Indiana University Tri Delta Closed

[PhilTau]

Disagreeing with me is okay. But I must point out that your disagreement is based on speculation about the facts behind the chapter's termination. The article contains only innuendo. Generally, all the national organization must to do is establish that it acted in good faith and in accordance with its governing documents and contractual agreements with the chapter and chapter members, if any. Of course I could be completely wrong because this is pure speculation by me since I don't know the state where the national organization is incorporated,or knowledge of any of the underlying facts or the organization's governing documents or agreements.

The girls in this chapter may legally be adults but I would never expect 18 to 22 year-olds to know how to effectively assert their rights or even know what those right are. And there is nothing wrong in getting help from their parents. People in the 40s get help from their parents all the time. Oh - and nothing in this post should in any way be construed as legal opinion or legal advice.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by PhilTau

Disagreeing with me is okay. But I must point out that your disagreement is based on speculation about the facts behind the chapter's termination. The article contains only innuendo. Generally, all the national organization must to do is establish that it acted in good faith and in accordance with its governing documents and contractual agreements with the chapter and chapter members, if any. Of course I could be completely wrong because this is pure speculation by me since I don't know the state where the national organization is incorporated,or knowledge of any of the underlying facts or the organization's governing documents or agreements.

The girls in this chapter may legally be adults but I would never expect 18 to 22 year-olds to know how to effectively assert their rights or even know what those right are. And there is nothing wrong in getting help from their parents. People in the 40s get help from their parents all the time. Oh - and nothing in this post should in any way be construed as legal opinion or legal advice.

If you're talking to me, you need to re-read what I wrote. My disagreement with you is not based on speculation about the facts which led to the revocation of the charter. AAMOF I didn't say anything at all about what the reason for the charter revocation was. Read my remarks again, carefully. I didn't reference the article, either. And you yourself are speculating, which is somewhat annoying, given the context of your post. It almost seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You know?

Let me simplify what I said:

1) parents don't have rights in this situation.
2) chapter business is internal.
3) 18 is the age of majority and you can look up the legal definition of same.

At 18 I was more than capable of asserting my rights, and I knew what they were. You underestimate this generation. As for the people in their 40s comment, I really don't have anything to say to you about that.

If you're talking to Kevin as well, he's more than capable of responding to you, if he so chooses. I don't think anything you say resembles legal opinion or legal advice, but thanks for the disclaimer.

PS it's grammAr, not grammEr.

[PhilTau]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

If you're talking to me, you need to re-read what I wrote. My disagreement with you is not based on speculation about the facts which led to the revocation of the charter. AAMOF I didn't say anything at all about what the reason for the charter revocation was. Read my remarks again, carefully. I didn't reference the article, either. And you yourself are speculating, which is somewhat annoying, given the context of your post. It almost seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You know?

Let me simplify what I said:

1) parents don't have rights in this situation.
2) chapter business is internal.
3) 18 is the age of majority and you can look up the legal definition of same.

At 18 I was more than capable of asserting my rights, and I knew what they were. You underestimate this generation. As for the people in their 40s comment, I really don't have anything to say to you about that.

The discussion is not about you or your capabilities. Chapter business is indeed internal until the courts get involved, then it's public. Age of majority is irrelevant. Kids have rights in these situation and they generally do not know what they are. Parents are acting as agents of their kids in situations like this. Oh yeah, if parents weren't footing the bill, virtually no Greek group could survive.

[glittergal1985]

I feel really badly for the new members here. They probably weren't aware that they were signing a bid to a group on the verge of being shut down. I guess it's good that they weren't initiated yet, but do they stand a reasonable chance of being able to join another group?

[33girl]

As far as the NMs not knowing - IU is a deferred rush school. They had a semester to get to know what was what. The fact that Tri Delt was on probation was definitely not secret.

As far as their chances to join another group, that probably depends a lot on their previous conduct and connections they have made at IU. It also depends on how much they have bonded as a pledge class unit (i. e. if they all want to go somewhere else as a group).

[chi-o_cat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

As far as the NMs not knowing - IU is a deferred rush school. They had a semester to get to know what was what. The fact that Tri Delt was on probation was definitely not secret.

It’s sort of a Catch-22, though. Aren’t people here constantly advising PNMs not to listen to tent talk/gossip/rumors? And one of the examples commonly given of such a rumor not to listen to is “Don’t join XYZ, they’re about to get shut down.” So, if IU PNMs had heard this about Tri-Delta, how were they supposed to know whether this was a true statement, or just part of the sorority gossip mill?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by chi-o_cat

It’s sort of a Catch-22, though. Aren’t people here constantly advising PNMs not to listen to tent talk/gossip/rumors? And one of the examples commonly given of such a rumor not to listen to is “Don’t join XYZ, they’re about to get shut down.” So, if IU PNMs had heard this about Tri-Delta, how were they supposed to know whether this was a true statement, or just part of the sorority gossip mill?

Those kinds of rumors usually have to deal with a smaller chapter that it's believed will be shut down for lack of members. From what I gather, it's pretty common knowledge at IU who is on probation or other sorts of discipline. If I heard from every third person that XYZ was on probation, I'd probably believe it. However, if I liked them enough, that probably wouldn't matter to me. When I rushed, one of the chapters had a fairly nasty hazing reputation. That isn't the main reason I cut them though, I cut them because they were rude. If I would've walked into the party and felt like I'd found my home, I wouldn't have cared about the rumors, no matter how prevalent they were.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by PhilTau

The discussion is not about you or your capabilities. Chapter business is indeed internal until the courts get involved, then it's public. Age of majority is irrelevant. Kids have rights in these situation and they generally do not know what they are. Parents are acting as agents of their kids in situations like this. Oh yeah, if parents weren't footing the bill, virtually no Greek group could survive.

No, you're still wrong. Do some research. My words are falling on deaf ears. I know why.

Have a nice day.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by PhilTau

The discussion is not about you or your capabilities. Chapter business is indeed internal until the courts get involved, then it's public. Age of majority is irrelevant. Kids have rights in these situation and they generally do not know what they are. Parents are acting as agents of their kids in situations like this. Oh yeah, if parents weren't footing the bill, virtually no Greek group could survive.

What's your legal theory as to how this case could ever go to court, counselor?

Do you think an organization such as Tri Delt is going to write its own bylaws in such a manner as to create an express or implied contract guaranteeing members the right to remain active members until they finish college regardless of what Headquarter's decision is regarding the chapter's charter?

That sort of speculation would assume, of course, that Tri Delt's governing board likes being sued and that they should probably all be fired.

[Katmandu]

I guarantee that all of the members of Indiana Tri Delta know exactly the reasons, and they are not telling Mama because they don't want Mama to know. It's easier to say, "They are being mean" or "we are in trouble but they won't tell us why" than to come clean. No chapter is getting shut down over one small infraction or because one person did something. Thriving chapters (i.e., those not shut for numbers and finances) get shut because of pervasive and systemic problems that the actives choose to "un-address" over time. They were on probation for a reason. They continued to do whatever it was that got them on national probation, and now they are gone. To think that Tri Delta Nationals would shut any chapter, much less a large chapter on a large Greek campus with a huge house over a whim is ludicrous.

I used to be a chapter advisor, and believe me, when they messed up, they knew exactly why. Because we told them, just in case they forgot.

[PhilTau]

In reply to Kevin above:

1) Of course there is no guarantee of continued existence at a particular school while the member is attending.

2) I am sure that Tri Delt is managed competently. So any speculation below is general discussion and of course not directed at them or intended to imply in any way that they did not act properly.

3) There are not enough known facts to determine (or even speculate) whether there is a grounded cause of action that can be successfully maintained.

Without reference to any particular organization or fact pattern, I can nevertheless state that there is usually something that can be alleged in pleading that is actionable. Proving the case is an entirely different matter. For starters, nonprofit corporations are treated different from for profit corporations - assuming that the organization is incorporated. (Though unlikely, there may still be some organizations that are still unincorporated associations.) Anyway, depending on where the nonprofit corporation was incorporated, members likely have statutory rights.

A typical court case against a nonprofit would likely start with a demand by a member to inspect books and records coupled with a pre-suit deposition/discovery action to investigate a potential claim. The following Texas statute governing nonprofit corporations is typical: "A member of a corporation, on written demand stating the purpose of the demand, is entitled to examine and copy at the member's expense, in person or by agent, accountant, or attorney, at any reasonable time and for a proper purpose, the books and records of the corporation relevant to that purpose." Texas also has has provisions for pre-suit depositions so that a potential plaintiff can discover facts before actually filing suit. Many other states have similar provisions.

Essentially, what a potential plaintiff would be looking for in pre-suit discovery is for any act that would support a legal theory based on expressed or implied contract (or promise) or any act of bad faith. Examples would be a promise (you do this and we will do that) that was broken or was made in bad faith; a promise/contract/condition made with a significant contributor not being kept. That kind of stuff.

4) Again - we do not know what went on in the particular Tri Delt case discussed above. I do agree that it is likely that the members know exactly why their chapter was closed and, unless proven otherwise, that Tri Delt management most likely acted properly.