Alums and alcohol in chapter houses

[lake]

Would love to hear what others think of this, especially the NPC ladies:

A woman I work with is an alumna of another NPC group, and she told me about an interesting situation her chapter dealt with recently.

A fellow alum from her chapter was a real "Super Alum". She helped implement a scholarship for the chapter in memory of another alum's young daughter (who died many years ago), and has a daughter of her own who she would bring to visit the chapter house for events like Homecoming while this girl was growing up. About 10 years ago (right before SA's daughter was about to enter college there), the chapter was struggling with membership numbers and was thisclose to losing their charter. Apparently Super Alum stepped in, organized a big fundraising effort among the other alums to keep the chapter afloat financially while they worked on improving their numbers, and ultimately ended up helping to save the chapter (it's apparently one of the top chapters at this school now).

The daughter ended up pledging her mother's chapter shortly after, won that GLO's prestigious annual named-after-their Founder(s) scholarship, and went on to have a happy experience with this GLO, following in dear old mom's footsteps.

Flash forward to last summer. Apparently this woman's daughter's new member class had a reunion in the chapter house. School was not in session, and there were no collegians there. Just the young(er) alum members from the daughter's era. For whatever reason, Super Alum was there too. On the last night of their reunion, they had a very nice meal and apparently without consulting anyone (like the Collegiate Advisor), SA served wine with the dinner - in the chapter house.

When the powers-that-be from that local chapter found out, I guess they gave SA a very stern scolding for breaking a pretty big rule. SA disagreed, the two sides went round and round, and ultimately SA played the "to hell with you guys" card and refuses to have anything more to do with this chapter.

Personally, I'm with the collegiate chapter advisors/staff - these no-alcohol (and other) policies are in place for very good reasons. But...at the same time, everyone was alum, no collegiates were present (underage or otherwise), no one got drunk and out of control (just a glass of wine with dinner), they're all adults, and on and on.

But then again...if you let this sort of thing slide, who's to say you won't later be up against excuses like "But I'm alum and school's not in session. I want my husband/boyfriend/fiance/guy I just met at the bar/<fill in the blank> to sleep here with me tonight." Situations like that that end up being a 'gray area' nightmare.

I just thought this was an interesting situation and am curious what everyone else thinks. Thoughts?

[Benzgirl]

Originally Posted by lake

Would love to hear what others think of this, especially the NPC ladies:


But then again...if you let this sort of thing slide, who's to say you won't later be up against excuses like "But I'm alum and school's not in session. I want my husband/boyfriend/fiance/guy I just met at the bar/<fill in the blank> to sleep here with me tonight." Situations like that that end up being a 'gray area' nightmare.

I just thought this was an interesting situation and am curious what everyone else thinks. Thoughts?

It's been a long time, but we had something set up if we needed alcohol for an event (i.e. Wine and Cheese on Parent's Weekend), we would go to the House Association for permission. As long as it was never a "party", it was approved.

Now, that was many years ago and liability laws have changed. When I think back, most of my sisters were not 21 but sipping wine. Even though they weren't drunk and in their parent's presence, we could have been liable. I'm no legal expert, but you could have someone like SA sign a waiver that she accepts all responsibility.

[CarolinaDG]

I never lived in a house, so I'm not sure why those rules are in place... our housing allowed alcohol as long as you were 21. (At least, I'm pretty sure that wasn't against DG rules... I turned 21 right before our chapter closed)

Anyway, I don't see the big deal as long as everyone present was 21, but yes they should have asked permission... unless of course they knew it was wrong and were trying to hide it, in which case, why's she so upset? It's her fault!

I guess my only thing is that if she only got a stern warning, why did she have to throw a fit? They didn't do anything to her, just asked that she abide by house rules!

[Titchou]

I can absolutely tell you that Delta Gamma's alcohol policy states there is to be no alcohol on ANY delta Gamma property - this means house, steps, parking lot, anything. Absolutely NO waivers are given for alum functions. They have been asked for and have been turned down. This is one policy for which waivers are never granted.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by CarolinaDG

I guess my only thing is that if she only got a stern warning, why did she have to throw a fit? They didn't do anything to her, just asked that she abide by house rules!

My thoughts exactly... a warning = SA's ego deflated. It sounds like SA thought she was the sh*t with her GLO because she "saved" a chapter and everyone should be so grateful for her self-sacrificing GLO spirit... who does HQ think they are making her follow pesky rules that she could probably even change if she really wanted to (some sarcasm, I hope, was detected).

Yeah, the spirit of the rule probably isn't violated since it was wine at an alum-only dinner... but shouldn't HQ be able to decide FIRST if this is a worthy exception before some SA (who is so involved in the sorority it is unlikely that she didn't know of the rule) decides that she has the authority to make the exception because of who she is?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by skylark

Yeah, the spirit of the rule probably isn't violated since it was wine at an alum-only dinner...

Exactly. No need to continue.

People get too much of a stick up their ass about alcohol rules. One (or two) glass(es) of wine for overage alums does not pose a Risk Management issue.

I hope they were wearing their pins/letters too...just for the full effect.

[lake]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I hope they were wearing their pins/letters too...just for the full effect.

I know it's wrong, but that scenario is friggin' funny.

[SWTXBelle]

Here's the deal -whether the rule is stupid or not, it is still a directive from Headquarters. The alumnae should have had their meal at a nice restaurant, or not had wine in the chapter house. What kind of message does it send to the collegians when a "super alum" flouts the rules? You are setting the stage for all KINDS of unnecessary conflicts. If SA loves her GLO, she should follow the rules. I suspect she once vowed to do just that. And if she really doesn't like the rule - change it. I suspect, based on my own experience, that it had more to do with her ego than anything else.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Exactly. No need to continue.

People get too much of a stick up their ass about alcohol rules. One (or two) glass(es) of wine for overage alums does not pose a Risk Management issue.

I hope they were wearing their pins/letters too...just for the full effect.

I'm with AF on this one. It was a glass of wine at dinner. Not a huge everyone-grab-your-own-bottle-and-let's-party-like-we-were-19-again event.

I'm not sure why SA got all crazy because it's not like they seriously reprimanded her.

As far as the overnight guest scenario goes, being an alum = being out of college = some sort of income = hotel room. There is no reason for an overage alum who is not in college, or the house mom, to be staying in a sorority house during the summer or at any time for that matter.

Anyway, if the chapter & housing corp. was serious about making sure nothing happened in the house while everyone was out, they would have made sure the house was locked and no one had access to it. Apparently something happened that allowed this group of women in unsupervised

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by skylark

My thoughts exactly... a warning = SA's ego deflated. It sounds like SA thought she was the sh*t with her GLO because she "saved" a chapter and everyone should be so grateful for her self-sacrificing GLO spirit

I agree 100%. Unless the scolding took place on the front lawn with the whole chapter watching, there was no need for the initial admonition to blow up into what it did and become a public matter.

Either SA has an inflated ego, as you suggest, or perhaps this was used as an excuse for an exit strategy. The older I get, the more people I run into who create an excuse to drop a committment rather than just quit. Very cowardly behavior.

As for the alcohol issue in general, I seem to have a view in the minority.

I am an advisor for my chapter and also an officer on the Housing Corporation. My GLO does not have a fraternity-wide dry house policy, nor is my chapter's house dry.

And yet, I do not drink at the fraternity house. I did have a beer once back when I first took on the advisor role, but since that time I have had nothing. Yes, I will drink and have a blast at off-site alumni events, but never at the house.

This is the price an advisor or alumnus in a key guidance role has to pay in my view. We are not due nor have we earned special rights- if anything we have to live by even stricter standards when on chapter property.

My fraternity has been at my alma mater for over 120 years and never shut down- we have the longest continuous existence of any fraternity here. Thus, we have an incredibly good Risk Management environment and the odds of something going wrong are very tiny.

But there is always that "what if" out there- and what if something happens when I am at the house and I am drinking and/or drunk?

Advisors and alumni who are actively involved in chapter support are there to provide guidance. But our most critical task is to "be there" on those extremely rare occasions when the unthinkable happens.

And you can't "be there" if you are drinking on site. It is not about following state laws or acting within IHQ guidelines- it is about being completely above reproach when at the house.

This is the small cost that goes along with the great personal reward of being of service to your chapter as an alumnus.

All offered IMHO.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by lake

When the powers-that-be from that local chapter found out, I guess they gave SA a very stern scolding for breaking a pretty big rule. SA disagreed, the two sides went round and round, and ultimately SA played the "to hell with you guys" card and refuses to have anything more to do with this chapter.

So, the question to me is, was a "very stern scolding" necessary and appropriate as oppossed to maybe a letter explaining the problem with some degree of diplomacy? This isn't an undergraduate being dressed down, but someone who had been important to the chapter and might have been again sometime in the future.

I'm not sure it's been established whether the rules were explained, given that the circumstances and situation were different from normal chapter/house operations. Perhaps and explaination and a mild rebuke might have been more in order.

For that matter, did anyone in the chapter or house corporation contact Nationals for guidance on whether this is really a problem given that it was an alumni function and all the participants were alumni and of drinking age? It doesn't appear that any law was broken and rules, even "big" ones can sometimes be relaxed in special circumstances.

I'm big on obeying the rules, but there is an exception to everything. In this case, it appears to me that the sorority has lost two potentially important alumni over an infraction that would prove pretty minor in the overall scope of things.

It seems possible to me that there was an over-reaction that may cost the chapter much more than it anticipated.

[Kevin]

Rules such as this should be enforced only with the organization's best interests at heart. It seems to methat keeping loyal and active alums sometimes supercedes rules -- especially when the breaking of htem does no harm.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

I'm big on obeying the rules, but there is an exception to everything. In this case, it appears to me that the sorority has lost two potentially important alumni over an infraction that would prove pretty minor in the overall scope of things.

It seems possible to me that there was an over-reaction that may cost the chapter much more than it anticipated.

Agreeing whole-heartedly with his whole post, but especially this part. As I said, a round of "I'm sorry, but we need to reprimand you as an example," and "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have" would have gone a long way towards keeping peace in the GLO.

[skylark]

I'm fine for having exceptions (so long as someone gets pre-approval rather than just "doing it"), but why should those exceptions only be available to alums (or even more limited, the super alums)? Doesn't that send a message of selective enforcement to the rest of alums and actives?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by skylark

I'm fine for having exceptions (so long as someone gets pre-approval rather than just "doing it"), but why should those exceptions only be available to alums (or even more limited, the super alums)? Doesn't that send a message of selective enforcement to the rest of alums and actives?

College students are old enough to get a taste of the "real world". In the "real world", money, power, influence, contributions, etc get you privileges and exceptions (even after the fact). No, it's not "fair" to the average Joe, but that's life. If she was doing something potentially harmful/dangerous to herself or others, I would feel differently. It's wine in small quantities. It's nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.