NALFO Orgs. Changing Focus

[Monarca7]

I can see what you mean. However, if those people are interested in another NALFO org why would NALFO want to prevent that. It would likely have objections from the organization/s attempting to colonize. Also it's unlikely that if a group is interested in another organization, will pledge a dead chapter just due to not being able to pledge an organization they were actually interested in. And if they did do mind you they will always have in there head that they wanted to b a part of something different and this was there 2nd or 3rd choice.

[LatinaAlumna]

Originally Posted by Monarca7

I can see what you mean. However, if those people are interested in another NALFO org why would NALFO want to prevent that. It would likely have objections from the organization/s attempting to colonize. Also it's unlikely that if a group is interested in another organization, will pledge a dead chapter just due to not being able to pledge an organization they were actually interested in. And if they did do mind you they will always have in there head that they wanted to b a part of something different and this was there 2nd or 3rd choice.

You're right--NALFO would not want to prevent the opening of a new chapter, which is why the requirement is in place now. At the same time, the board should know that by requiring its member orgs to be so inclusive, there are going to be campuses with multiple sororities/fraternities competing for an already small pool of potential applicants. If NALFO is going to support expansion of new chapters, it should also do something to support retention of existing chapters. There was a reason that NALFO chapters were not voting in new members locally--because it would pull away from their own efforts to keep their chapters going with new members. Since NALFO decided to involve itself and create a requirement, it should have addressed both sides of the coin.

[Monarca7]

Originally Posted by LatinaAlumna

You're right--NALFO would not want to prevent the opening of a new chapter, which is why the requirement is in place now. At the same time, the board should know that by requiring its member orgs to be so inclusive, there are going to be campuses with multiple sororities/fraternities competing for an already small pool of potential applicants. If NALFO is going to support expansion of new chapters, it should also do something to support retention of existing chapters. There was a reason that NALFO chapters were not voting in new members locally--because it would pull away from their own efforts to keep their chapters going with new members. Since NALFO decided to involve itself and create a requirement, it should have addressed both sides of the coin.

I see what you mean. What would that requirement look like ? A waiting period for new chapters? Interest have to attend interest meetings for the defunct organization? Defunct organization must be allowed to participate in "Meet the greeks" type functions? Just some ideas. I doubt the "vote in" requirement is going to go because at a national level this is viewed as positive by most of the NALFO orgs because they can easily see them selves on the expansion level and less on the retention level.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Monarca7

I see what you mean. What would that requirement look like ? A waiting period for new chapters? Interest have to attend interest meetings for the defunct organization? Defunct organization must be allowed to participate in "Meet the greeks" type functions?

It would be interesting to see how campuses would react to increased intervention by a national council. As it is, campus administrators tend to do things their own way, which usually means following an established process and the process will vary drastically from campus to campus.