[skylark]

Okay, it is good to be aware of liability issues, but you can't let it be the only thing you do as an advisor. There is liability in simply having an organization at all, there is liability in serving alcohol at all (regardless of how and even in the most secure circumstances). I'm not saying that you should try to get all the rules redesigned for your chapter because it is in Canada, but there is a possibility that when HQ created the rule, they were trying to find the "happy medium" for chapters in the US where alcohol is illegal for the strong majority of active members. More risk = more precautions. In Canada, because everyone is of age who is an active member, there is a strong argument that the "happy medium" should be somewhere else on the spectrum. Sure, you may have the attitude that it is better to be safe than sorry and want them to hold themselves up to that higher standard, but at some point you have to say "hey, who would want to join a group that is going to impose ridiculous rules because there is a paranoid advisor." Why not just tell them that you think they should stop drinking at all? That would minimize liability even further. My point is that there are many shades of gray in between playing it 100% safe and high risk policies. Right now you are operating in the U.S. chapters' happy medium presumably set based on factors that do not apply to your chapter (like the US's 21-year-old drinking law) and perhaps if you listened to your chapter and tried to brainstorm with them what other precautions you could make to find your own Canadian happy medium, they would see you as an advisor (in the true sense of the word) rather than as the mean enforcer.

Someone could just as easily go to one of your parties, drink 10 canned beers, drive home and kill a pedestrian. That is no more of a nightmare than if it was at a kegger, so are you going to advise them to stop drinking in order to prevent a lawsuit? In the US, liability for serving alcohol is different if you are serving in individual containers versus larger containers, which is why most GLOs forbid the kegger parties. It might or might not be the same in Canada, but I think that it is worth asking about. Lets say you have a hired DD or cab driver on call for anyone who drinks too much? Or lets say it is a "brothers only" keg party and one brother is sober and available to anyone who drank and needs a ride home. That might minimize the liability risk under your laws. I have no idea, but my point is that you don't either until you raise the issue.

You keep bringing up that you are a founding father. While that gives you a little more respect than the average alum advisor, most likely, it doesn't mean that your opinion counts more than the active members. In fact, my guess is that when they vote, you don't get to weigh in with your own (that's how it is in my GLO at least). Maybe you need to take a minute and remember that you are there to HELP them, not control them. It sounds like you might be dangerously close to crossing the line and that is why they are rebelling against you.

ETA: Maybe if you don't feel comfortable raising the issue, you should tell the president (or else the outspoken active you spoke of above) that if they want to raise the issue, here is the name and email/phone number of the risk management person for HQ and they should raise their issues with that person. I just think that is the bare minimum of what you should do as an advisor when the chapter is unhapy with a policy that for legitimate reasons might need to be revised for that particular chapter.