Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JoinerLxa
The point of my comments above were to state that I think "A very small
(<20) chapter CAN have a meaningful fraternal experience." Obviously it
is not "ideal"...I don't know any chapter that would WANT to stay less
than 20...we certainly did not.
And perhaps I didn't make it clear...we were "less than 20" for only
one fall semester. We doubled in size at the beginning of the spring semester
and grew from there. So my experience would NOT be similar to those who
struggled with less than 20 for several years. While we were less than
20, we struggled and worried, yes. But a good fraternal experience doesn't
have to be a cakewalk....that which is worthwhile is difficult.
ATTITUDE and WORK ETHIC have more to do with the "success" of a very
small chapter than anything else. On a campus like TxA&M I'm sure 18
felt "too small" on a campus with much larger chapters. However on
a campus with an average size of less than 30, 18 wouldn't seem like
a "crisis." If you so desired a "big fraternity" experience, why did
you join LXA at TxA&M? You KNEW they were less than 20! Perhaps you
would have been happier as a Phi Delt?
And I do not expect ANYONE to "subsidize my fraternal experience."
Quite the contrary, as an AM and NIB, I was forced to subsidize the
fraternal experience of OTHERS! In the years before I joined, brothers
simply did not pay dues. At my very first business meeting, we were
told "we have to pay off this debt, or we're toast!" Why should I have
to pay for the cheapskates of five years previous who didn't pay up?
Because HQ said so. So we did. Sometimes we have to make up for the
shortcomings of others, even if it isn't "fair," for the betterment
of the fraternity. (At Homecoming recently, I overhead a brother from
that era remark, "We didn't pay dues, but we had fun!" I wanted to
strangle him and say, "Yeah, I know, I paid your dues!", but I
refrained.)
The financial solution for small chapters is simple: charge more
in dues (as seems to have been enacted this GA) or lower services
from HQ. Neither is pleasant nor ideal. But financial realities are
financial realities. HQ can only offer so much support with its limited
resources.
On the other hand, a good-sized, vibrant chapter doesn't need weeks of
professional help from HQ. Who does need all this attention? The struggling
chapters of course. It only make sense that more is spent on struggling
chapters than vibrant ones. And if it helps, think of it as an
insurance policy: your vibrant chapter may be subsidizing that
struggling chapter right now....but in ten years that other chapter
will be vibrant and subsidizing YOUR struggling chapter. Of course
when I say "struggling", I refer to those that are having problems
but are WORKING to solve those problems....the lazy/depressed/unmotivated
chapters I would simply call "dieing."
And I'm afraid your history is a bit incorrect. LX Zeta was not the
first time HQ sent in a team of professionals to help out a new or
struggling chapter. They've been doing that for years. Maybe they did
something "different" at LX, but you didn't make that clear. A team was
sent to establish the colony at Vandy in 1991, a success. A team was sent
to Sigma-Delta Zeta at North Alabama in 1984, unfortunately with no
success. The team left campus with their charter and never returned.
In both cases, the brothers "got off their asses and worked with HQ"
And I'm sure teams have been sent before the 80's. But
sometimes all the kings horses and all the king's men CAN'T put
humpty-dumpty zeta back together again. If this "new approach" is
as successful as you say it is ("if it can work in Kansas, it can
work anywhere"), we should have over 500 vibrant chapters in just a
couple of years. And of course, they will have well over 20 members!
I just hope that in applying the "less than 20" standard, HQ is not
too HASTY to close a chapter that might be small, but is made up of
brothers who are hard workers, are having a good fraternal experience,
and have HOPE for the future. Obviously in those cases where the group
is "depressed", lazy, and without Hope, closed they must be.
In the meantime, I'd hope they would also look at closing chapters with 100
or more members (or 15 members for that matter) that are nothing more than
mere drinking clubs. (Most of these will be down to less than 20 members
soon anyway...just like SAE at Vandy)
|
Brother Kevin - we actually agree on most all of these points.
I don't see anything wrong with HQ or the general fraternity supporting a chapter that is under 20 men and like your chapter at the time, who wants to get larger. The issue I have been refering to is about chapters who 1) are smaller and don't want to be over 20 men because they like being small, or 2) chapters who are under 20 men, say they want to be bigger, but wont dedicate the time, energy or work do get larger. those are the guys I feel are getting a free ride off of the rest of the zetas.
I will also allow that a consideration of campus size should play into things. If all the chapters are 20-25 men, then it bears a deeper investigation, which is why the full text of thwe '20 man rule' says a chapter must be at the all mens average chapter size or 40, whichever is greater, but at least 20. You mentioned the solution, which is the new financial structure where all chapters will pay the same 'franchise' fee to be a chapter. So if you are 100 men or 18, you pay the same amount to HQ - aside from the per man fee, association/initations and insurance fees. That will alleviate SOME of the pressure HQ facces with the small chapters on the books. There is still the issue of a quality LXA experience and if you can get it being 20 men. It might be too much of a blanket statement to say across the board that you can't. If you are an award winning chapter and/or are meeting the standards of chapter excellence and/or a leader on you campus under 20, then again, that necessitates some extra consideration. However, it was my impression at GA this summer, that there were very few chapters, if any that fit into this narrow window. Many of the chapters that we had to evaluate were 4, 6, or 9 guys that had been experiencing troubles for a while. Plus, these chapters arent told to 'get better', they are given specific standards they must meet by certain deadlines, and are given staff assistance when necessary.
There is almost always a core group of guys that are passionate about turning things around, but sometimes that core group isnt enough. Especially if the campus climate isnt favorable. Also, someone once told me (I dont remember if it was Jeff Steele at Washington or our very own Bill Foltz) that a chapter really can't be turned around with any less than 5 guys. In their experience, that seems to be the magic core number to effect a turnaround.
I also wasnt clear about HQ sending staff out to assist chapters. I meant assisting dying chapters - thus the 'on the vine' reference. Obviously expansion wouldnt work without staff visitations. It dosent matter if a chapter is started by an interest group or a regular colonization (which would be interesting to see the breakdown on percentages) HQ always sends staff to facilitate an expansion. They are usually there for 3 weeks to a month.
Historically, HQ has been much more hesitant to send in staff to help a chapter that was small and needed recruitment assistance. All chapters get at least one ELC visit a semester, however these are usually a 3 day visit. In the LXZ case, staff was on the ground in Pittsburg for a longer time, actually helping the chapter recruit new members. This was a dramatic departure from the historical operations of HQ. It grew out of an experiment called 'the 'great lakes initiative' in the early 2000's. HQ saw some success with it and decided it could support chapters with recruitment assistance, but it would come at a price; expansion. Which is why staff is focusing its energies on existing chapters in the near future. I believe it is the right thing to do. It makes more financial sense to assist our current chapters than it does to invest the capital in starting new chapters. Hopefully as new sources of funding are identified, HQ can also focus on expansion. in an ideal world it could be both; not either.
One final note of clarification. I was initated at Texas A&M - Kingsville, not the flagship campus of Texas A&M - College station. Texas only has two flagships - The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M College Station. Each institution has about 10 or so 'branch' campuses around the state that are independent institutions, but are a part of the flagship system. Example - UT-Austin is the main school of the University of Texas System. There are other schools in the system - the medical schools and the branch schools like University of Texas at San Antonio, University of Texas at Dallas, University of Texas at El Paso, University of Texas Brownsville, etc. The A&M system operates in the same manner. Texas A&M -Kingsville where I was initated is much smaller than Texas A&M -College Station. TAMUK is about 4,000 students. TAMUCS is about 45,000. Lambda Chi at TAMUK was the largest fraternity on campus, yet we still only had 18 when I joined (including my AM group). We grew to 24 the next semester (with AM's) but it took them some 10 years or so to break the 30 barrier. And they were by no means an award winning chapter till sometime after 2000. I went there because I had family in Kingsville and at the time I needed a support network close by. My father had died three months before I left to start my freshman year. I had been accepted at a larger school, but decided I didnt want to be off in a large city without a support network right away. After my first year, I transfered to UT-San Antonio (then 15,000 students, now 30,000) and was better prepared for college because I had started off at a small school and was able to get acclimated.
Linear Mode
