IU colony

[KEPike]

I love the idea of "commit to winning". Every Pike should put that over their door and slap it everytime they walk out of their room.

Firehouse, I believe the colony at IU was in the upper 50s - low 60s when colonized and had some problems recruiting. Likewise, they may have had people graduate or lose interest. The colony (now Chapter) at UT Arlington virtually turned its membership over twice over 17 months and I know the colony at Rogers State has had similar problems. I realize the campuses are different, but hopefully these groups are all consistently increasing the standards of who they bring in so that when chartered, all new Pike chapters will be viable, strong chapters for years to come.

A lot of people at a place like Indiana are legacies and have their mind made up long beforehand about where they want to go. Sometimes convincing them could be difficult. Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that we are rooting for the Indiana boys to come through in True Pike form!

[Firehouse]

I like your attitude, Brother. You honor the men of Rockhurst. Hope to see you at the convention in orlando in August.
UTA is a good site for a chapter, and we used to be decent there. I have no idea why we would ever establish at a school like Rogers. There's nothing for us there. Indiana University means major competition for a new chapter. Housing is a must, and aggressive action coupled with a strong vision and constant alumni guidance is absolutely necessary to achieve greatness. We have Pike chapters that have done this! For instance, look at the Clemson experience recently.
Remember, my friend, no chapter becomes good slowly. When a chapter begins to make a move it travels in one direction until it stops to take a breath. That's where it stays.
IU is a huge campus with lots of prospects. Frankly, if we're only 50 men now, I don't know if we can survive. I'm not sure I want to see a Pike chapter with only 50 men at IU.
Our competition doesn't care what we think, and they don't care what our problems are. If we fail it pleases them. At a school like IU, if we only have 50 men and fail, the top tier chapters won't even know that we had been there. We will never have even appeared on their radar screen.
All Pikes need to be supportive of these new colonies, and encourage them - expect them - to become top tier as quickly as possible.

[KEPike]

You bring up an interesting point: I think the expansion process does a good job of recruiting men based on the campus at the time that the consultants are there. This does two things, it sets up the colony with the sororities and it gives the colony a place in the middle tier of fraternities right off the bat. Even if they leave as the largest or whatever, there is still work to do.

Our best chapters that were colonized/recolonized recently who consistently win awards and are considered tops on their campuses (i.e. FSU, Va Tech, Nebraska, Wisconsin-Whitewater, etc.) have some commonalities. First, they all met the requirements for chartering in a very short amount of time (all usually within a year or shortly thereafter). And more importantly like Firehouse said, they didn't take a breath once chartered. That upward mobility that is so great with a colony was not reached until several years later (or it is still going). And this is not to say that those groups that take longer to charter will not be successful, but it would be interesting to study time to chartering as it correlates to being a top chapter.

I've tried to instill this idea in the new chapter at UT Arlington. I've told them chartering is "step 2 of 10". Things like housing, winning campus awards, winning international awards, consistently being the best are what is to come. This is a daunting thought for a college-aged guy, especially those who put a lot of time and effort into getting the group chartered. Nevertheless, the collective actions of future generations of Pikes is what will take all of us to that next level.

[Firehouse]

Your comments and perspective are very impressive, KE. Makes me glad you're on the Pike team. You make a great point about colony incubation time that I'd never considered. I know that the Florida Sate colony made a big point of working toward becoming chartered within a year. Interesting too: Clemson, Virginia Tech, FSU, Florida all had great chapters previous to losing their charters, and were successful in coming back to their previous status. IU had some good years but was never top tier. Can't read too much into it becasue our chapter at Southern Cal is better now than it ever has been, likewise with Michigan, and both were the result of successful colonizations after runs of poor performance.
Good luck to you at UTA! Is a guy named Pancho Sutherland still involved?

[KEPike]

No, Pancho is no longer involved. The majority of our alumni advising has come from myself, Rick Jenkins, his father Dr. Ray Jenkins, and former consultant Blake Monroe, plus a number of others. I am fortunate to have such a strong Alumni Advisory Board and Regional President to help supplement my first term as a Chapter Advisor. Check out http://www.utapikes.org/ for some more information on the new chapter.

Firehouse, you and I talked some time ago about the template for success at Delta Lambda. This is an idea and methodology that I have tried to implement both in my workings at my home chapter and in my advising at UTA. I will definitely seek you out in Orlando to offer my thanks. To everyone else who wants to hear some insights into how the FSU Pikes are so successful, be sure to PM Firehouse.

[FratAmerica]

Excellent remarks about some of the challenges facing expansion and maintaining momentum. I suggest that there are three essential ingredients to success for new groups: 1) the right men - there is no replacing a lack of vision, leadership and horsepower, 2) alumni involvement - and by this I mean the right alumni (sadly, I estimate that the number of chapters that have truly qualified mentors could be counted on our hands) and, 3) annual goal setting and strategic planning.

In regards to #3, the Fraternity has made some progress of late with the "Cornerstones" program, new consultant reports and reformated awards. Note that it is based on the "continous improvement" paradigm. Now, chapter operations, consultant evaluations and MHQ awards are all aligned - and chapters have a format to use for strategizing and setting goals. I wish more chapters would take the time to really do a comprehensive annual strategic planning retreat - and that's where alumni mentors can make a real difference.

In terms of expasion locations, my thoughts are mixed. First, I'm not convinced that we need to necessarily have a perpetual presence at a campus once we expand. For example, let's say we find a smaller "non-name-brand" campus with a bunch of Eagle Scouts and great local alumni (a la Whitewater). Normally, we might not look at those places because our long-term prospects aren't traditionally good, but if we can get a good 5-10 run out of it - meaning we initiate top quality men and create loyal alumni, why not? The bigger challenge, I believe, is making the decisions on when to close a chapter.

Second, I think it is largely a falacy to think that if we don't expand to campus "X" we can take those resources and improve campus "Y". I'm aware of many "re-development" attempts at good campus, where trying to polish the terd is like throwing good money at bad. So, sometimes if we do expand to a "second tier" campus, that still might be a better investment than trying to bail out a place like (fill in the blank, you know what I'm thinking).

Third, I believe that it's time to really reconsider our process and goals vis a vis expansion. Has anyone noticed that Kappa Sigma has created something like 40 colonies in the past 2 years? How about Sig Ep's rise from middle-tier to #1 in the past 10 years? In terms of growth, when you really look at it, we've been stagnant for 15+ years. I'm worried that Pike has the same 'ole expansion process and recruiting tactics. Now, they are time tested and they have proven their value - but let's not also let the "we've always done it that way" take us to the bottom. We should throw it all up in the air, evaluate it, and let the junk fall to the floor. (Again, alumni are a huge part of this - and we simply ain't got enough good ones involved.) Also, have we ever evaluated just what percentage of our expenses goes toward growth? How much wood are we putting on this most important fire?!

[KEPike]

Completely agree with you. Here are a few more thoughts:

The Cornerstones are a definite step in the right direction. It is very important to be able to baseline a chapter's performance against these cornerstones and provide real, viable solutions for improvement. However, the Cornerstones need to be tempered with the True Pike Lifestyle. Many times, 18-22 year olds do not see the need to focus on things like "accountability", "continuing education", or see the need for participating in the "International Fraternity" as the Cornerstones stipulate. However, the True Pike Statement serves as the foundation on which these Cornerstones are based. The True Pike provides a framework for chapters to operate in. In fact, it would be good practice for each chapter to have new members (and old alike) agree to and sign the True Pike just as they sign the Standards.

It is by far a better choice to close up shop at a campus where there are problems and return in 3-5 years (or whenever) with a renewed sense of purpose. As we all know, whatever problems a chapter has, they can all be solved through a calculated and precise recruitment plan. Chapters with behavioral problems (hazing, alcohol abuse, fighting, lack of programming, etc.) simply aren't recruiting the right guys. I will content that on any campus, whether it has 5,000 or 50,000 students, there are enough good men to fill out a strong Pike chapter.

What is everyone's though about the standards that MHQ has put forth regarding awards: 50 men to be considered for an Excellence Award and 65 for a Smythe? My feelings are mixed. I like the idea in principle but down the road those who have a bad recruitment year might take the wrong type of guys to meet these numbers. The long-term effects could be bad, although again I believe these need to be weighed against things such as the Pike Recruitment Philosophy. For most chapters, simply tapping the source of the kind men they want to recruit will lead to great successes...unfortunately, many still recruit what shows up.

[FratAmerica]

I actually thought that the Cornerstones were supposed to have been an "outgrowth" of the vision, creed and mission and True Pike. To me, they seem very consistent. I agree that in terms of explaining them - and adding credibility to their use - it will be important to continually reinforce how they are linked to the Fraternity's values.

Agreed on your campus/chapter commentary. Close and return is almost always better than throwing good resources after bad. The biggest barrier to that, though, can be housing. Too many house corporations are focused on keeping the house afloat and don't support such measures. Also, there are frequently ridiculous university requirements for "getting in line" once you leave campus - or, if the house is on university land, there are sticky lease requirements that may allow a university to seize the property if the charter is suspended. So, while the theory is sound, in practice it can be tricky.

I like the new awards standards for a couple of reasons. First, they are more black and white - they give chapters a clearer picture of what exactly they have to do to win. Second, they reinforce that the awards are for the best of IIKA, not just the best on a particular campus - thereby raising the bar. I don't worry about chapters taking lower quality to reach the award levels. There is a disincentive in the awards for doing so anyway - lower quality members won't produce the results required for awards anyway.

We're heading in the right direction. Give us 200 more chapter advisors of those in the mold of UT and FSU - and UTA it appears - and we'll take over the world!

[Firehouse]

FratAmerica and KEPike, both of you make me feel proud, and confident that our Fraternity is in good hands. Obviously both of you have intimate knowledge of Memphis' contemporary operations, and I assume you're both volunteer officers within the Fraternity.

Thank you for the kind comments about the FSU cahpter advisor. I'll pass that along to him; he's a friend of mine.

Couple of comments..
FratAmerica, you're right about the political difficulties in getting back on once we leave. However, I think we can get around that by cleaning house down to zero, but not actually giving up our standing as an active chapter. It would require the presence of consultants for months, but it can be done. You never actually step out of line, as it were. So often bad chapters don't have a reputation to live down; they don't have any reputation at all. The trick is to make sure the current members don't have anything to do with the new group.

KEPike, you asked for an opinion about the 50-65-man rule for awards. I wasn't aware of it but I don't object to it. The greater problem is not that a chapter will inflate its numbers to qualify. The greater danger is that chapters will allow their numbers to drop. Having too many men is a problem easier solved than having too few. Just about anyone can grow large by admitting anyone who wants to join. However, a fraternity cannot sustain size unless the members want to be there and see a value in membership.

[FratAmerica]

Firehouse,

Thanks for the comments. Again, we are on the same page philosophically.

I appreciate and support your problem-solving on the political realities of closing chapters. My belief, though, is that while that concepts makes sense to us - I'd bet the house that most of our Neo-Fascist friends in student affairs wouldn't see it the same way. Also, it would have to be a case-by-case basis. For bad chapters, my experience is that there is bad reputation, low reputation and no reputation - and that they are generally equally distributed. For "bad" and "low" - we're better off closing and returning under the right circumstances.

By the way, I have "above-average" knowledge of Memphis' operations but am not an officer. (I do volunteer.) I am supportive of most of what Memphis recommends, but I am also of the firm belief that our best practices and ideas come from our chapters. PiKA does best when our ideas come from the frontlines.

I am well aware of what you, Firehouse, have contributed to PiKA over the years. I believe that the names Heller, "Firehouse", Handler and Knaus are four of the most important in our history. For that, I say thank you.

[Firehouse]

You're very kind. I'm looking forward to seeing you at the Convention.