Alums and alcohol in chapter houses

[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.

[honeychile]

Our local "Super Alum" and I had a discussion about alcohol. She & her husband have a very active social life, and occasionally, she goes from someone's party to the chapter. She was wondering if she was wrong having even a glass of wine at the party, prior to going to the Suite. We decided that telling the chapter that she had come from a previous engagement which included wine with dinner was the best way to go.

As innocent as this reunion seems to have been, there seems to have been a lot of over-reaction on both sides. SA & her daughter knew better, and the GLO was right - but in defense of both sides, they ALL should remember to "pick their battles". A politely worded "of course, you know better" from the GLO and a politely worded, "I'm sorry, it will never happen again" would have saved a lot of angst in this case.

[Tom Earp]

What a shame all of this gets so over the top.

When I used to visit the house, I always stayed there with the guys.

Some other people seem to have a (THE) stick up somewhere.

[UGAalum94]

No one should violate GLO policies, alum or otherwise. But GLO policies need to be communicated to alum members particularly if they might have changed since the alum was active.

That said, I can just as easily imagine that the correcting of SuperAlum was regarded as an opportunity to take her down a peg as I can imagine it was tactfully handled but SuperAlum overreacted in return. Since none of us were actually there, it seems unlikely that we'll ever know.

But I will say this, although I don't really think that anyone should be visibly intoxicated at even event*, I don't think that groups need to be weirdly Puritanical about their alcohol policies.

For liability reasons, a blanket policy about serving and consuming alcohol on the groups' property makes compete sense to me. Feeling obligated to abstain from drinking or explain your drinking because you anticipated going on the property later seems a little odd to me for members or alums over the age of 21.

*honestly, yes, even undergraduate members over 21 probably shouldn't be visibly liquored up at formals or whatever. But I understand that reality falls short of the ideal.

[DeltAlum]

A couple of questions occur to me.

Honestly, how many sorority houses are totally "dry?" Meaning nobody has a little bottle of something hidden in her room.

Is the national dry rule for the house (physical house) or the chapter(s)?

Does Nationals own the house, or the House Corporation?

If it's the House Corp, if there are no undergraduates present, is it still a sorority house? (Air Force One is not designated that if the President isn't on board.)

In the overall state of things (fair or not) some people are "more equal" than others. (Thank's, I think, to Mr. Orwell)

So, in the final analasys, is it worth losing a fairly influential alum for what would appear to be a very trivial thing?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

[Titchou]

Because all NPC groups purchase their insurance from the same source - MJ Insurance - I can tell you that all NPC groups have a rule about no alcohol in the house. It is a condition of our coverege. Now, we all know that rules are broken all the time. But the rule is there.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

A couple of questions occur to me.

Honestly, how many sorority houses are totally "dry?" Meaning nobody has a little bottle of something hidden in her room.

Is the national dry rule for the house (physical house) or the chapter(s)?

Does Nationals own the house, or the House Corporation?

If it's the House Corp, if there are no undergraduates present, is it still a sorority house? (Air Force One is not designated that if the President isn't on board.)

In the overall state of things (fair or not) some people are "more equal" than others. (Thank's, I think, to Mr. Orwell)

So, in the final analasys, is it worth losing a fairly influential alum for what would appear to be a very trivial thing?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

I've been in some of the sorority houses down here often........and I have never seen even a hint of alcohol. Same with some other schools as well.

[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