New Regulation
 

If you all remember the Kappa Sigma versus FGCU administration debate (For a refresher....http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...d.php?t=109076 ), I got an email from our general counsel today with the new regulation that is being brought up to the BOT. This will solve any problems if another group tries to come on. My only issue is this basically limits local sororities or fraternities from forming.
Do other schools have policies similar to this?



http://www.fgcu.edu/generalcounsel/f...ies_051410.pdf

yeah. NJIT requires you to be a national/international fraternity to be on IFC unless you were grandfathered in. Keane State (sp?) requires you to be part of a national/international to be recognized by the school.

Yep! Penn State got rid of local sororities (and possibly fraternities) a few years back. I remember the Panhellenic VP of Membership saying, "Local fraternities and sororities are nothing but clubs with letters. We are doing our best to eliminate them because they are a liability."

I agree that it can be a major liability. If you want to join an organization on campus, then the men and women can just join one of the inter/national ones on your campus instead of founding their own.

Which, of course, was an extremely ignorant, backward and rude thing for her to say. There are local fraternities and sororities out there that are run far better (and with far more alum involvement and oversight) than chapters of nationals. Dismissing them all as "clubs with letters" is completely inappropriate.

That being said, many schools do have an anti-locals statute, except for groups that are grandfathered in. I really don't understand why FGCU is passing something like this, since it wouldn't have prevented the Kappa Sig thing at all - they were backed by a national fraternity. If anything, this possibly opens the door for even MORE groups to do what the KS guys did since the way it is written doesn't seem to allow for local interest groups to form and eventually become national.

As I recall, at Kentucky all "general/social" GLOs must have an inter/national governing body for the chapter to be recognized as a "general/social" GLO. Otherwise, the group falls under the guidelines that apply to clubs.

For what it is worth, my understanding is that a "general/social" GLO is not required to belong to any of the campus governing bodies. However, all of UK's do.

No one cares about how locals are governed. It's more a function of the fact that nationals tend to have good liability insurance whereas locals probably don't.

Except insofar as being a chapter of a national means that there is a national entity that can discipline and yank a charter, which goes along with the risk management concerns.

Thanks for the comments guys. Sometimes the admins like to pull the "oh we're a new school. this is how other schools do it" which isn't always the case. :)

And in a nutshell, these (the bolded parts above) are UK's reasons for an inter/national governing body.

Again, a giant assumption. Also, if you know that there are alumni 15 minutes down the road who are going to come and kick your ass into next week and throw you out of the house immediately if you fuck up - well, that's really a lot more effective than any insurance policy.

I never realized how complicated the risk management system for greeks really is!

This. I agree with that statement because many collegiates fear what the alums will do. I'm not saying my chapter did or that I did but, you have to keep in mind that when there is a possibility you may run into an alum and somehow do something stupid that may upset them, you tend to watch your p's and q's a little bit more. It makes me wonder about all these chapters that have gotten in trouble and kicked off for hazing (to include the 2 chapters of Phi Mu I talked about in the risk management thread). I'm wondering if these were chapters where there wasn't a strong alum presence.

... Unless the existing inter/national orgs don't fit with your ideals. My local was formed for that exact reason. So was AEPhi, for that matter (of course, it was a different age back in 1909 - the founders were Jewish and therefore didn't have the option of just joining an existing org).

Locals can pose huge risk-management problems, and that is why some schools have chosen to ban them. A local doesn't have a governing inter/national body telling it not to haze its new members, or not to trash the venue when they have formal, or that they must set up a standards board and discipline sisters when they get out of line or else 33girl's ass-kicking alums will come by and do it for them. A local can choose to adopt a strong risk-management policy, of course... but they can also choose to haze their new members, etc., knowing they don't have to answer to an inter/national body that can yank their charter.

And some universities have decided, fairly or not, that it's easier not to deal with locals. Instead they pin their hopes on I/Ntls because they know what to expect, generally speaking, from their risk management policies. It doesn't mean that all locals are more risky, just that those schools think they are. (I think I sensed some umbrage to the idea that locals were more risky, and the point is more that universities assume they are.)

I think it's a good reason to create/support regional counsels that locals can belong to. Even if they only have one chapter, would they be willing to give some of that control to a counsel who could theoretically shut them down for breaking rules? Just tossing a thought out there.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. It is true. It's almost as if many universities and colleges can turn around and wash their hands of the bad behavior by saying, "Hey-it's not up to us...It's up to XYZ inter/nationals to come in and clean up." That way, the university doesn't look like the bad guy for punishing the organization (to all the students) and it doesn't look as though it has been turning its head to the bad behavior (to the alumni). At least with an inter/national GLO, you can feel a little better knowing that the GLO is being monitored by both the school and its HQ.