Size of NALFO

[knight_shadow]

I was browsing a few older threads that made me think of this:

I was briefly on the NALFO membership committee a few years back and was amazed at how lax our membership requirements are. Because it's so easy, we currently have 23 member organizations. Although we have several strong organizations (40+ chapters), there are still some that make me wonder how they got on the council in the first place (regional organizations; 15 chapters or less).

Does anyone see NALFO strengthening its membership requirements? Do you think the larger organizations will branch off on their own? I'm curious as to how other Greeks feel about this.

[Senusret I]

http://www.nalfo.org/docs/NALFOBylaw...vember2007.pdf <----- Membership requirements are on page two.

k_s, by what standard are you judging organizations as "weak?" I will reserve my opinion since you asked other NALFO Greeks, but it seems to me that this could be viewed through an NPHC or NIC lens (as some NIC orgs are as small as some NALFO ones.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

http://www.nalfo.org/docs/NALFOBylaw...vember2007.pdf <----- Membership requirements are on page two.

k_s, by what standard are you judging organizations as "weak?" I will reserve my opinion since you asked other NALFO Greeks, but it seems to me that this could be viewed through an NPHC or NIC lens (as some NIC orgs are as small as some NALFO ones.

I'm not necessarily saying they're weak (I've met several people in the smaller organizations who have done great things), just not on the same level as the other organizations. I find it very difficult to believe that an organization with 4 chapters (using a former member organization so that I don't offend any current members) can be facing the same challenges as an organization like Sigma Lambda Beta (appx. 104 chapters).

With NALFO being so young, I would think that the council would encourage steady growth of a few organizations rather than keep what seems like a "Hey, we'll take anyone!" mentality.

If you'd like to chime in, please feel free to do so. I'll edit my original post.

[Senusret I]

Well, I must say this has more layers than I initially thought -- I was looking over the website for more guidance when I discovered the moratorium on new member orgs in 2005. Will it last for the whole four years or has it been lifted?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Well, I must say this has more layers than I initially thought -- I was looking over the website for more guidance when I discovered the moratorium on new member orgs in 2005. Will it last for the whole four years or has it been lifted?

The last I heard, it was still in effect. When it was originally put in place, it was supposed to be a step toward strengthening the requirements. So far, the only membership requirement that's been changed is the minimum number of chapters (from 3 to 5).

ETA: Here is a side-by-side comparison of the sizes of the organizations. It is wikipedia, so some of the numbers may be slightly off, but they're pretty close.

[Senusret I]

Interesting.

On one hand, I can understand why the minimum chapter number is low -- small orgs need support and peer learning, too. How can they ever get their weight up if they don't learn best practices?

I didn't see this in the bylaws (but I didn't look very hard, either)..... I have noticed that some new organizations I'm familiar with don't have stringent requirements to start a colony.

For example, one org I know, chartered in 2004, just started a colony with one girl. I'm like....wtf? Meanwhile, a slightly older sorority I'm familiar with seems to prefer chartering with no less than four. Which, given the campuses they charter on (very deliberate choices, very strong schools) makes a lot of sense.

I dunno.... I try not to do the "tier" thing, but there are clearly some orgs who make wiser decisions than others.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I dunno.... I try not to do the "tier" thing

dun dun dunnnnnnn

(I have nothing else to contribute.)

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

dun dun dunnnnnnn

(I have nothing else to contribute.)

LOL..... I know, it's so bad that I mentally have my favorite LGLOs and think they're better than the rest. I keep it to myself though.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

LOL..... I know, it's so bad that I mentally have my favorite LGLOs and think they're better than the rest. I keep it to myself though.

Years ago, I remember a site that listed alllll the LGLOs. There were sooooo darn many and I assume some are now extinct.

I'm not familiar with LGLOs but remember the only LGLO frat and sorority on the various campuses that NPHCers greeted at probate shows.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Years ago, I remember a site that listed alllll the LGLOs. There were sooooo darn many and I assume some are now extinct.

Probably LatinoGreeks.com. They've been absorbed by another company now. The number of organizations was always troublesome to me. And the sad part is there are still new ones being formed now.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Interesting.

On one hand, I can understand why the minimum chapter number is low -- small orgs need support and peer learning, too. How can they ever get their weight up if they don't learn best practices?

I would think the requirements would encourage the smaller organizations to get their weight up. The lax requirements seem to be encouraging the dreaded founder-itis.

I didn't see this in the bylaws (but I didn't look very hard, either)..... I have noticed that some new organizations I'm familiar with don't have stringent requirements to start a colony.

For example, one org I know, chartered in 2004, just started a colony with one girl. I'm like....wtf? Meanwhile, a slightly older sorority I'm familiar with seems to prefer chartering with no less than four. Which, given the campuses they charter on (very deliberate choices, very strong schools) makes a lot of sense.

Yea, a one person colony is kind of ridiculous. Most of the larger organizations are much more strict when it comes to who needs to be on a campus when expanding. These mini-chapters/colonies still get a full vote on NALFO issues, which is the part that irks me.

[TotallyWicked]

I know NALFO is not allowing any member to allow first semester freshmen to undertake membership processes after June 08, I think this'll cut down on those 1 person colonies/chapters somewhat, I honestly believe this has cause major expansion for some orgs at the same time been a huge mistake for others.

Personally, I am GLAD there is a moratorium right now, I know there are about three orgs who want to join NALFO...but shall remain nameless; I don't believe larger orgs=stronger orgs, being that NALFO is only a decade old, I would hope that our orgs sit down and evaluate each other individually and their commitment to the council and from there decide who should stay in the council.

I just find it unfair that certain orgs are more prone for help/getting their proposals passed because they are larger and/or are more popular....and alot of it is regional as well...

[L.O.C.K.]

The problem is that NALFO, NAPA, NMGC are expected to have a much higher learning curve. NPC, NIC, NPHC have had many many years to develop their structures.

How do you expect these new councils to get to those higher levels so quickly? The thing is, it's expected/desired by Greek Admins.

As for membership, I can only speak from NAPA's point of view. We have 10 organizations. There are maybe 4-5 more organizations out there that I would consider giving membership to. The problem is that expansion is happening faster than the individual organizations and the council can put good policies and procedures in place.

Councils are so difficult because they always take second priority to one's own organization in your heart. Because of this, making proactive decisions can be difficult because of how it will affect one's own organization.

One thing that drives me nuts though is sometimes the lack of desire to actively put themselves out there. I know of one sorority which has 20 chapters in 20 years and has only 300 total members. That is a realllly small growth rate. You can't sustain a national organization when most of your chapters are 1-2 people because burn out rate will be reaaallly high.

With a million 3 chapter organizations running around, it really prevents any sort of national movement for LGLOs or AGLOs. Not to mention it makes a Greek Admin's life hell to deal with organizations that don't have a Nationals.

Stricter policies in NALFO will only work if the NALFO orgs are growing faster than non-NALFO orgs and have the infrastructure to support that. If that is the case, then the non-NALFO orgs will die out because they won't be able to join NALFO and the NALFO organizations will be so competitive that their own chapters (non-NALFO orgs) will face extinction.

just my .02.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by L.O.C.K.

The problem is that NALFO, NAPA, NMGC are expected to have a much higher learning curve. NPC, NIC, NPHC have had many many years to develop their structures.

True, NALFO is not on the same level as NPHC/NIC/NPC. This doesn't mean that the council should take everyone just because they're LGLOs.

With a million 3 chapter organizations running around, it really prevents any sort of national movement for LGLOs or AGLOs. Not to mention it makes a Greek Admin's life hell to deal with organizations that don't have a Nationals.

This is exactly my point. The reason that the more established councils seem to have more success is because they encourage growth of their member organizations before rushing to add more members. Prior to the moratorium, NALFO seemed to just take organizations just because they were LGLOs. All that does is encourage people to found new organizations rather than look into expanding the existing ones.

Stricter policies in NALFO will only work if the NALFO orgs are growing faster than non-NALFO orgs and have the infrastructure to support that. If that is the case, then the non-NALFO orgs will die out because they won't be able to join NALFO and the NALFO organizations will be so competitive that their own chapters (non-NALFO orgs) will face extinction.

Many of the NALFO organizations are growing faster than other NALFO organizations, so I'm almost positive that the non-NALFO LGLOs aren't up to speed yet. That hasn't caused any changes within the council, though. I'd think that stricter requirements would encourage people to say "Let me look into bringing a chapter of ODPhi (for example) to my campus" rather than "Well, you only need 3 chapters to join NALFO, so let's create an organization and apply for membership." The latter seems to be the norm nowadays.

[Senusret I]

Something popped into my head.....

How does expansion work in NALFO orgs? At any point does an individual org have to go through NALFO in order to expand to a particular campus?

Even better, does a school have to go through NALFO before a NALFO org is chartered on campus?

This problem might be solved or at least alleviated if there were a formal system by which all NALFO orgs could be established on a campus.

I don't know the NPC system well, but I have a hunch it might have some best practices to look in to.