Below are the Minutes of the working group on 'Improving the Greek System.' Amazing how quickly a single problem (Alcohol abuse) becomes an excuse to attempt to regulate and control every Chapter in the system. Mandated Volunteerism? Regulating the appearance of Chapter Houses?

Not only this, but this group is cheerful about Big Brother-esque measures to enforce their 'Community Standards.' Keeping records on which Chapter members attend Philanthropy events, keeping Chapters from 'getting around' Philanthropy by just 'writing a check.' And finally, note that while most of these recommendations are aimed at Fraternities, the people attending have little to do with Fraternity life.

The next meeting is on July 17th at 7:30 at the Channing/Bowditch office. Greeks should attend.

Work Group Minutes for July 2, 2002
Attendance:

Greg Smith, Christianne Harder, Ryan Mills, Tazvir Patel, Raman Bhatia, Harry Spitulnik, Ananda Clarke, Mina Nasseri, Sunny Woodward, Vanessa Totten, Samantha Millman, Jamison Miller

We had a brief brainstorm over different areas that the group thought to be the most pertinent issues for Standards. At our next meeting wed. July 10th we are going to be talking about other areas where standards apply, attempting to finalize a list. (Academics, Financial Accountability, Individual vs Chapter Accountability etc.) We will also discuss the consequences for failing to meet the standards and how this will address accountability. We will then proceed to address each area in detail. (We are also continuing to research other universities who have standard-like programs in place)

Fields of Interest- Philanthropy, Social, and Chapter Maintenance

1. Chapter House Maintenance was included in standards because many of the students feel that some chapters only perpetuate negative stereotypes by having poor property maintenance not only after parties, but year round. There must be:

1.. enforcement of city code and regulations
2.. deadlines and inspections by not only city officials but students
3.. standards for outside of the home
4.. included enforcement for after party clean-up
5.. enforcement, requiring the outside of all chapters reflect in a positive manner

2. Philanthropy was chosen as an aspect for standards due to the role it plays as a pillar for our community as well as in each of our organizations.

1.. The debate was over if there should be community standards or individual chapter standards for amount of philanthropy required.
2.. Possibility of requiring members to attend or participate in other chapters philanthropy
3.. There must be enforcement, by recording each chapters involvement but how and how feasible
Issues
-Historically some chapters have found different ways around philanthropy, such as just writing a check

-IFC/Pan. events in the past have had difficulty raising large turnouts.
a. IFC/Pan should provide opportunities to do philanthropy, but should not be holding chapters hands

Further debate needed

3. Parties need to be based on more than alcohol

1.. There is thought to be a mindset regarding alcohol, and it is under question if it can be changed (i.e. people go to parties to get drunk)
2.. Limit the number of parties in a weekend or able to happen on a particular day
3.. Require the planning of events to occur earlier
4.. Have a greater participation of Risk Management positions in the planning process.
5.. We have the proper regulations in place to conduct a safe event.
The problem is the lack of enforcement and by in by each individual chapter.
6.. Enforcement must have a strong enough effect to change minds when it comes to following the rules
Ideas about enforcement-


1. Standards should be a requirement of affiliation
2. Without abiding you should not be recognized as a Greek letter organization

Email This Post!