Minimum Expectations for Chapters

[Kevin]

Sigma Phi Epsilon, as a national fraternity, has zero tolerance for a lot of things, alcohol abuse and mediocre chapters included. (I'm not trying to insult the bros at W&L, I'm just stating a point) About two years before I joined, our chapter had a membership of about 24 men two semesters in a row, and nationals put them on notice to close. We got our numbers up, and we're been fine ever since. A few times, we've been told by our Regional Directors that we need to increase numbers, but we've never been formally put on notice to close. HQ has never been shy about pulling a chapter's charter if they feel it is needed. I guess since we feel we are the leaders in the fraternity world, we must always be improving, so HQ is sometimes harsh

After reading this in another thread, I began to think about a program my fraternity recently implemented. It is a points system that is used to identify chapters in need of extra assistance -- possibly used to flag floundering chapters for closing.

While I do see in this case that Sig Ep has minimum expectations of chapters, I don't see that they are being very clear to their chapters about what is expected. Is this problematic? (my perspective is based entirely on the quoted post above)

What other GLO's have implemented similar programs that identify areas that chapters must improve and succeed in to keep their charters? What kinds of standards do you have to meet? Do you think it's a good idea? Has the program been successful?

[33girl]

Minimum expectations can be very elastic. They are not as set in stone as they are made out to be.

[GeekyPenguin]

I know from personal experience that SigEp puts a lot of pressure on their brothers to recruit to a number they choose for each campus - the number they chose for my last campus is about twice the size that any fraternity on campus has ever been. Amazingly enough, I think they are going to do it - but those guys truly recruit their tooshes off year-round.

As for Gamma Phi, we have many minimum expectations, but again speaking from experience, our IO is very willing to work with chapters to help them meet these requirements, rather than just yanking a charter.

[Betarulz!]

I think it's pretty bunk that SigEp or any other General fraternity (International/headquarters or whatever other designation) just puts the chapter "on notice" of possible closure.

I think that there should be more done to actually help out the chapter if they aren't meeting expectations so much that people are considering closing the chapter. At least give them the tools to meet expectations. Perhaps this is how it is for SigEp, but it doesnt' come across like that from the post, or what GeekyPenguin mentioned about the SigEps on her campus.

I guess I just think that it's never a good thing for a chapter to close unless there are just irreversable problems like extreme hazing or rampant use of hard drugs. I would think that it would be easier to rebuild and repair a chapter keeping it open and reorganizing it than to shut it down completely.

Further I just don't think that it is encouraging of a fraternal bond to close a chapter without offering some assistance to the brothers in that chapter, or at least something more than being put "on notice."

Obviously there are going to be arguements about cutting 'dead weight' in order to advance, but in the end that's not really doing anything to improve the sitauation of the brothers (who apparently are the problem) losing their chapter...nor does it make them better SigEps or XYZ's.



(sorry to keep using SigEp as the example, just kept that going since the orignal post related to SigEp.)

[KuThetaChi]

Leaders of the Fraternity World... lol I think every Fraternity would probably say that. Keeping good recruitment is key to surviving, but at the same time at the point you are to quick to pull houses you are not being a brother (being there in the good times and the bad) Wouldn't they send a Regional advisor to help get things turned around before saying close?