Size of NALFO
 

I was browsing a few older threads that made me think of this:

I was briefly on the NALFO membership committee a few years back and was amazed at how lax our membership requirements are. Because it's so easy, we currently have 23 member organizations. Although we have several strong organizations (40+ chapters), there are still some that make me wonder how they got on the council in the first place (regional organizations; 15 chapters or less).

Does anyone see NALFO strengthening its membership requirements? Do you think the larger organizations will branch off on their own? I'm curious as to how other Greeks feel about this.

http://www.nalfo.org/docs/NALFOBylaw...vember2007.pdf <----- Membership requirements are on page two.

k_s, by what standard are you judging organizations as "weak?" I will reserve my opinion since you asked other NALFO Greeks, but it seems to me that this could be viewed through an NPHC or NIC lens (as some NIC orgs are as small as some NALFO ones.

I'm not necessarily saying they're weak (I've met several people in the smaller organizations who have done great things), just not on the same level as the other organizations. I find it very difficult to believe that an organization with 4 chapters (using a former member organization so that I don't offend any current members) can be facing the same challenges as an organization like Sigma Lambda Beta (appx. 104 chapters).

With NALFO being so young, I would think that the council would encourage steady growth of a few organizations rather than keep what seems like a "Hey, we'll take anyone!" mentality.

If you'd like to chime in, please feel free to do so. I'll edit my original post.

Well, I must say this has more layers than I initially thought -- I was looking over the website for more guidance when I discovered the moratorium on new member orgs in 2005. Will it last for the whole four years or has it been lifted?

The last I heard, it was still in effect. When it was originally put in place, it was supposed to be a step toward strengthening the requirements. So far, the only membership requirement that's been changed is the minimum number of chapters (from 3 to 5).

ETA: Here is a side-by-side comparison of the sizes of the organizations. It is wikipedia, so some of the numbers may be slightly off, but they're pretty close.

Interesting.

On one hand, I can understand why the minimum chapter number is low -- small orgs need support and peer learning, too. How can they ever get their weight up if they don't learn best practices?

I didn't see this in the bylaws (but I didn't look very hard, either)..... I have noticed that some new organizations I'm familiar with don't have stringent requirements to start a colony.

For example, one org I know, chartered in 2004, just started a colony with one girl. I'm like....wtf? Meanwhile, a slightly older sorority I'm familiar with seems to prefer chartering with no less than four. Which, given the campuses they charter on (very deliberate choices, very strong schools) makes a lot of sense.

I dunno.... I try not to do the "tier" thing, but there are clearly some orgs who make wiser decisions than others.

dun dun dunnnnnnn

(I have nothing else to contribute.)

LOL..... I know, it's so bad that I mentally have my favorite LGLOs and think they're better than the rest. I keep it to myself though. :)

Years ago, I remember a site that listed alllll the LGLOs. There were sooooo darn many and I assume some are now extinct.

I'm not familiar with LGLOs but remember the only LGLO frat and sorority on the various campuses that NPHCers greeted at probate shows. :)

Probably LatinoGreeks.com. They've been absorbed by another company now. The number of organizations was always troublesome to me. And the sad part is there are still new ones being formed now.

I would think the requirements would encourage the smaller organizations to get their weight up. The lax requirements seem to be encouraging the dreaded founder-itis.

Yea, a one person colony is kind of ridiculous. Most of the larger organizations are much more strict when it comes to who needs to be on a campus when expanding. These mini-chapters/colonies still get a full vote on NALFO issues, which is the part that irks me.

I know NALFO is not allowing any member to allow first semester freshmen to undertake membership processes after June 08, I think this'll cut down on those 1 person colonies/chapters somewhat, I honestly believe this has cause major expansion for some orgs at the same time been a huge mistake for others.

Personally, I am GLAD there is a moratorium right now, I know there are about three orgs who want to join NALFO...but shall remain nameless; I don't believe larger orgs=stronger orgs, being that NALFO is only a decade old, I would hope that our orgs sit down and evaluate each other individually and their commitment to the council and from there decide who should stay in the council.

I just find it unfair that certain orgs are more prone for help/getting their proposals passed because they are larger and/or are more popular....and alot of it is regional as well...

The problem is that NALFO, NAPA, NMGC are expected to have a much higher learning curve. NPC, NIC, NPHC have had many many years to develop their structures.

How do you expect these new councils to get to those higher levels so quickly? The thing is, it's expected/desired by Greek Admins.

As for membership, I can only speak from NAPA's point of view. We have 10 organizations. There are maybe 4-5 more organizations out there that I would consider giving membership to. The problem is that expansion is happening faster than the individual organizations and the council can put good policies and procedures in place.

Councils are so difficult because they always take second priority to one's own organization in your heart. Because of this, making proactive decisions can be difficult because of how it will affect one's own organization.

One thing that drives me nuts though is sometimes the lack of desire to actively put themselves out there. I know of one sorority which has 20 chapters in 20 years and has only 300 total members. That is a realllly small growth rate. You can't sustain a national organization when most of your chapters are 1-2 people because burn out rate will be reaaallly high.

With a million 3 chapter organizations running around, it really prevents any sort of national movement for LGLOs or AGLOs. Not to mention it makes a Greek Admin's life hell to deal with organizations that don't have a Nationals.

Stricter policies in NALFO will only work if the NALFO orgs are growing faster than non-NALFO orgs and have the infrastructure to support that. If that is the case, then the non-NALFO orgs will die out because they won't be able to join NALFO and the NALFO organizations will be so competitive that their own chapters (non-NALFO orgs) will face extinction.

just my .02.

True, NALFO is not on the same level as NPHC/NIC/NPC. This doesn't mean that the council should take everyone just because they're LGLOs.

This is exactly my point. The reason that the more established councils seem to have more success is because they encourage growth of their member organizations before rushing to add more members. Prior to the moratorium, NALFO seemed to just take organizations just because they were LGLOs. All that does is encourage people to found new organizations rather than look into expanding the existing ones.

Many of the NALFO organizations are growing faster than other NALFO organizations, so I'm almost positive that the non-NALFO LGLOs aren't up to speed yet. That hasn't caused any changes within the council, though. I'd think that stricter requirements would encourage people to say "Let me look into bringing a chapter of ODPhi (for example) to my campus" rather than "Well, you only need 3 chapters to join NALFO, so let's create an organization and apply for membership." The latter seems to be the norm nowadays.

Something popped into my head.....

How does expansion work in NALFO orgs? At any point does an individual org have to go through NALFO in order to expand to a particular campus?

Even better, does a school have to go through NALFO before a NALFO org is chartered on campus?

This problem might be solved or at least alleviated if there were a formal system by which all NALFO orgs could be established on a campus.

I don't know the NPC system well, but I have a hunch it might have some best practices to look in to.

No, expansion is done on the organizational level. NALFO isn't notified at all (unlike the NPC where the presentations are done and the campus has to be open for expansion for an NPC).

Several people have pushed for NALFO to be more recognized on the university level because we usually get thrown into MGC councils that don't fully serve us. I'd like some kind of system like NPHC has (If X amount of organizations are on the campus, a NALFO council must be formed; something along those lines). That would definitely give us some more visibility. TPTB, however, seem to think otherwise.

Well, I'm sure L.O.C.K. has an opinion on that, which just may be my own.

Although I'm in favor of local NALFO councils, I do think there are certain schools in which an MGC is more favorable. At L.O.C.K.'s alma mater, for example, when the NPHC orgs withdrew, it practically crippled the MGC.

I've never experienced NPHC organizations on MGC councils before, so that's interesting.

On my campus, MGC was basically formed so the "leftover" organizations could be in a council. We have 6 NALFO organizations, 3 locals, and a (small, but growing national) south-Asian sorority. Obviously, all of these organizations are going to be going in different directions (as we all have a different focus), so at my school, I'd definitely be in favor of a local NALFO council. NALFO needs to get its stuff together first, though.

Why do you think MGCs don't properly support LGLOs? And if currently NALFO has a disparity in the strength of some member organizations on a national level that is causing somewhat of a strain, how much more (if any) strain would it be on university level NALFO councils?

Because of the makeup of our council, there are often several policies and procedures that are put in place that benefit the locals more. They try to regulate when and how we do recruitment, what types of events we can host, and plan programs that conflict with national/regional events. I know this isn't always the case, but it is on my campus.

And like I said at the end of my previous post, NALFO needs to get its stuff together to lessen the strain. Once that happens, then local NALFO councils will provide greater visibility and opportunities for member organizations.

I remember thinking the same thing.......

Speaking of umbrella orgs, is it just me or does it seem like the NMGC has gotten smaller and pruned out some orgs....:cool:

It does seem like the member list has gotten shorter since the last time I was on their website, but idk much more than that.

Keep watching. ;) Some of y'all may have observed my distaste for the NMGC in the past, but things are a-changing. I'll let NMGC members on GC go into detail if they want to, but this council is turning into something real and relevant. I look forward to seeing what develops.

^^^^ Is a council snob. lol :p

Haha, Rashid you know me so well!

When I was President of the MGC at my school, AKA (18 of them) and Zetas (2 of them) came back to GW. At this point in time, many of the members of the NPHC orgs felt that being on an MGC didn't fit them.

I argued that when Alphas have 1 person on campus, Zetas 3, Deltas 6, and AKAs 10 (8 graduated right away I believe), it wouldn't be sustainable because membership patterns go in waves. Moreover, managing one's own chapter AND a council with only a few people is incredibly difficult to do and isn't conducive to a strong academic experience in college.

My words fell on deaf ears, and sure enough an NPHC was started during the second half of my term (made life miserable lol).

The NPHC existed for about a year with it being co-chaired by a Delta and an AKA. AKAs and Deltas at my school did not/do not get along for the most part, so needless to say things didn't go well.

As I was about to graduate, the MGC and NPHC decided to combine again and work together. Sure enough, this put a lot less stress on members because work was spread more evenly.

The new MGC president did an amazing job of unifying people and MGC has really started to take off. People have realized that it is unrealistic to sustain multiple councils in the minority Greek community when your populations are so small on that campus.


As for NALFO, it's facing a lot of the same problems NAPA is facing. While local councils might work, the reality is there isn't enough communication and collaboration between the national organizations through NALFO and not through NALFO to make that happen.

Basically, everyone wants to create their own organization these days. There are over 60 Asian American fraternities and sororities and more are appearing each year. A lot of these smaller organizations are not helping the situation because of their lack of oversight by any sort of National Board and their tunnel vision when it comes to undergraduate activities.

This of course dilutes the current crop of existing organizations with smaller less developed organizations. The NIC and NPC had mergers - I don't think this will happen in the Latino/a and Asian Greek communities because of the competition and pride that exist between organizations on local, regional, and national levels.

So, you're stuck with some organizations who are soaring in growth (LTAs and aKDPhi for example) and others (I won't name names) who are gimping along, but don't die and expand just to expand.

If this is all to be solved, NALFO and NAPA organizations need paid staff, strategic plans, and a desire to get better. If they have these, it will be a lot easier to coalesce around the importance of having stronger councils. Right now organizations are too swamped with their own tasks because National Boards are most often volunteer-based (although SLB and SLG do have paid Executive Directors). This causes the councils to be put on the back burners.

One thing NAPA is currently doing is holding conference calls, in addition to our regular calls, that focus on a specific issue and how each organization has dealt with it.

We have partnered with the Association of Fraternity Advisors to target experts on each topic (expansion, advising, lessons learned, etc.) who help facilitate and provide advice about the respective topics. This has helped identify best practices, but it is still up to the individual organizations to put them into place.

I know this is a long post, but if you're interested in learning more about NAPA post here or PM me. As for more information on NALFO, PM me and I can give you the email of the current president (I think she's still president).

Take Care!
Nate

Yes indeed. I don't think I have the authority to let out the details just yet, but things are definitely in the works.

Well, I know the WHOLE story and I'm not afraid to share.

Alpha Phi Alpha will be the first of three BGLOs to leave the NPHC and defect to the NMGC. In order to be considered, we had to tweak a few of our primary goals, but in an overwhelming majority vote at last year's convention, we agreed to change our colors from black and gold to multicultural and gold.

I hate you. But, I really love you.

LOL