[19526] in APO-L
Re: Fraternity houses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cliff Gilley)
Tue Oct 27 20:15:07 1998
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:06:35 -0800
Reply-To: Cliff Gilley <clifg@SEATTLEU.EDU>
From: Cliff Gilley <clifg@SEATTLEU.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199810280100.SAA03681@rintintin.Colorado.EDU>
Okay...here's probably the single best argument why we shouldn't allow an
individual Chapter to have a house: LIABILITY. Having a Chapter own/rent/lease
a house puts the National Office and the whole Fraternity at much greater
chance of being held liable for an incident that may occur at that house.
Theoretically, *one* single Chapter could put the entire National Fraternity in
danger of a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
Yes, the National Fraternity may be potentially held liable for something seen
as a Fraternity event whether it's held at an "official" house or an
"unofficial" house. But, *any* event held at an "official" house would almost
certainly be seen as an "official" event. Even a simple "slip and fall" could
have serious consequences up to the National level.
Hence, it should be up to the National Convention whether to allow the
individual Chapters to establish a "house", keeping in mind all of the
potential legal liability questions that will undoubtedly arise.
Granted, this seems to be a slippery slope analogy, but then again, there's a
certain Fraternity at MIT right now who would say it's right on the money.
It's not a matter of houses "violating what APO stands for", but a matter of
houses being potentially far more troublesome than they're worth. To allow one
Chapter to put the entire National Fraternity at risk doesn't seem to be a risk
I'd be willing to take.
YiLFS,
Cliff Gilley
Past President, Gamma Alpha (U of WA)
Past Section 8 Vice-Chair
_______________________________________________________________________
Cliff Gilley "The greatest trick the devil ever played
SU Law School was convincing the world that he didn't
clifg@seattleu.edu exist." - Verbal Kint, The Usual Suspects
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Jamey Wood <woodjr@COLORADO.EDU> wrote:
>A lot of people have given a lot of good arguments for chapters not to
>have houses. However, not one person has been able to argue that if a
>chapter were to have a house, it would somehow be violating what APO
>stands for.
>
>Bylaws such as the current ban on fraternity houses are unjustified
>restrictions on the freedom of individual chapters. I believe that a chapter
>should be able to do anything that it wants to, as long as it does not
>violate the base values of APO or significantly threaten the name or liability
>of the national organization. Our national structure in in place to support
>chapters, not to stereotype and restrict them for the sake of convenience.
>
>Most of the arguments against houses that I have seen on this list are
>good ones. In fact, they are a perfect example of why a house is probably
>a bad idea for my own chapter. But these arguments should be made on the
>chapter level, where these decisions belong.
>
>The few arguments that I do challenge are those saying that one brother's
>membership dues would pay for another brother's housing, or that chapters
>would turn away pledges when the house ran full. These arguments make
>unwarranted assumptions about the local financing and management of a house.
>Why couldn't a chapter place the entire financial burden for a house upon
>those members who live in it? And who is to say that all pledges would be
>required to live in the house? Again, these arguments place an outside
>judgement upon decisions that should be made by the local chapter.
>
>It has been successfully shown on this list why a house might not be
>the right choice for the "average" chapter. But every APO chapter is
>different. I cannot believe that there are no chapter whose circumstances
>would make a house the right choice. Let them make that choice on their own.
>
>--Jamey Wood, Gamma Theta
>
>
