Barking up the wrong tree

[James]

You are not going to change the culture of this country away from drinking any time soon.

Greeks are going to be continued to be singled out by universities as problems because when Greeks are punished it makes the school look tough on alcohol as well as taking attention away from the rest of the student population.

New general policies are not going to help you. The policies already in place are more than adequate, just unenforced. It is ilegal to drink underage. It is against university policy to drink undeage. It is against fraternal policy to serve those underage.

If we keep trying to bring administrative censure to a social situation we are going to fail as we have been failing all these past years.

Plus its an impossible argument to win, it just become circular.

But we can try and protect our groups from liability.

To do this we need to face up to some of our tendencies.

Problem One: is that we almost always develop policies "in House".

We form focus groups of volunteer alums and some undergraduates to examine serious problems such as liability.

What does that really mean? We take from a limited population, our general membership, then draw from even a smaller population, our alumni volunteers, and often ask them to come up with programs and policies that cover sophisticated issues that often require specialty knowledge.

Solution 1: Hiring Risk Analysis Experts to help with out policies.

[James]

Problem 2: Houses

Having anything in a chapter house is going to be considered a Fraternity Event and open up issues of liability. Especially when its the Chapter that rents/owns the house through the Housing Corporation.

Chapter events that are planned are one thing, but one of the biggest killers are the members and friends that just kind of "hang at the house" in unofficial parties. Large chapters can have a LOT of members hanging out.

Possible solutions:

Only put the lease in individual members names. That way the chapter doesn't have to be liable for every little thing that happens. The chapter can also rent the premises for events.

Move everyone out of chapter houses and ONLY use them for social events.

[James]

Problem 3: What actually constitutes a Chapter event?

This varies from organization to organization and from school to school. I have heard it placed at as little as 3-5 members being present.

5 members! The way these policies are written if 5 members break a law or rule, it opens the chapter and therefore the National up to liability.

And what is worse is that this is a National Policy for some organisations. So by trying to exert more control the organization is actually opening itself to more liability.

Possible solution:

This ties back to point one, but there is a probably a legal option that seperates the antics of several fraternity members from the chapter and the actions of a single chapter from the National Organization.

[DeltAlum]

For the sake of argument:

How about third party vendors to help reduce liability?

I absolutely agree that nothing we do will change the national or college culture. Never has, probably never will.

I certainly would be willing to try your solutions. I don't have an better ideas.

I think that it might help to lower the drinking age for beer back to 18. But I don't think it will happen. And it does open up a myriad of other potential problems.

Defining what is a chapter event gets almost as silly as some definitions of hazing -- I've heard as few as two members being considered a "chapter event." That's unbelievable. So what can be done?

I humbly admit to not having all (or maybe any) of the answers. Except to obey the rules -- fair or not.

Or figure out how to get them changed.

[James]

Third Party vendors definitely, and that would be a chapter event . . . although I do recall a chapter, it may have been kappa Sig, that had third party vendors and a licensed (sp) security company present and was still sued . . . lol.

But yeah its the haning out that kills chapters more than anything else, because chapter members are usually friends also. Especially if they are hanging out on Chapter Property.

Originally posted by DeltAlum
For the sake of argument:

How about third party vendors to help reduce liability?

[DeltAlum]

James,

Who sues whom for what is totally out of control. I'm sure your memory about a suit involving a fraternity and a third party vendor is correct. The climate seems to be, "let's throw mud at everyone and see who it sticks to."

We will never eliminate liability problems, but must try to minimize them. Perhaps your solutions will help some.

"Hanging out" certainly is a part of the problem. A lot of damage is caused by, and a lot of injuries happen to non-members on our properties.

So, do we make all houses substance free and not allow anybody in except members? I don't think either will work -- but I can see how many organizations will grasp at those straws.

In my mind it still comes back to taking responsibility on the chapter level to "do the right things."

[DeltaBetaBaby]

On my campus, something is an event if it meets two of the following four requirements:

1. More than one chapter present
2. Alcohol present
3. More than 1/3 of any chapter present
4. Guests exceeding a number equal to 1/3 of the chapter

So if my brother and I go have dinner, and he orders a glass of wine, it is now a social event. Both my sorority and his fraternity could be busted for not registering a social event. Of course, this is absurd, but I have explained this to our Greek advisor more than once, and gotten nowhere.

[James]

ITs like a type of loitering/vagrancy law, its designed to give the admnistration in question a legal/written way of taking action for a large category of events. Its meant to be enforced differentially, but it also allows a loophole to nail people. Like getting a Capone for tax evasion.

Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
On my campus, something is an event if it meets two of the following four requirements:

1. More than one chapter present
2. Alcohol present
3. More than 1/3 of any chapter present
4. Guests exceeding a number equal to 1/3 of the chapter

So if my brother and I go have dinner, and he orders a glass of wine, it is now a social event. Both my sorority and his fraternity could be busted for not registering a social event. Of course, this is absurd, but I have explained this to our Greek advisor more than once, and gotten nowhere.

[James]

ITs not so much making houses substance free, its a matter of limiting liability!

For example: If I, James, invite a bunch of my friends (even a few hundred) to my house(in my name) for a party, and for some unfortunate reason a lot of my friends are in the same fraternity, it seems to be considered a Fraternity Event. Assuming something goes wrong, or some administrators get wind of it. It may certainly be considered a Fraternity Event by the National resulting in a loss of charter, andprobably also will be by the administration of the University. Legally it may or not be depending on how good the lawyers involved are. This is even though that the entitiy I belong to gave me no funds, never discussed the party in a business meeting, and provided no support.

Now, if I get off work from say, Xerox, and throw a party at my house where couple hundred Xerox employees, show up and go to town, and lets say there are so many Xerox employees waring Xerox t-shirts that non-employees think its a xerox party . . . and something awful happens like underage drinking an injury etc, guess what, Xerox is not going to be legally liable.


But if Xerox were silly enough to make rules that said whereever 5 Xerox employees stand together, they are conducting official Xerox business, then that would open them up to litigation.

Which leads to Problem number 4 . . .

Originally posted by DeltAlum
James,

Who sues whom for what is totally out of control. I'm sure your memory about a suit involving a fraternity and a third party vendor is correct. The climate seems to be, "let's throw mud at everyone and see who it sticks to."

We will never eliminate liability problems, but must try to minimize them. Perhaps your solutions will help some.

"Hanging out" certainly is a part of the problem. A lot of damage is caused by, and a lot of injuries happen to non-members on our properties.

So, do we make all houses substance free and not allow anybody in except members? I don't think either will work -- but I can see how many organizations will grasp at those straws.

In my mind it still comes back to taking responsibility on the chapter level to "do the right things."

[Kapsig1]

Brother James et al,

There are some good thoughts on what I consider to be the single largest threat to greek life as we know it.

Some of my own thoughts:

"Problem/Solution 1: Hiring Risk Analysis Experts to help with out policies."
I have just returned from a meeting as the chair of Kappa Sigma'a ad-hoc RM committee. We did indeed bring in a Risk Management expert; greek specific actually. In speaking with external Risk Management Experts, few of them are even willing to talk to us becuase their experience is so limited. But, we should keep trying.

"Problem/Solution 2: Houses: Only put the lease in individual members names. That way the chapter doesn't have to be liable for every little thing that happens. The chapter can also rent the premises for events. " This may indeed reduce risk for the "chapter" as a named defendant; however, it does NOTHING to reduce the exposure for the general fraternity and/or the house corporation. REALITY: the individuals responsible will almost always be named, and the deep pockets (insurance) of the general fraternity will always be named. The HOUSE is NOT the issue, houses don't kill people, poor planning and poor controls do.

NOW - that being said; there is CERTAINLY room for improvement in the relationship between HC's and the chapter membership. Members and guests falling from roof tops, being burned as they burn trash on the property, etc is COMPLETELY preventable...and it ultimately boils down to the relationship between the local HC and the chapter.

"Problem/solution 3:
This ties back to point one, but there is a probably a legal option that seperates the antics of several fraternity members from the chapter and the actions of a single chapter from the National Organization"

The reality is that there is a TON of case law (more every day) that is decreasing this number into the range that James lines out. The fact is that judges and juries make the determination of how many members it takes to make a chapter event. So we better either deal with that; i.e, define it the same way) or face the climbing costs of insurance and settlements associated with those "functions." James is right about the "spontaneous gatherings" of members and guests that are an increasing peoce of the risk managment challenge.

I would argue it goes beyond the chapter "doing the right thing" and drill it down to each member and guest doing the right thing. Unfortunately, we often find that some members have different ideas of right and wrong!

I have seen and heard ug's and alums alike proclaim that there was nothing wrong with:

- Hanging out on the roof of a house (stupid)
- Burning trash at the house (stupid)
- Physically beating someone with a broomstick (illegal)
- hanging a pledge by his underwear (until he loses a testicle)
- serving underage members and guests at a party (illegal)
- asking a pledge class to slam a fifth of licqor each (illegal)


"But we can try and protect our groups from liability. "

While accurate, I believe this ignores the RESPONSIBILITY we have to one another (within the context of our oaths) to protect each other, our guests and our beloved Orders from harm. The losses are mere symptoms. And that boils down to behavior. While some suggest that we will never succeed in altering behavior; I have experiential evidence to the contrary. But it doesn't just happen. It takes a heck of a lot of work, consistency and meaningful discussion.

I agree that this is not a policy challenge; but it requires some policy adjustment. This is a battle of minds and hearts....with lives hanging in the balance...as well as our organizations.

I CERTAINLY appreciate the discussion and mostly the suggested solutions; however, let us not ignore the behaviors that create the liability.

Brad