recruitment numbers have dropped from being in the 20s to the mid-teens this year.

The Recruitment Model, that most groups profess to follow, impiles that chapter members go out and seek new members that wouldn't normally be "joiners."

The Rush Model, that most organizations actually do follow, implies that the groups mostly divide up the natural joiners.

If you follow the Rush model, as the natural joiners become less, you adjust Total downwards to divide up the natural joiners more evenly among the various groups. This removes some of the pressure to recruit the people that aren't just signing up.

If you believe in doing that . . its fine. But I thought most of you were trying to follow a Recruitment Model?

Also, by adjusting total down you run more of a risk that some the good girls will fall between the cracks because they can't get into the houses they want, and would want them, if the house wasn't forced to cut so heavily.

This may be true except for the fact that the poster said NO ONE is a total as it stands now. My guess is if it is lowered as suggested the largest group will still go into the next formal recruitment just below it, and they still can take their fair share of the "divided up always joiners" if a group goes in at total during a formal recruitment period, therefore going above total.

The problem you state is true, some girls would rather drop than take that undesireable house, but that's giong to happen whether or not total is lowered, raised, or stays the same.

Yes, if nobody is at total, then there's a problem. That means it's not just several chapters who are struggling--it means that there probably aren't enough girls actually going through rush to maintain a total that high.

If nobody is at total, then what's the harm in leaving it alone? Lowering total sounds like saying, "Well, the economy is bad so let's raise taxes on the rich."

Because many sororities put a LOT of pressure on their chapters to be at total. If total is at 95, your HQ will want you to be there - even if you have 85 members and are the largest on campus and win every award ever.

I just realized that I've been on GreekChat for almost 4 years. During that time, I have never once seen a sorority woman tell a fraternity how they should conduct Recruitment.

Just thought I'd mention that little fact...

Perhaps you haven't noticed the sorority women who react when open rush and fewer rules are suggested as a way to attract more fraternity pledges.

I've noticed a lot of MYOB posts, but obviously not skewed the way you're seeing it.

The number of cuts a chapter has to make during formal rush doesn't have anything to do with being at total (or not). All those going through formal recruitment would have the same shot at the houses they want.

I do agree that lowering total prevents COB. However, COB wears a chapter out, particularly if all chapters on a campus are forced to do it because they can't reach total (or close) in formal rush. Inter/National HDQs are going to press their chapters to get to total even if total is 75 and they have 72. The benefits to not having to COB as a campus for a whole semester would outweigh the benefits of being able to seek out those who are not "natural joiners" IMO.

I advised at a campus where total was met by 2 of 11 chapters. The other chapters not at total were worlds away-- and the ones who were at total weren't necessarily in the top tier by themselves.

Lowering total, as mentioned, has nothing to do with lowering quota at formal recruitment. The less COB a chapter has to endure, the better. Many quality members can come in during COR, but having to COR every quarter is exhausting, lessens morale and programming opportunities, among other things. It drains a chapter.

National and IHQ's need to keep chapters at total in order for them to remain competitive locally and to maintain their bills financially. I know there's a continuing debate over total and that finances aren't everything-- which is great-- but if total is 100, I have 20 members and those 20 members hve to pay more in dues to cover the chapter house, parlor fees, NPC and national dues, local events, and local dues... well, I'd be more inclined to want to have to pay less each year per person if I had more sisters in my chapter.

And the chapter that isn't at toal gathers an unfavorable reputation oftentimes, whether that is fair or not-- it still carries over to rumors at recruitment that hurt that chapter's efforts for years to come.

Just thought that I'd give a little update on this situations. The collegiate members votes this past week on whether or not to lower total. The decision did not have to be unanimous. As a result, it passed but not all 13 chapters were in favor of it. It will be taking effect starting with the spring semester.

Bluefish

Thanks for the update. I am glad to hear that this was passed and will help the chapters there tremendously

Congrats, I sometimes wish they would do this at UCLA! Throughout my years there I can't remember a time when more than two or three houses were at total/over total out of the eleven. Total is at 115, and if they just moved it down to 100, it would at least put over half of the houses at total. So many houses range from high 90s to 110, but it seems so hard to get to 115, since deactivation is so high at UCLA.

It literally makes every house spring rush!

There's been alot of discussion lately about raising total here at Bama. It's been set at 125 for as long as I've been advising, 11 years, and who knows how much longer than that. The Admin is making serious efforts to "grow" the student population and subsequently our Recruitment numbers have also been growing. At least for Panhellenic, IFC has benefitted as well but not nearly as much.

Because of this I've been learning alot about the process of changing Chapter Total and Panhellenic policies. It used to be in the Green book that Total should only be changed in increments of +/- 5. Somehow it became this set in stone number for alot of campuses regardless of the strenghths/struggles of each Greek system.

Sometime in the last few years policies and more importantly mindsets began to change in Panhellenic. The +/- 5 limitation wase removed and campuses are now encouraged to review Chapter Total much more frequently. Adjustments can and should be made based on the current status of each campus.

There are now 3 different options to choose from when determining Total rather than arbitrary number changes that so often were used.

- Size of the largest chapter
- Average chapter size
- Median chapter size

Each campus Panhellenic should look at the number of chapters that would be affected positively and negatively with each number. The ultimate goal should be to strengthen the smaller chapters while not overly hindering the larger ones. Sometimes that's tough to do especially on a campus where there is a significant size difference between the largest and smallest.

Total Lowered at Utah

Since Zillini mentioned the option of using average chapter size, I thought this would be interesting:

Panhellenic at the U. of Utah has just lowered total from 80 to 63 (which is average chapter size). The vote was 5-1. None of the chapters were at 80, although at least one was at 79.

The article in the Nov. 17 '05 Daily Utah Chronicle has quotes from the Greek adviser and from the presidents of two of the sororities.

http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/me...hchronicle.com