An email I received
 

Have not seen it until now and is pretty scathing towards IHQ and our leaders there.

I will not go into it further.

I just wonder if there is smoke, is there fire?

I hope none of it is true but a lot of Zetas have been closed in this period of time let alone many others over the years.

I bet the Lambda Chi Alpha Alumni Association of Tampa Bay is made up of the members of Lambda Mu Zeta at the U. of South Florida who was closed recently for hazing or something, and believed they were wrongfully accused of hazing by AM's who were disassociated, and they felt they didn't get due process to prove that they were not hazing. I saw it in a article a while back, from what I remembered, LMZ at USF was the top fraternity on campus.

It's not very well written, and I don't support anything that's not very well written.

I received this email as well. I believe it was sent to all chapter presidents or their chapter email addresses. I'm at least glad to see someone has the foresight to mass distribute proposed legislation well before GA. I haven't formed an opinion on this bill yet, but I like that it was distributed ahead of time. I hope the rest of the GA's legislation can be reviewed before showing up in July.

An Email I received.
 

Without examining the proposed legislation carefully, I know that it would not have mattered for at least two of the schools on this list. When the Colorado State University chapter was closed, that University's message was very clear - the president of the University had decided that the Lambda Chi Alpha chapter was no longer welcome on that campus and was to be closed immediately. At the University of Colorado, after two very poor recruiting years, the undergraduates elected, on their own accord, to close the chapter and return the charter. In neither situation would the legislation have any meaningful impact.

Pardon my crash, but if their bone of contention is the amount of chapters closed in the last 10 years, the list needs to be those chapters only, not including ones that have closed as far back as 1990-91.

I am still not sure of what is going on, the list that was given has happened over I think it said 10 years.

I know for a fact that there were 3 Executive Directors including Bill Farkas at the moment, Tom Helmbock, and Kip Zurker being the previous two.

In going over the listing, I see some that I am familiar with some that have been suspended because of Risk Management and rightly so.

One that sticks out was Alfred in NY, but the school banned all Greeks on the campus.

I think, we must all look at this with an open eye to see what is true and what is not true. We must also look at who is promoting this and why.

I would like more information before speculation.

CSU still a thorn in my side...no evidence, no charges, but, since it made state and national TV news, I could see no other option but suspending the charter either...but you're right, for either CU or CSU, this resolution wouldn't have righted either situation.

I for one would not want to see LXA try at CU or CSU at the present time - both campuses are vehemently anti-greek, and will be for some time, unfortunately this is mainly the greeks fault themselves, but still....time will have to pass first.

Alumni are disenfranchised since their chapter is closed without the opportunity to get involved or have input.

That is very misleading, or at least an unfortunate choice of words...I have been involved with several different chapters over the years, all the while being an alumni from a closed chapter (Sigma Omega, which was inactive for 12 years or so - rechartered in 2001)....

Point of clarification: To my knowledge, Brother Zurcher was never Executive V.P. -

Checkout this Issue of the C&C for a Posting on this Subject
 

Brothers,

Check under the "Update From the Executive Vice-President" article in this month's C&C magazine.

It seems the boys from Florida have "notched" things up a bit.

Yours in ZAX,

Mike Raymond

Follow-up
 

Brothers,

I just posted an e-mail at our C&C Magazine site requesting that our Executive V.P. or the Grand High Zeta explain what is meant by the term "burn and turn."

I have never heard that expression before this posting.

I sure hope that our IHQ can explain what this is all about - a bit of a mystery to me.

But I trust that they will explain their actual practice as opposed to this "burn and turn" idea put forward in the original posting.

Yours in ZAX,

Mike Raymond

I Have To Agree
 

I have to agree with Brother Jono.

But, I would like to hear from the other side.

Just what is going on here?

Yours in ZAX,

Mike Raymond

"Burn and Turn"
 

I too am interested in this phrase. Is it something that HQ actually uses? If so, what do they mean? Or is it rather something that the writers of this legislation created to sway opinions? It appears this letter has sparked something heated.

An Email
 

The phrase "Burn and Turn" is nothing that I have heard in the general fraternity in 25 years - 4 executive directors and working with a bunch of chapters. It is nothing but a campaign slogan to get people fired up.

The fatal flaw in the logic of the legislation's proponent is that the time for alumni concern and involvement is with the chapter on a regular basis, not after the chapter has commited a hazing violation, an alcohol violation or some other problem that results in a campus dictating that Lambda Chi is to remove its chapter from that campus, or that results in Lambda Chi having to close a chapter. Alumni involvement to write an appeal to the general assembly, or to fuss with the Grand High Zeta, the staff or the presidents, to change the terms of a chapter's discipline is completely misguided. That is alumni involvement too little, too late and out of touch with the principles of Lambda Chi Alpha. The point to alumni involvement is to provide mentors and structure for the undergraduate members, not to provide someone who will run flak and smoke screens when they violate the law, the insurance requirements and fraternity policy. What sort of message does that send to the undergraduates about the lifetime commitment of our alumni?

Bill as I remember, Tom Helmbock replaced George Spaysk, and Kip Zurker then replaced him in that capacity who in turn was replaced by todays Bill Farkas.

The title is Executive Director I beleive.

lambdaindenver, many times it may boil down to a Zeta being closed because of RM problems.

The Zeta feels wronged by IHQ and will fight to keep the fire burning. I am aware of the Zeta and from what I have garnered they did have problems and continued to have problems and were closed down.

I do not know all of the ins and outs, but, I am checking some of my sources to get more information.

I am proud of LXA and anyone who goes against the rules and regulations that were and are voted on by our members have to take the resposibility for their actions.

Remember, we as a Fraternity do not abide hazing or drinking under certain circumstances. If a Zeta is on probation, then the clamps come down for a reason, correct?

I was a staff member at HQ for five of the 10 years mentioned in the resolution (and related notes). I never heard the term/phrase "burn and turn" during my time on staff.

The point the resolution makes that I think does have some validity is that there is generally little due process when a chapter is closed. When this decision is made, the information associated with closing the chapter comes from only from the General Fraternity staff. Chapters are not afforded an opportunity to challenge the information presented by the staff or present a possible action plan. There is good reason that chapters are usually not made aware that they are being suspended. If chapter members knew the chapter was going to be suspended (in the future), the chance of the chapter having one last party with no risk management being followed would be high.

We do want to ensure:

1. Chapter risk management issues are thoroughly investigated.
Additional commentary--There were times when I knew a chapter would be closed based upon the information we knew about but a thorough investigation provided due process (or the appearance thereof). There was also a time when I thought a chapter would be closed but extra effort with the alumni and chapter leadership allowed for the chapter to remain open (Miami-FL).
2. Chapters and alumni are consulted (if possible) regarding alternatives to indefinite suspension.
3. Chapters and alumni are afforded the opportunity to be presented with the information that was presented to the GHZ and the opportunity to challenge that information and propose an alternative to indefinite suspension.

I tried to provide a balanced perspective based upon my knowledge and experience. Of course, it is just my two cents.

Shane Foley

Considering a group of guys can have a party anytime they want to anyhow, is this argument really valid? I would think it more important to gather input from the chapter than worry about the prospect of their having a party.

YES, it is a valid argument. If a group of guys wants to stay open, there is some reason for them to follow the rules (even if they actually don't follow them). If the chapter knows it will be closed, there is no incentive to follow the rules. After all, they are going to be closed one way or another. There is also a concern that chapter members could damage the property if they have one.

Oh right. Just like when the IRS said I owed more taxes a bunch of years ago and froze my bank accounts so I couldn't pull out all my money and stuff it under my mattress, but neither could I write them a check. Game over.

Jono, I think from what I am getting it was much more than this one thing, it was a culmination of many things.

Shane, I am sure you speak from experience from having worked for IHQ. Is it ever easy?

You are correct in the point, okay guys, you have broken the rules/regulations not set by IHQ or The Grand High Zeta, but by Brothers who voted on it.

Ergo, if you were in the wrong then you have to take the closing. It is no ones fault but yours alone.

If the School tells IHQ, if you want to have a chance to come back, then take care of it.

We still do not have the full story as I see it.

I think had they just made the argument for needing more due process then the email would be better recieved. I think we would benefit from a more through evaluation of chapters.

Reguarding the "one last party," when we were nearly closed we more than half heartedly discussed the possibility.

When Northern Colorado closed in 1989 - the discussion led to a decision...wow - what a party they threw.

I had just gotten off active duty in the Navy and returned to UNC - third day back on campus, first time back into the chapter house, I ran into the ELC who was conducting the "sorry guys, it's over" moment.

By midnight, the entire campus was partying on the front lawn one last time - I wasn't in the partying mood though - what a "homecoming"....

From my experience in working for IHQ a couple of years "more recently" I have never heard the term "Burn and Turn" ever. And I am going to have too disagree with you Shane in your feelings that chapters are not given a chance to prove there case. At least in my experience I felt they were. Once an incident occurs or whenever actions led up to said problem their was always an approach to make it educational and help the chapter stay involved in learning from the situation, whether it be creating an action plan or taking action against those who broke rules or regulations, balancing all this while working with the alumni volunteers and univeristy administration. However this becomes a challenge when some do not feel that they did anything wrong at all.

Just my 2 cents...

I should clarify that I do not know what has taken place since June (when I left staff). I don't know who wrote the above message but I think we agree more than we disagree. In cases where chapters stay open, there was often coordination with the chapter and/or alumni in trying to find a solution to a chapter's problem.

My point about due process was specifically related to a chapter's ability to present its case to the GHZ.

You may have never HEARD "burn and turn", but I know that many students and alumni have EXPERIENCED "burn and turn".

Most of the time, if a chapter is in trouble, it is easier to SHUT IT DOWN, and COME BACK in a couple of years and RECOLONIZE.

Just the way it is.

In an effort to further a productive discussion regarding the topic of chapter due process, I have copied some information from the annotated copy of the Constitution and Statutory Code (http://www.fraternitymanuals.com/ind...a/Constitution). The first part is the section on declaring a chapter inactive. Everything else are the comments from the Grand High Pi regarding that section. Increasing chapter due process would start with a revision of this section. Any recommendations?

Sec. 6. Declaring a Chapter Inactive. The Grand High Zeta may declare a Chapter to be inactive where local conditions are such as to render the continuance of the Chapter questionable or impossible for a period of time, but where there is the intention of re-establishing operations when such unfavorable conditions are removed or are improved sufficiently to justify reactivation of the Chapter.

COMMENTS FROM THE GRAND HIGH PI:

Article XI, Sec. 6:The lack of guidance with regard to the effects of Chapter discipline, has led to a lack of understanding as to the ramifications of certain behavior and the potentially inconsistent enforcement of our Laws. Nevertheless, the 2006 General Assembly declined to adopt an amendment to delete Code XI-1 and to add the following:
Code XI-5. Effects of Declaring a Chapter Inactive. A Chapter declared inactive shall be denied (i) recognition in publications, (ii) receipt of confidential publications, (iii) voice or vote in the General Assembly, (iv) the right to purchase jewelry, (v) the right to associate new members, (vi) the right to initiate new members, (vii) the right to participate in social affairs, and (viii) the right to participate in interfraternity affairs. All Active Members of such Unit shall continue to have all of the rights and privileges of Members of the Fraternity, but shall be considered Inactive Members until they cease to be undergraduates, at which time they shall be considered Alumni Members. All Associate Members of such Unit shall cease to be Members of the Fraternity, unless, at the discretion of the Grand High Zeta, they shall be initiated into the defunct Zeta by the Members of another Zeta, immediately after which they shall be deemed to be Inactive Members of the defunct Zeta. A Chapter declared inactive may be restored to active status by action of the General Assembly or the Grand High Zeta.[/font]

Article XI, Sec. 6: But see Section 3, above. The Grand High Zeta can declare a Chapter inactive without the notice and investigation required under Section 3. This power appears to be plenary, where local conditions require.

Article XI, Sec. 6: In September 2003, the Grand High Zeta voted to declare a Chapter inactive. Subsequently, a group of alumni contacted the Headquarters and asked for a reconsideration. The Grand High Pi noted that neither the Constitution nor the Statutory Code provides for an appeal or a reconsideration of an order of the Grand High Zeta, beyond the provision in Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution that "Orders of the Grand High Zeta may be revoked by a majority vote of the General Assembly."

By the language of Article XI, Section 6, inactive status is imposed where there is an intention of re-establishing operations at a later date. For procedural purposes this could happen a year, a month, or even a day after the entry of the original order. It is not a matter of reconsideration - it is a matter of finding changed circumstances.

The petitioning group were told that their burden of proof is not to convince the Grand High Zeta that the previous order should not have been entered in the first place, but to convince the Board (and Staff) that the unfavorable conditions that existed at that time have been removed or have improved sufficiently to justify reactivation.

Article XI, Sec. 6: There are no provisions describing the effects of declaring a Chapter inactive. Since this status is provided for in a section of the Constitution wholly separate from the sections on probation, suspension or revocation of a charter, it must be assumed that the effects of the declaration are different. It certainly is more severe than suspension but less severe than revocation.

Article XI, Sec. 6: There are no provisions for an appeal of an order declaring a Chapter to be inactive, short of bringing it up in a General Assembly as an effort to revoke an order of the Grand High Zeta under Article XIII, Section 3.