Trusting the system when there is bad situation

[Titchou]

I think it's conflicting because one is in the UA section and the other refers to the UA section (out to the side). They need to clean it up is the point I'm trying to make - thank you so very much!

[Hartofsec]

It does not appear to be conflicting -- you can view the current (2013) MOI here (see page 31, #12):

greeks.appstate.edu/filecabinet/277

(copy/paste into address bar, then open)

[Titchou]

I have that version. That section says they are released to pledge other groups. The section I quoted says they aren't. I think that can be confusing. It should be clarified.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by Titchou

I have that version. That section says they are released to pledge other groups. The section I quoted says they aren't. I think that can be confusing. It should be clarified.

My interpretation is that #12 is the clarification. Like KSUViolet and pbear explained.

[MaryPoppins]

This is what lawyers refer to as "the exception eats the rule."

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by MaryPoppins

This is what lawyers refer to as "the exception eats the rule."

True! And I would imagine the campus PH could enforce either rule as they might want. And then let whomever feels the opposite get wiith the NPC area adviser and their own national to try to force a different outcome.

[AOII Angel]

I don't see any CPC refusing to let a group of NMs repledge should their chapter close. It is a special circumstance. The UA about depledging is to prevent poaching of NMs. That has nothing to do with a closed chapter which hurts the NMs at no fault of theirs.

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I don't see any CPC refusing to let a group of NMs repledge should their chapter close. It is a special circumstance. The UA about depledging is to prevent poaching of NMs. That has nothing to do with a closed chapter which hurts the NMs at no fault of theirs.

I don't either - but one never knows.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Titchou

I don't either - but one never knows.

Exactly. As I stated in the other thread where we were talking about this (where I pretty much came to the same conclusion as Titchou did) this "primary recruitment period" stuff that seems to be relatively new in the MOI can bite me hard.

You also have to consider the possibility of a mixed locals/NPCs campus where the locals rush at the same time as NPCs. Imagine if an NPC chapter closes and the local groups dig that particular rule up. They would say (and rightly so) "well, the way this reads, we can take these girls whenever we want, but the NPCs can't." Then NPC screwed itself out of members.

For as long as I can remember, the rule has been that if a woman 1) transfers or 2) the chapter she's pledging closes before she's initiated, she's eligible to pledge elsewhere IMMEDIATELY. Even if it's in the middle of the semester, even if it's over holidays. This is really the fairest thing to do since neither of these things are the woman's fault. I really would like to know why it was changed.

[AlphaFrog]

Ok, question (potential hypothetical option)...


So, her PNM goes through recruitment, gets a bid to this chapter in question, decides she likes it enough to give it a shot. The chapter is in the dire straights that the OP thinks they are. Could the PNM stay in the chapter and choose not to initiate, but continue her pledge period to the next semester to see what happens? This way, she's not TOTALLY committed to the chapter should they close, but she's still giving them a shot to see what happens....after a year, she should have a good idea of whether the chapter should be viable enough to continue.

As someone who's chapter closed the semester after I was initiated, I really kinda wish I knew how dire our situation was before I initiated. I don't know that I would have done anything different, but I felt cheated not knowing.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Exactly. As I stated in the other thread where we were talking about this (where I pretty much came to the same conclusion as Titchou did) this "primary recruitment period" stuff that seems to be relatively new in the MOI can bite me hard.

You also have to consider the possibility of a mixed locals/NPCs campus where the locals rush at the same time as NPCs. Imagine if an NPC chapter closes and the local groups dig that particular rule up. They would say (and rightly so) "well, the way this reads, we can take these girls whenever we want, but the NPCs can't." Then NPC screwed itself out of members.

For as long as I can remember, the rule has been that if a woman 1) transfers or 2) the chapter she's pledging closes before she's initiated, she's eligible to pledge elsewhere IMMEDIATELY. Even if it's in the middle of the semester, even if it's over holidays. This is really the fairest thing to do since neither of these things are the woman's fault. I really would like to know why it was changed.

These rules have no bearing on locals, so whether they changed the rules or not would not fix a situation with locals.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

These rules have no bearing on locals, so whether they changed the rules or not would not fix a situation with locals.

I meant that with the rule as written now (with the lack of clarity...two different things in two different sections)...the pledges were pledged after formal rush in August. The chapter closes in late September. According to that effed up "primary recruitment period" business, they could not pledge another NPC group until next August. They could, however, pledge a local group immediately. In a situation where the locals and nationals are rushing together and really have no day to day difference, this would be all sorts of negative for ALL the NPCs.

The point of all this is that they need to clarify that they are NOT talking about chapter closures in the section Titchou quoted - i.e. they need to say "if an INDIVIDUAL'S pledge is broken" or something of the like.

As far as asking a group to hold you over if you're worried about the chapter closing, the chapter might be perfectly ok and understanding and super willing to do that. The national entity might see things differently.

[Sciencewoman]

^^^ I think this sums it up pretty well.

[Sciencewoman]

^^^ Would it be up to the individual GLO to allow a new member to "carry over" to the next semester/year, or not? We've had a couple women do this in the chapter I advise, but it was always due to some extenuating circumstances (documented sudden illness on initiation day or serious family conflict on initiation day). I know the member would still be "beholden" to that group, but is the group obligated to allow new members to choose to "see how it goes" or choose to defer initiation?

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by Sciencewoman

^^^ Would it be up to the individual GLO to allow a new member to "carry over" to the next semester/year, or not? We've had a couple women do this in the chapter I advise, but it was always due to some extenuating circumstances (documented sudden illness on initiation day or serious family conflict on initiation day). I know the member would still be "beholden" to that group, but is the group obligated to allow new members to choose to "see how it goes" or choose to defer initiation?

i know of women who have asked to be held over for various reasons. I don't know that everyone would be willing to state their policy but I'll just say I know of times when we'ver done it.