Too many pledges!!!

[DeltaBetaBaby]

So a group on campusis initiating their spring class next week. The problem is that these new girls will put them over both total AND quota. They plan to initiate eight when they only have room for five.

Anyone ever faced this before? What happened?

Obviously, there is an infraction against them, and there will be consequences, but what type of consequence is fair?

Should they have to get rid of three women?

I want some other opinions before I post mine.

[FuzzieAlum]

WOW! I've never heard of this happening before.

It is my understanding that NPC rules forbid any sort of punishment that reduces the number of members a group can take, but that seems only fair for next time rush is held.

I would be very curious to hear what PenguinTrax has to say here since she's the expert.

[sugar and spice]

Out of curiosity, how come nobody caught this mistake earlier?

I'd say that it would be unfair of them to kick out three of the pledges, seeing as how that would hurt the pledges more than it would hurt the sorority. Maybe they could reduce the number of girls they could take next year . . . even if that's technically illegal, it seems like an exception should be made for this case, seeing as how I can't come up with any better ideas.

[ilovemyglo]

Why didn't your greek advisor catch this? When they turned in their pledge cards he should have let the chapter know then that they could not take that many sisters!

[DeltaBetaBaby]

For spring COB, there is not a specific date for bid distribution, so the chapters do whatever they want in that respect. Pledges are added to the chapters roster when they are initiated.

The Panhellenic VP recruitment caught it and told the chapter they are in violation, but this has all happened since spring break.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally posted by FuzzieAlum
It is my understanding that NPC rules forbid any sort of punishment that reduces the number of members a group can take, but that seems only fair for next time rush is held.


Yeah, but then they get to have extra girls participating in rush, and three may not seem like many, but when some chapters have to rush 2 on 1, it is not fair for anyone to have a size advantage.

[shadokat]

DeltaBetaBaby--

Don't the girls still have to go to Greek Life and sign their bid cards accepting their bids, even during COB? The Greek Advisor screwed up, but I'm doubting that they will get in any huge amount of trouble. As someone else said, NPC forbids punishments of reducing numbers of chapters. And would it really be fair to the women who pledged all semester to not get to finish now? I think we all can say a resounding no.

[sugar and spice]

A new idea: Maybe they could have three of the girls be held over into next fall's pledge class, counting them towards next year's quota? Yeah, it would kind of suck for the girls, but it wouldn't be the end of the world . . . they'd still get to pledge, it just wouldn't be right away.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

If you were the chapter, would you pick three to hold over, or would you weight on all of them?

[LeslieAGD]

Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
So a group on campusis initiating their spring class next week. The problem is that these new girls will put them over both total AND quota. They plan to initiate eight when they only have room for five.

Anyone ever faced this before? What happened?

The only time I've seen a similar situation is after Formal Recruitment. Sometimes groups end up over total, but most of them loose a girl or two during the pledge process, or will loose someone to alum status at the end of the semester to even things out.

I'm not exactly clear on how this situation came about at your school. Can you elaborate?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally posted by LeslieAGD
I'm not exactly clear on how this situation came about at your school. Can you elaborate?

Campus total is 145. For reasons unbeknownest to me, their national org. told them they should COB up to 150. Therefore, they attempted to do so, and pledged 8 girls even though they began the semester with 140.

The Panhellenic VP Recruitment told them this was not allowed, and their response was that it was okay, because their nationals had said so.

[33girl]

Maybe their dumbass nationals should provide a seafood buffet for all the other sorority members. I think that would be a fitting punishment. :p

mmmmmm......shrimp cocktail.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally posted by 33girl
Maybe their dumbass nationals

Ha, I guess you can safely say that knowing that your group is not on my campus :-).

[33girl]

hee hee hee....even if we were, if we advocated something like that, I would admit to dumbass-ness.

[PsychTau]

I'd consult with your campus' NPC counterpart, as well as your sorority's NPC counterpart. Logically, it's unfair to ask 3 of their pledged members (who's initiation is next week, right?) to wait until fall to be initiated. The pledged members were clueless in this situation (hopefully). However, if you asked 3 of them to wait, that would be 3 less they could take in formal recruitment. Therefore, a fitting consequence would be to allow them to take 3 less during formal recruitment (along with no quota additions if that occurs on your campus). But, that is against the Panhellenic spirit (finding a GLO home for all who want one and qualify, etc.) After all, it's not the Fall PNM's fault either.
So. . .what about allowing every other group BUT them to take 3 quota additions? Plus a multitude of community service/campus service, or purchasing all the campus Panhellenic delegates their very own Green Book, and making a presentation on what's in it.

I don't think I'm making much sense, but it is a difficult situation to consequent. However, I don't think you can say it was done in complete ignorance of the rules, so a stiff consequence is called for. Tough call.
PsychTau

P.S. They could serve the seafood buffet BEFORE they give everyone a personal copy of the Green Book. :p

[DeltaBetaBaby]

I personally think that they should not initiate any of the girls, as it would not be fair to pick five out of the eight. They should then put the girls into the computer system during rush and place them as the first eight on their bid list. The girls should not have to pay for rush or participate in it, but they would be part of the fall quota.

[honeychile]

My 2¢

I don't believe in holding pledges over the summer, if at ALL possible. I would initiate all 8, and deduct 3 off of their quota next year. I would also see that that chapter provides 3 more Rho Chi's than usual.

Some punishment must be meted out, or the whole concept of rules is out the window. Their National is only as informed as the chapter tells them. I think my suggestions are fair to both the chapter and the Panhellenic system, and I say that wondering if it was my own National.

honeychile

edited to add: if these women are held over, and end up deciding not to be initiated in the fall, they would still have to wait the one calendar year prior to accepting another bid. Or worse, turning them against the Greek system entirely. I don't think that they should be penalized for the chapter's (and Greek Advisor's) mistake.

[sugar and spice]

I don't think that making a couple girls wait until the fall to get initiated is going to turn them off the Greek system. They might be a little disappointed, yes, but no woman I know would say, "Oh, well, they're not letting me initiate RIGHT NOW so I am going to de-pledge and then hate the Greek system forever."

If that is the step that the group takes, it would make the most sense that whichever ones accepted their bids last would be the ones held over until fall.

No, I don't think this is a fair solution, for the pledges at least . . . But there needs to be some sort of punishment or else groups will realize that they can get away with it and start doing it all the time. Personally I think the best thing would be for the rule books to be adapted in this case. I think the "no punishments that decrease the number of girls they can take in rush" was intended to keep Greek advisors from saying, "Oh, you can only take 20 girls in rush because you had a risk management infraction last year . . ." -- just so they wouldn't use it as a punishment for entirely unrelated issues. The punishment should fit the crime, and in this case it makes SENSE for them to take away the number of girls they can have next fall. It's not really a punishment, it's just trying to counteract the damage already done.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I don't think that they should hold the pledges over the summer or initiate only 5 of the 8. I also don't think that they can subtract 3 from quota for the next rush. Maybe they can add 3 to total for all of the sororities so this one sorority doesn't have an unfair advantage. I am not sure how that would work with NPC though.

[shadokat]

Again, I ask the question, what is the process for COBs and bids? I am sure the campus has some procedures you follow, whether it be reporting your new members to Greek Life and having them sign bid cards, etc. The Greek Advisor should know where every chapter stands, or at least have the information close at hand so she can refer to it during that time.

The chapter did what their HQs asked them to, and COB'd. The NMs had no clue about any of it. I personally don't think you can punish someone for what amounts to a numbers problem the Greek Advisor should have seen from the beginning. DeltaBeta, are you mad at the chapter? Their HQs? NPC? The Greek Advisor? It seems to me you, and I could be way off, but your posts indicate you think punishment of some form is in order, and that the penalty should be set against the chapter.

[Aphigal]

This happened on a campus I work with. NOTHING happened to the group. They got a "warning" -thanks. Which basically told every other group to go do it too because nothing happens.

That situation aside I think it is improper to sanction the new members. That is completely unfair to these women who came into the system on good faith of the chapter.

I also think it is greenbook rule that you cannot impact a chapter's rush due to any type of infraction. So if the chapter appealed to NPC the sanction would probably be overturned.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally posted by shadokat
DeltaBeta, are you mad at the chapter? Their HQs? NPC? The Greek Advisor? It seems to me you, and I could be way off, but your posts indicate you think punishment of some form is in order, and that the penalty should be set against the chapter.

Yes, I do think the chapter messed up. If HQ thought that campus total was 150, that tells me that the chapter never updated them when it was changed (YEARS AGO).

I don't know if these NMs came from Panhellenic informal, either. If these women would have pledged a different chapter had they not gotten bids there, it is really unfair to the chapters below total. There are chapters on my campus struggling to stay afloat, because they do not have enough members to keep their houses full.

It was not caught earlier because there are no specific bid card procedures for informal rush. Girls who de-pledge this semester can rush in the fall and join any chapter they choose. This has been a problem for a long time, IMO, and I wanted to change it back when I was president, but it didn't affect enough chapters to get any attention.

However, I know for a fact that each chapter was told at the end of last semester how many they could COB. I know that if my HQ told me something than the Greek Advisor, I would figure out where the error was, not just ignore one of the two sources.

[PsychTau]

Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
Yes, I do think the chapter messed up. If HQ thought that campus total was 150, that tells me that the chapter never updated them when it was changed (YEARS AGO).
**Maybe I'm a perfectionist, but the CHAPTER is responsible for knowing what their campus rules/quota/total is. If a National Officer told them to COB to 150, they should have said "Wait. . .our campus total is 145". National Officers can only work with the info you give them. . .don't be afraid to inform them of the truth.

Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
It was not caught earlier because there are no specific bid card procedures for informal rush. Girls who de-pledge this semester can rush in the fall and join any chapter they choose. This has been a problem for a long time, IMO, and I wanted to change it back when I was president, but it didn't affect enough chapters to get any attention.
**Correct me if I'm wrong, but de-pledging and joining another chapter 1 semester later is in DIRECT conflict with the Green Book. Changing this campus bylaw requires no vote, it is simply struck down immediately due to it's conflict with the NPC Agreements. No discussion needed, no vote by CPH required.
Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
However, I know for a fact that each chapter was told at the end of last semester how many they could COB. I know that if my HQ told me something than the Greek Advisor, I would figure out where the error was, not just ignore one of the two sources.
**Once again, National can only work with what the chapters tell them. I don't accept the response "Our National told us to." Did National know all the details?

Long story short, I think it's hard to place the blame on any one person/group. As far as the Greek Office, I think that they need to look at their own process for registering and processing NM's, as well as keeping chapter rosters correct. In any case, I DO NOT believe the chapter should go unconsequented. They of all people should have been aware of how many people they can have at one time. Chapters talk about holding their sisters to their standards all the time. . .what are the CPH and NPC standards we hold the chapters and organizations as a whole to?

[phimugirlie01]

I think it's fairly easy to see where the blame lies: with the chapter!!! That chapter knew what total was and they were also told how many they could COB. They COB'd too many, and that is their fault. I don't think they can blame their HQ becuase their HQ may not have had the correct info and the chapter shopuld have known better. It is unfair for a chapter to just COB more and raise campus total. That would just show other chapters that they could do the same. I also believe that the new pledges should not be penalized because they are innocent in all of this. Personally, I like honeychile's idea of requesting that the chapter provide three additional rho chis and counting 3 people on their bid list.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally posted by phimugirlie01
Personally, I like honeychile's idea of requesting that the chapter provide three additional rho chis and counting 3 people on their bid list.

The problem with this suggestion is that it does not hurt the chapter in any way. I feel like it would be a dangerous precedent to set, because other chapters (and perhaps this one again) may feel they can take an extra girl or two a semester early with no consequence.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
The problem with this suggestion is that it does not hurt the chapter in any way. I feel like it would be a dangerous precedent to set, because other chapters (and perhaps this one again) may feel they can take an extra girl or two a semester early with no consequence.

Do you think? I would think that rushing with three less women (the Rho Chi's) and already having three towards their quota would be a deterrent.

I think that there needs to be a major Green Book study session in your Panhellenic, one way or another! Even if one group did "get away with it" , there is no excuse for another chapter following suit. As a matter of fact, your Greek Advisor should be that much more vigilant in making sure that it doesn't happen again!

honeychile

[shadokat]

AMEN to that honeychile!


Originally posted by honeychile
Do you think? I would think that rushing with three less women (the Rho Chi's) and already having three towards their quota would be a deterrent.

I think that there needs to be a major Green Book study session in your Panhellenic, one way or another! Even if one group did "get away with it" , there is no excuse for another chapter following suit. As a matter of fact, your Greek Advisor should be that much more vigilant in making sure that it doesn't happen again!

honeychile

[sugar and spice]

If the chapter's already at 148, three fewer women rushing are probably not going to make a noticeable difference.

I do agree that the Greek advisor at this school needs to do a major re-check of the NPC rules, though. It sounds like a lot of things are going not quite right.

[Optimist Prime]

Limit the number they can take next time. To make them drop three girls who went through pledging and weren't balled is complete and total BS!!!!! (i'm censoring myself in the presence of ladies). I've heard of some ignorant stunts before, but forcing them to pay now because of some one else's mistake is totally unfair. NPC should have cought it before bids went out.

[LeslieAGD]

Originally posted by shadokat
AMEN to that honeychile!

I second that!

[BSUPhiSig'92]

Is it at all possible that they graduated three members in December? Or had these members leave school? The rosters in the Greek Life Office are only as accurate as what is turned in by the chapter.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally posted by BSUPhiSig'92
Is it at all possible that they graduated three members in December? Or had these members leave school? The rosters in the Greek Life Office are only as accurate as what is turned in by the chapter.

No. They had 140 as of the beginning of the school year.

As for bid cards, I mis-spoke earlier. There are bid cards that each pledge has to sign saying that they understand what hazing is and how to report it, etc. However, there is no deadline for these to be turned in, as spring COB is totally open. The chapter in question did NOT turn in eight bid cards.

[honeychile]

The more I think about it, the more I'm certain that, if your Greek Advisor does not hold some Green Book sessions, he or she should be fired.

Such incompetence would not be acceptable in any other work enviroment, would it now? One doesn't have to be Mensa material to be able to count to 150!

honeychile

[DeltaBetaBaby]

I don't know why there is so much bashing of the Greek Advisor. The chapters were told what they were allowed to do, and it has never been a problem in the past, so the GA was not looking over their shoulder the whole time. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

[FuzzieAlum]

NPC has collegiate Panhellenic advisors, and campuses can request that they come in to their campus to look things over. This seems like the kind of situation they were designed for.

I'm not sure how to contact them - perhaps your chapter's advisor does, or the Greek advisor, or the local alumnae Panhellenic, or even your sorority's nationals. If all else fails, try NPC nationals.

Honestly, I don't think dealing with this locally is the best idea. As PsychTau pointed out, several NPC compacts are being violated with your campus' current procedures aside from just this overbidding - and sorry, your campus' Greek advisor SHOULD know that, so he/she does bear some fault. No joining elsewhere the first semester after depledging is just about the most basic NPC rush rule there is.

Also - the chapter in violation should inform their nationals (I know, they don't have much incentive to) - but their national HQ may very well have a standard response to a situation like this; they may have dealt with it before.

[adduncan]

This is just a thought from someone on the outside but how is the following for a penalty for breaking this rule:

If they deliberately pledged too many girls this COB round, is it possible to prohibit them from participating in the next formal rush? This way the girls who pledged (and did nothing wrong) don't miss the initiation they've worked for, but the chapter who decided to make up their own rules will have to pay for their choice. It's also an easy penalty to apply evenly and consistently if any other chapter decided that going over quota and total was a good idea.

Adrienne (PNAM-2003)
(practicing, in case I get to be an advisor one day!)

[BSUPhiSig'92]

Either contact your organization's representative to the NPC Recruitment Committee, or your regional NPC Coordinator. The national committee should be notified of this regardless if your local Panhellenic decides to handle it or not.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
I don't know why there is so much bashing of the Greek Advisor. The chapters were told what they were allowed to do, and it has never been a problem in the past, so the GA was not looking over their shoulder the whole time. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I think it's because there is obviously, from what you told us, not a lot of understanding of NPC rules on the part of the Greek advisor. You've mentioned a couple things that are in direct violation of the NPC rule book . . . if your Greek advisor doesn't understand the NPC rule book, he or she shouldn't be advising NPC sororities.

It's the Greek advisor's job to know this stuff. If you were being hired to teach American literature, and you didn't know anything about it, you would be fired . . . I think the same goes for a Greek advisor who is clearly allowing the sororities to violate the rules of their governing council.

I don't think the Greek advisor is the ONLY one at fault in this situation, but he or she definitely played some kind of role in it.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by adduncan
This is just a thought from someone on the outside but how is the following for a penalty for breaking this rule:

If they deliberately pledged too many girls this COB round, is it possible to prohibit them from participating in the next formal rush? This way the girls who pledged (and did nothing wrong) don't miss the initiation they've worked for, but the chapter who decided to make up their own rules will have to pay for their choice. It's also an easy penalty to apply evenly and consistently if any other chapter decided that going over quota and total was a good idea.

Adrienne (PNAM-2003)
(practicing, in case I get to be an advisor one day!)

The Green Book, whose real name escapes me, is the manual for NPC sororities. It strictly prohibits any penalty that results in not being able to participate in rush. Each of our chapter advisors is issued a copy and encouraged to read it (if not memorize it!).

So, your suggestions won't be able to be used.

honeychile

[BSUPhiSig'92]

A local Panhellenic cannot enact any punishment that limits the number of new members a chapter can take in recruitment. Contact your NPC representative and file a complaint with the NPC Recruitment Committee. Especially since there is involvement of the national organization.

[MoxieGrrl]

While the advisor should have been paying attention, are we really supposed to believe that these women accidentally picked up 3 extra members?

Most other systems punish a minor crime with community service...but we're sorority girls! We love that stuff! Or a financial punishment is used...what's even $1500 when divided up between 140 girls? It's almost unfair that NPC prohibits a punishment of loss of members. If we want chapters to learn from blatently breaking rules, they should be hit where it hurts most.

Does anyone know what kinds of punishments the Green Book permits?

[shadokat]

Personally, I think all this talk of crime and punishment for the chapter is sort of silly. They took 3 extra girls during COB because their HQs told them to take to 150. It's 3 women!! It's not as if they had a huge keg party in their own house. Contact your local area advisor for collegiate panhellenics, which is available at http://www.npcwomen.org/college/c_advisors.php, and tell them the situation. They can offer you suggestions and such, but a punishment view is just counter productive for a positive outcome. If you punish the sorority in question, they'll feel as if they've been punished for following an order of their HQs, if you punish the new women by not allowing them to initiate, etc., you hurt girls who want to be a part of your greek system. Talk to the greek advisor, and see what their view is. Talk about it at Panhellenic. I'm sure an amicable solution can be reached for all.

[White_Chocolate]

okay, it doesnt' really matter because NPC isn't gong to do anything about it
you pay your dues to npc but they don't rectify a problem
we have 'dirty rushing' every year by the same sorority
it is taken to npc who say they will fix the problem but they never do

so, just let it go. . .that's what we've done. . .

[phimugirlie01]

Originally posted by shadokat
Personally, I think all this talk of crime and punishment for the chapter is sort of silly. They took 3 extra girls during COB because their HQs told them to take to 150. It's 3 women!! It's not as if they had a huge keg party in their own house.
Um, yeah. The chapter knew what campus total was and how many they could take. 3 women may not seem like much to you, but it it unfair to other groups on that campus who may be struggling with numbers. Total is set for a reason, and to brush it off as nothing is silly. If the chapter isn't punished, other chapters will feel they can do the same, plain and simple. I don't think anyone is calling for fire and brimstone, but I believe action is necessary.

[shadokat]

phimugirlie--

No need to talk to me about struggling chapters. I just went through a reorganization with my own chapter last year. We went from 16 to 46 in a year, with total being 50. Struggling chapters aren't going to be hurt by 3 women.

I'm not brushing off the fact that total isn't 150, but the Greek Advisor should know the deal and have stepped in. Now, after the fact, there's not much you can do, and THAT'S the point I'm trying to make.

[phimugirlie01]

Originally posted by shadokat
Struggling chapters aren't going to be hurt by 3 women.
True, but when actions such as those taken by that chapter become habit, other chapters will be hurt. I don't think it is the greek advisor's fault either, the chapter should have known better. They were infromed of how many they could take. I'm not on that campus, but I've heard the system is quite competitive.

[sugar and spice]

I think the point is that if 3 extra women are treated as "nothing" and there is no corrective action taken, next time around it's going to be 4 women, 5 women or more . . . and the other groups are going to start thinking that it's okay to take over total just because one group was allowed to get away with it. Or some group will dirty rush and then try to justify it by saying "Well, XYZ got to take three extra pledges last year and that's not fair either, so why should we get punished for this when they didn't?"

I agree that three women isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but I think the point is to nip it in the bud now before things get out of hand. We have these rules for a reason, and if all the other groups are supposed to follow them, exceptions shouldn't be made for one group who should have known better, and probably DID know better.

[shadokat]

But what can you do to nip this in the bud, and also follow the NPC rules of not prohibiting sororities from taking new members as a punishment? A fine is no big deal amongst nearly $150 women. I think that by contacting the NPC area advisor and having them come in and do recruitment workshops and review the green book rules with the chapters AND the Greek Advisor, you have done enough. Make the chapter who took the three extra women pay for the NPC area advisor's travel, hotel, etc. How's that?

I know that doesn't make you happy DeltaBeta, and I wish there was something more to do in the situation, but honestly, there really isn't.

[FuzzieAlum]

I understand the rule about not punishing chapters by limiting their pledges makes sense in a way. It isn't a fit punishment for risk mangement violations or something like that. But I do think it is appropriate as a punishment for gross recruitment violations.

Can any of you honestly say that, on your campus, there were not serious recruitment violations? I don't mean "their budget was one dollar over." I mean the promising of bids, the underground pledging of girls who aren't eligible yet, etc. This is just a more flagrant, above-ground version of the same.

Quite frankly, negatively impacting a chapter's rush is the ONLY way these behaviors will stop. I wish NPC would allow a real punishment to fit the crime.

[sugar and spice]

I agree that the NPC needs to look over some of the Green Book rules. IMO, the rule that you can't restrict the amount of girls who can pledge a certain sorority was put in place to keep advisors from saying, "Oh, your girls were caught drinking underage at Crush Party last year -- we're only going to let you take half of quota this year as a punishment." That is a ridiculous punishment. But if sororities are using unfair recruitment practices -- promising bids to girls to make sure the PNMs rank them first, COB-ing past total and quota -- and the unfair tactics lead them to get girls they wouldn't otherwise get, then the appropriate reaction to correct that would be to restrict the number of pledges they can have.

That doesn't help the situation here, though, obviously.

[pinkyphimu]

would it really be considered restricting the number of girls allowed to pledge in the fall since they technically took three extra early? that seems silly.

i agree that something needs to be done before every chapter on campus thinks this is ok, as long as you "made a mistake." and quite honestly, i see how this could really hurt the smaller chapters. for example, AA is the most popular on campus. one semester, they are below total by 3 women because of early graduations. they decide to hold cob and instead of pledging 3, they take 10! now, BB who has been below total all year are hoping to get 10 girls, but only get 3 bc the other 7 go to AA. "oops, silly us, we just thought total was really something different...hehehehe." this really has a subtle effect on the smaller houses. perhaps those other women would have accepted bids some where else if they hadn't gotten one to AA.

delta, i would love to know what happens to this group!

[honeychile]

I found myself thinking about this very late last night (I know, I need a life!). The only "punishment" that I can remember being allowed for a chapter disregarding the strict rules about rush is for the chapter to be on social probation - one full year of NO social activity. No Homecoming, no Greek Week, no mixers - no anything. If I remember correctly, that's about the only punishment other than full probation that's allowed.

Has anyone else heard of this?

honeychile

[SoCalGirl]

It's an obvious gross violation of the rules. But it should definitley be verified that there were not any sisters that graduated early, deactivated, or dropped out of school.

I don't think it's particularly fair to the formal rushees to limit the number of pledges during the next formal rush. And saying all the other houses gets 3 more is just another way of saying this house gets 3 less.

Yes, this does affect the smaller chapters. At the minimum it can really hurt their morale. When your constantly rushing, having this happen could make you question why you bother. And if there's no punishment, it'll make you question the fairness of the Greek Advisor. (Who from what I understand, did nothing wrong IMHO.)

Punishment:
150 (the imaginary total) x $100 = $1500
-OR-
the most expensive formal recruitment fine x 3
~which ever is more

-PLUS-
The chapter must make a formal apology to the Greek comunity. Not just to the Panhellenic Exec. Have them go to every chapter's meeting or have a formal all Greek meeting.

-PLUS-
Make a formal presentation to all chapters on the recruitment rules in the Green Book and the local panhellenic recruitment rules.

=
The chapter needs to understand what they did is serious (at least in terms of recruitment rules go) and the other chapters need to understand that they will not be allowed to "oops" their way out of a similar situation.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by SoCalGirl
It's an obvious gross violation of the rules. But it should definitley be verified that there were not any sisters that graduated early, deactivated, or dropped out of school.

I don't think it's particularly fair to the formal rushees to limit the number of pledges during the next formal rush. And saying all the other houses gets 3 more is just another way of saying this house gets 3 less.

Yes, this does affect the smaller chapters. At the minimum it can really hurt their morale. When your constantly rushing, having this happen could make you question why you bother. And if there's no punishment, it'll make you question the fairness of the Greek Advisor. (Who from what I understand, did nothing wrong IMHO.)

Punishment:
150 (the imaginary total) x $100 = $1500
-OR-
the most expensive formal recruitment fine x 3
~which ever is more

-PLUS-
The chapter must make a formal apology to the Greek comunity. Not just to the Panhellenic Exec. Have them go to every chapter's meeting or have a formal all Greek meeting.

-PLUS-
Make a formal presentation to all chapters on the recruitment rules in the Green Book and the local panhellenic recruitment rules.

=
The chapter needs to understand what they did is serious (at least in terms of recruitment rules go) and the other chapters need to understand that they will not be allowed to "oops" their way out of a similar situation.

Actually, 150 x $100 equals = $15,000, not $1,500. :)

I really like your idea about having to give a presentation on recruitment rules, though . . .

[SATX*APhi]

No idea why, but I was thinking about this last night as I was in bed. Something I came up with:

If all they tell this sorority is, "You will have to take 4 less next year during formal recruitment," any group who is at total would get the idea that if there are two/four/ten girls that they really, really, really want right now, and know that if they don't get them now they may not join next semester, for whatever reason, that it would be alright since they would've been taking them next semester any way.

I hope that made sense.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by SoCalGirl


Punishment:
150 (the imaginary total) x $100 = $1500
-OR-
the most expensive formal recruitment fine x 3
~which ever is more

-PLUS-
The chapter must make a formal apology to the Greek comunity. Not just to the Panhellenic Exec. Have them go to every chapter's meeting or have a formal all Greek meeting.

-PLUS-
Make a formal presentation to all chapters on the recruitment rules in the Green Book and the local panhellenic recruitment rules.

=
The chapter needs to understand what they did is serious (at least in terms of recruitment rules go) and the other chapters need to understand that they will not be allowed to "oops" their way out of a similar situation.

I too especially like the idea of a formal presentation concerning the Green Book rules.

SATX*Aphi also makes a very good point that, without a stiff punishment, taking more new members than allowed in the spring term will become quasi-acceptable.

What great minds I've seen on Greek Chat!!

honeychile

[madmax]

It is my understanding that NPC rules forbid any sort of punishment that reduces the number of members a group can take, but that seems only fair for next time rush is held.




Doesn't NPC rules also prohibit going over quota when the group is already at total?

If you are going to follow NPC rules then I think the group should definitely be punished. If they are not punished then every group will take three extra pledges and one sorority might end up with none. They should have their quota lowered by three next semester. That will even the score.

[James]

This is so true.

Originally posted by Aphigal

That situation aside I think it is improper to sanction the new members. That is completely unfair to these women who came into the system on good faith of the chapter.



My God people, what are you thinking? You don't punish the girls that pledged.

Make them wait another semester, even though they have already completed the pledge program? No.

'Sides, how would they choose? Draw straws?

What you do, is find where the system went wrong.

I have got a feeling it went wrong because its an honor based system where everyone has known the rules and generally follows them.

You may have to invent a punishment for the problem.

However, if the real issue is fairness, and there is no sanction in place. The best solution may be to raise total by 3 and write a sanction for the next time it happens.

In the absence of a pre existing sanction, any punishment meted out by Pan Hell looks capricious at best.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally posted by James
The best solution may be to raise total by 3 and write a sanction for the next time it happens.


WADR, James, that is the worst suggestion I have heard. All that does is hurt the smaller chapters even more.

As far as the fines suggested, where do you think that money should go?

[James]

NPC treasury is the only place that is logical if you don't have something already set up.

But seriously, its going to look a little strange to make a sanction up on the spot for the group.

What do you have already in place for other types of RUSH infractions? And how could they be adapted to meet this need?

If you are unable/unwilling to place restrictions on the amount of NM the problem group will be able to take next semester and likewise unwilling/unable to give the other groups opportunity to take more, then you have already surrendered any way to make things "right". i.e. Fair.



Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
WADR, James, that is the worst suggestion I have heard. All that does is hurt the smaller chapters even more.

As far as the fines suggested, where do you think that money should go?

[phimugirlie01]

Originally posted by James


But seriously, its going to look a little strange to make a sanction up on the spot for the group.

So let me get this straight..You're saying that because no one has broken this rule before and they don't have a set punishment for it they SHOULDN'T get sactioned??? So let's say, hypothetically speaking, a chapter serves alcohol at a recruitment event. This is against the rules, but since no one else has done it, a precedence for the type of punishment given has not been set. Therfore, they should get a warning??? I don't understand your reasoning.

[James]

That is actually what would happen in a lot of situations. Or the chapter would face a larger category charge.

The important thing phimugirlie01 is to make sure there is a fair and consistant process.

Keeping to your hypothetical: Serving alcohol to Rushees is against Green Book Policy . . .

Ok, its a rule. But rules assume consequences. So normally there is an "OR ELSE" implied by "CAN'T".

There is not an "or else" for the RUSH infraction.

In your example, they would still be sanctioned in the absence of an NPC penalty, because they violated the "can't" serve alcohol without a lisence, to minors, etc etc. The "or else" being the sanctions from the school or national that are probably already wirtten down. Maybe even legal. Consequences.

In this case: The rule is a specific NPC RUSH infraction. So the "or else" comes from the NPC and is usually already written out.

That is why I asked what the penalties were, if any, for other types of RUSH infractions. These penalties would provide guidelines for sanctioning the chapter under a more general category of RUSH Infraction.

Otherwise,the local NPC, has to just "make it up" as they go along, in which case why not just a written warning?

Does it depend on how mad the other chapters are with them? Will that determine what happens?

Just here you have a variety of reactions and suggestions.

Creating a process is very important.


Originally posted by phimugirlie01
So let me get this straight..You're saying that because no one has broken this rule before and they don't have a set punishment for it they SHOULDN'T get sactioned??? So let's say, hypothetically speaking, a chapter serves alcohol at a recruitment event. This is against the rules, but since no one else has done it, a precedence for the type of punishment given has not been set. Therfore, they should get a warning??? I don't understand your reasoning.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally posted by James

What do you have already in place for other types of RUSH infractions? And how could they be adapted to meet this need?


Normally, the president of the chapter in trouble goes to mediation with the person who brings the complaint (either a chapter president, panhellenic president, or rho chi), and a fair punishment is worked out. There really is not a hard and fast solution to any recruitment problem.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

Contact NPC and get their input.

[FuzzieAlum]

I'm betting the reason there is no process in place is because this is an infraction that just doesn't happen . There are plenty of rules that do get broken more commonly (promising bids, serving alcohol at informal rush) - but I have NEVER heard this one before. It would be like saying, "Why isn't there a process in place for one chapter going out and killing another's pledges?" That's how strong the taboo is here.

That's also the reason National Panhellenic needs to be involved - it's such a serious infraction. And you see how we all disagree on here about what is the right response - the other sororities on campus who are closer to the situation can hardly be expected to reach a fair, good decision.