Paying chapter presidents... who's ready to try?

Many student governments pay their officers for the time they spend running their organizations. I learned at lunch today that many of the larger fraternity and sorority chapters at big state schools are paying their recruitment chairs to run summer recruitment programs. Some chapters with large houses pay their housing managers.

Which leads to a question I've been asking for several years. Why don't national fraternities pay their chapter presidents?

In many ways, being the leader of a large, successful fraternity or sorority chapter is a full-time job. It's not unusual for a chapter president to spend 30-40 hours a week (or more) doing chapter work. In essence, these presidents are running businesses – franchises of their national organizations – with significant budgets, paperwork requirements, and mandatory meetings.

It would be incredibly interesting if some national group experimented with this for one year. Pick the top 10 chapters in a particular national organization and see what happens when chapter presidents are given a monthly stipend or a scholarship. Would it increase accountability? Would risk management violations decrease? Would membership numbers climb? Would some chronic problems get solved?

Some national fraternity could do this experiment for less than what they pay for one staff member. Seriously... 10 chapters, each chapter president getting a $1,000 scholarship per semester he or she is president.

$20,000 to pilot a brand new idea in fraternity and sorority leadership. Take some of that money that is spent on leadership conference training, manuals, and staff positions, and spend it instead on those working the front lines. When your staff members visit the chapters, they do an evaluation of the president's performance. Certainly, a chapter president is more likely to be accountable to requirements if there is a stipend payment attached to his or her compliance.

Maybe these paid presidents would be top candidates for staff positions with the national organization after graduation.

Would paying a chapter president result in more dynamic leaders running for a chapter's top office? Would students who depend on the income provided by a part-time job be more likely to run for president if they could count on some cash to compensate for their inability to work?

Hell, maybe the university should try it. You want chapter presidents to be more accountable to university policy? You want your chapter officers motivated to solve problems? Then let's put our money where our mouths are and give it a shot.

Just one year. C'mon. Who's game to try?

Rising gas prices and the student leader

Gas prices are affecting nearly everything these days, and student organizations will certainly feel the effects in the coming academic year. Some things to think about as we head toward $5 a gallon gas this Fall:

• Costs for attending conferences will be higher this year. Take whatever you spent last year and increase your budget by at least 25%. Gas to drive will be almost double. Airfares are expected to be significantly higher. You get the idea. Plan ahead to compensate. If you can't find more money for conference attendance, you will probably have to cut back on the number of people you are sending.

• It will also be harder for people to justify drive-in conferences when the drive is more than an hour or so. If you have a conference or an event that involves people driving over from other schools, you should anticipate lower attendance this year.

• Volunteer advisors are going to have a harder time driving to campus for meetings. Everyone is cutting back on their extra driving, it seems. Make sure if you are asking your volunteer advisors to drive up to your meeting or your event that they see the benefit and that you help them make the most of their visit. Every time I have to drive to Fort Collins, CO (1.5 hours away) for my fraternity, I feel the pinch. Remember, volunteering your time is one thing, but incurring costs of $40 in gas to attend a chapter meeting requires a bit more justification.

• Staff members will be less likely to commute long distances. Does your advisor commute a long way to and from work? Then you might expect that person to seek ways to cut down on the driving. You will likely see more four-day work weeks, and you will definitely see advisors less willing to drive back to campus for weekend events. Also, don't be surprised if these long-commuting staff members start seeking jobs that require less driving.

• Everything is going to cost a little more because every industry is being hit with higher costs. For example, the costs for t-shirts and advertising specialties (cups and giveaway stuff) will likely go up this year. Many of their supplies are petroleum-based, and their supplies are costing more. Even their shipping expenses are skyrocketing. So, don't get upset when they can't offer you the same prices as last year. And yes, speakers will cost a bit more. The costs of traveling are killing us.

These are just a few things I thought of this morning. Basically, I'm advising you to begin thinking about these rising costs now, before you get back to campus. You will likely have to trim some costs in the short run, but start thinking about how you can generate more budget income in the months ahead. Inflation is upon us, and I imagine many student organizations will have to increase dues, charge more for events, etc. in the coming year.

HAZE: The Clarification

Re: my previous posting regarding HAZE: The Movie...

I was contacted by the film's director today and was asked to clarify that the event Saturday in Colorado Springs I attended was not the "premiere" of the movie, but an "advance showing." During the Q&A session, the production team did leave the door open for changes in the film based on distribution deals and so forth. They did, however, say that they were pretty happy with their final product and were not anticipating significant changes.

Additionally, I want to add that although I thought the film had some problems, I think it's a very noble project, done by talented and caring people, with great hopes that they could start an important national conversation. I encourage everyone to see the film and pass their own judgment. A review is simply one person's opinion.

Check out HAZE: The Movie when you have the opportunity, and decide for yourself (and for your community) whether it hit the mark or not. In either case, I am glad we have folks who care enough to make the effort. Every person who contributes in any meaningful way to the discussion and search for solutions to high-risk college drinking deserves our appreciation.

HAZE: The Movie (the first review)

I attended an advanced showing of HAZE: The Movie last night in Colorado Springs. Two years in production, the full-length documentary attempts to tackle the issues surrounding high-risk alcohol abuse on America's campuses, and specifically within the Greek community in the context of hazing and other unhealthy new member activities.

There has been a good amount of worry – in this blog and elsewhere – that the release of this film is going to give a black eye to the national fraternity and sorority community.

Everyone can relax.

Other than shocking a few parents who are naive about the alcohol-centric campus social culture, no one is going to be shocked or surprised by what they see in the film. I honestly was hoping for something much more hard-hitting.

The film itself has a couple of significant problems, and sadly these culminate into a project that tried too hard and missed the mark.


PROBLEM #1:
What exactly is this film about, anyway?

The film cast too wide a net. In an hour and 20 minutes, it tried to address:

• Fraternity hazing
• The frustration of emergency responders to college drinking
• New college students dealing with independence from parents
• The nature of the "business" of national fraternities
• Binge drinking, especially with drinking games and competitions
• The 21 year old legal drinking age
• Alcohol industry advertising and product creation
• Female objectification and increasingly male-like behavior
• The negative role of fraternity alumni

I'm sure I'm missing a few. There were enough topics in this film to fill a two week student affairs conference, and because of that, it felt like a film of tangents. They tried to do too much, and they didn't go deep on anything.

Honestly, the film should have been called "Students Drink Too Much," because that's the only title that would have encompassed everything they were trying to accomplish. The producers said that their "first cut" was 10.5 hours long. When they started cutting, they didn't narrow their focus enough to get to a final product that followed a coherent path.

After watching the film with me, my partner asked me, "Why did they call it HAZE? It really wasn't about hazing."

"I think it was meant to be like haze, as in an alcohol related haze," I replied.

"Well, they tried to have so many meanings they ended up just being confusing. I don't think it was even really about fraternities and sororities," he said.

In the Q&A session after the film, an audience member asked the director to identify the film's target demographic. Parents? High schoolers? College students? The director answered, "Yes." They tried to hit everyone. Their intentions were awesome, but that was their biggest mistake.


PROBLEM #2:
The Lanahans

The 2004 death of Chi Psi Fraternity pledge Gordie Bailey (pictured above) serves as the emotional backdrop of the film. Bailey's mother and stepfather, Leslie and Michael Lanahan, were the primary funders of this project via their Gordie Foundation, and the two are listed as the film's executive producers. Thus, the filmmakers clearly had an obligation to spend a large amount of the film focused on the circumstances of his death and the impact on the family.

And that was the film's greatest weakness. The Lanahans should have been about 10 minutes of the movie, but of course, they were more. A lot more. While extremely sad and senseless, Bailey's death didn't pack a lot of surprise and horror. As an extroverted, 230-pound, fun-loving fraternity pledge, Bailey drank himself to death with the encouragement of his fraternity brothers. No violence, no victimization. Just a bunch of dumb, drunk fraternity men who created a potentially deadly situation and who didn't take care of each other.

Sad and tragic? Yes. Senseless? Yes. An important lesson in taking more responsibility for your friends and fraternity brothers? Absolutely. Shocking enough to provide the framework and majority of narrative for a feature-length documentary? Sorry, no.

I can think of several alcohol-related hazing incidents (one from my own fraternity) that would have been more compelling – incidents that would have tapped more effectively into my sense of injustice. Michael Moore knows that when he's going out to film a documentary, he needs to find several stories that surprise you and engage your sense of fairness. The film makes a point to tell us that 1,700 students die each year from alcohol related incidents. So, you wonder as a viewer, why are you only showing us one?

This is not to minimize the Lanahans' tragedy. As a parent, I felt Leslie's emotions at my core. I applaud their commitment to making something positive come from their terrible loss. From a filmmaking perspective, however, they shouldn't have been so much of the film. The producers let one story do all the talking, and it didn't do a good enough job. Not all sad stories are equal.

On a positive note, the film spent some time with one of Bailey's pledge brothers, the last one to check on him that fateful night. You could feel his honesty, his regret and his sadness. I sat there thinking, "Well at least one kid cared enough to check on him, even if he didn't do enough." This kid was the best part of the film, and I wish they had spent twice as much time on him.


PROBLEM #3:
Who are these experts anyway?

The film desperately needed a narrator. Throughout the film, a dozen or so "experts" are interviewed to shed light on the 800 issues covered.

Full disclosure: I was one of them. I participated in the production and am shown in three short interview segments. I knew I was in the film, but I went to the showing last night with no idea what I would be seeing or what segments of my interview they were using.

The first time each of these experts shows up, there's a graphic with his or her name and title. But, the filmmakers did not do an adequate job of explaining who these people are and why their opinions matter. Had there been a narrator introducing us to each of these experts and why we should listen to them, it would have been a better film.

We see Hank Nuwer, for example. I know that Hank Nuwer is an amazing advocate for hazing prevention. I've met Hank, heard him speak, have read his books on the subject of hazing. He is the go-to guy on the issue of hazing prevention, and his website is incredible. Had the viewer been introduced to Hank properly, they would have known that he's truly a national expert on the issue. His comments would have meant more.

Dr. Susan Lipkins is in the film. The viewer of the film has no idea who she is, so she comes off as a concerned mom in a hot pink jacket. Nothing is invested in establishing her credibility, so the impact of her comments is minimized.

I have spoken to nearly two million students – mostly fraternity and sorority members – on issues concerning their health and wellness. But, the viewer doesn't know that. So, instead I come off as a fat-head frat guy with a few clever comments. I was pretty happy that the three times I appear on screen, I actually say some pretty good stuff (sigh of relief). But, nothing is invested in establishing my credibility, so who cares?

There are about 18 segments of this particularly witty psychologist talking. He totally dominated the "expert testimony" portions of the film, to the point I found myself wondering, "Who the hell is this guy?" He had good things to say. His credentials? No idea. Some random psychologist, I guess.

My friend (and CAMPUSPEAK speaker) Travis Apgar has several amazing segments in the film, but again, we aren't sure who the hell he is. Is he a campus administrator? Is he a speaker? Was he himself hazed in the most terrible way? The answer is yes to all three questions, but there's no way that the average viewer of the documentary would know that.


PROBLEM #4:
They went too easy on fraternities.

The film delivers a few light jabs, but nothing close to a knockout head punch that the national fraternal organizations deserve. Having spent the last 20 years of my career working in the fraternity and sorority world, I was ready for a film that would hold some feet to the fire. But, it didn't happen. Fraternity executives can all rest easy.

There were facts that might disappoint the average viewer, such as Chi Psi responding with lawyers instead of compassion, fraternity members receiving weak community service sentences, chapter brothers marking all over Bailey's body with Sharpies. But, there was nothing that will surprise any of us who live in the risk management dominated world of fraternity and sorority life.

There was one moment that made my eyebrows rise. An expert stated that most national fraternities are basically real-estate businesses that depend on constant, aggressive new member recruitment. Note to filmmakers: THAT was what your movie should have been about – national organizations willing to accept a certain number of alcohol-related deaths as a "cost of doing business." But alas, that was as far as it got.


PROBLEM #5:
Where were the people of color?

What? Black and Hispanic folks don't drink? I won't spend a lot of time on this, but I didn't see a single person of color in the entire film. Not one expert, not one student. Bailey's pledge brother, maybe a little, but I'm unsure.

Granted, Boulder is pretty white, but if the filmmakers were trying to portray this as a national problem, they left out a whole lot of folks. They could have tried harder to be more inclusive. One filming trip to a fraternity party at a state school in Southern California could have solved this.

I haven't seen a movie this white since The Sound of Music.


So, in conclusion...

This film will be good for starting discussions, particularly in high schools.

I think most college students will feel it's a fair (and unfortunate) portrait of their reality, with its images of beer funnels, keg stands, and flippy cups.

Student Affairs folks will be eager to host programs where the film is viewed, because it justifies a lot of the work we are trying to do.

I believe the filmmakers were very fair. There wasn't a single time I thought they were being exploitive or sensational. Their portrayal was honest, and their desire to shed light on some scary issues is sincere and worthy of praise.

But, HAZE: The Movie, is not going to cause widespread change. It didn't break new ground. It should have chosen a more narrow focus and gone deep. They covered the issues, but they didn't "uncover" anything.

The impact of this film will have much more to do with its distribution than its content. If the producers succeed in getting it on HBO, 60 Minutes, or some other broad national venue, it will get a fair amount of press and attention.

There will be some press and there will be hundreds of campus showings. The Gordie Foundation is going to make sure of that.

I hope it will have a positive effect by generating some campus (and high school) discussion about high-risk drinking behavior, but as a national call-to-arms, I don't have high hopes. It won't force any big change in college students' choices surrounding alcohol other than to scare their parents a bit more.

This film will not be a major game-changer, and that will relieve or disappoint you based on your perspective. The work of changing the realities of campus drinking and drugging (and specifically within fraternity and sorority communities) is immensely complex. This film with its valiant effort and overwhelming charge proved this, beyond a doubt.

When you're pissed

How do you act when you are upset? Are you stoic? Put on a happy face and fake your way through it? Do you scream and yell? Kick dogs and small children? Say nasty things to people just to hurt them? Smash things? Go online and leave nasty comments on blogs? (You know who you are.) Shop, drink, exercise really intensely? Listen to a certain song on your iPod while you mentally picture yourself doing heinous things with a chain saw?

Knowing how you typically respond to anger is very important for the effective, self-aware leader. The more you recognize your own behavior patterns, the better you can direct them, cope with them, or warn others how to help you get past them.

You're going to get pissed off sometimes. Happens to the best of us. The difference between a good leader and a bad one is the manner in which they deal with the negative stuff. No one is particularly effective when they're pissed, but some people are better than others at keeping it to themselves until they can successfully deal with it.

I'm writing about this today, because I'm not very good at managing my anger sometimes.

When I'm pissed? I stew. I give short, clipped answers to questions. I avoid eye contact (that's the big one for me...). I'm like a pressure cooker... it just builds up until I finally vent. The bad part is that the more I let the pressure build up, the more likely it is that my venting will come out in a very stupid way. Most typically, I say something insensitive that I later regret.

Take today... I've had a rough week, and tonight I yelled at my dog and made a particularly snippy and unkind comment to my son. About 15 seconds later, I felt like a total ass. I had let my anger get the best of me. Poor Dewey (that's him, above) ran away and hid in his kennel, while my son just decided to ignore me and went downstairs to watch TV.

I found these suggestions on a Hindu website that I like to visit. When angry you can: think it out, talk it out, write it out, let it out, channel it out, chill out, or work it out. Good stuff. Figure out what works for you. Or, if your common coping mechanism isn't working so well, try a different one.

So, I'm writing this to you tonight, dear reader. Writing it out. Because I yelled at my dog and it didn't help at all.

If you find that you damage relationships, your reputation, or become dysfunctional for long periods of time whenever you get pissed, it's a sign that you might need a little help. You need to find a better way to manage the anger.

I'm off to find a dog treat now. I think I can get Dewey to like me again before bedtime. My son might be harder...

Dove model encourages "Embracing Real Beauty"

In the summer of 2005, six women made national news when they appeared on a Times Square billboard, dressed only in their underwear. While other nearby billboards featured actresses and supermodels, this one, promoting Dove brand products, promoted “real women with real curves,” and the nation went wild. Suddenly, Stacy Nadeau (pictured) emerged as a spokeswoman for healthy body image on the Today Show, CNN, Ellen, Dr. Phil, Tyra, and Oprah (twice).

I am excited to announce that Stacy is joining the CAMPUSPEAK roster and is immediately available for bookings. We just had her in Denver for our biannual speakers training conference, and she's AMAZING. College audiences are going to love, love, love her. Her story of how this ad campaign affected her life and the thousands of letters she got from appreciative women nationwide will inspire you.

In her keynote, Embracing Real Beauty, Stacy speaks to men and women about the role they can play in changing the message that young women receive about body image and beauty. Stacy is a fantastic choice for eating disorders and body image awareness week observances, for women’s conferences, Panhellenic education, new student orientation, and current ideas and issues series.

If you're interested in learning more about bringing Stacy to your campus, call Amy Butler at (303) 745-5545 or email her at butler@campuspeak.com.

Stop saying "First Annual..."

One of the curses of being a journalism major is that you learn a few rules in school that you then can't shake for the rest of your life. One that I've always remembered is this: "Something can't be annual until it's happened twice." Therefore, you can never call something "the first annual..."

I see this all the time when I travel to campuses. It's on a ton of t-shirts. Student leaders get so jazzed by an event they are planning, they just assume that it will be huge, and generations of leaders who follow them will want to make the event a regular thing. Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn't.

And when it doesn't, you have all these t-shirts that say "First Annual Pickle Tickle" and there is never a second one.

Here's what you do. When you have a new event and you're very excited about it, just call it "The First..." Drop the "annual." We are proud to announce The First-Ever Pickle Tickle! Then, when your successors do it again, they can call it "The Second Annual Pickle Tickle: Same Dill, Twice the Thrill."

Again, I repeat, nothing is annual until it's happened twice. Got it? Good.

New members wearing letters

New members should be allowed to wear letters. They should be encouraged to wear letters. We should buy them several sets of letters and encourage them to wear them every day, all day long.

When I was a founding father of my chapter (back when The Facts of Life was a hit show), everything that active, initiated members were allowed to do, new members were allowed to do. We treated them as members who had a bunch to learn, not as people who had to earn membership. It's a philosophy I still encourage, 20 years later.

The one extended battle I had with my founding brothers had to do with the letters. I see it frequently, today. "They don't know what the letters mean, so they shouldn't wear them until they are initiated," the argument goes.

I am a marketer, so I don't understand why groups don't want their new members advertising their chapter all over campus. Give a new member letters and he will wear them constantly. He will interact with other young students on campus and recruit them.

"They don't know what the letters mean!" you say. So what? That argument doesn't carry water. Next time you see a kid wearing a Hollister t-shirt, ask him if he can state the company's mission statement. Yet, Hollister doesn't seem to mind that kid wearing and advertising their brand.

Go to any fraternity or sorority convention and see how many of the members over age 30 remember what the letters mean. Should we take away their badges? It cracks me up at my convention when I have to lead almost every alumnus (including most of our national board members) through that little ritualistic activity.

I usually comes down to active, initiated members wanting something to withhold from new members. It's a power thing, plain and simple. As an initiated member, you want something obvious that makes you something greater than a new member.

We have the badges, they have the new member pins. We have lifetime membership, they have probationary membership. You would think that would be sufficient.

It comes down to deciding which is more important: the egos of your active members, or the marketing of your organization.

Back at Indiana, we made a compromise. New members couldn't wear the Greek letters for our fraternity, but they could wear the words spelled out. I thought it was a goofy compromise, but it served my purposes, so I ran with it. It actually turned out pretty well, because we were trying to get known on campus. Our new members lived in shirts with the words "Pi Kappa Phi" spelled out, and it worked out better for us than if they had worn the letters.


Update: I just found out that Alpha Epsilon Phi Sorority has a national rule against pre-initiates wearing the "Phi" letter. I found this interesting. If there are any other groups out there with similar rules, I'd enjoy hearing about it, and I'd appreciate hearing what kind of discussions and justifications have been made within the organization for the rule. I'll do a follow up at some point if I get any new information. Thanks.

This year, make mental health a programming priority

One quarter of all college students will deal with a diagnosable mental health disorder. Of those, most will not receive any kind of professional help.

Ross Szabo (pictured left) and Colleen Coffey speak for my company on issues surrounding mental health, and they shared this statistic with me this weekend at our biannual company meeting.

Nearly all young people will struggle with a mental health issue, be it stress, lack of sleep, life balance, eating issues, unhealthy responses to grief, or other life events. While these issues affect almost everyone, the topic of mental health and the struggles associated with it, are shrouded in secrecy, misunderstanding, stigma and discomfort.

I brought Ross aboard our agency about five years ago, long before incidents at Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech focused higher education's attention on the importance of mental health. Back then, I had to beg people to take a chance on booking him. Today, he's one of our busiest and most successful speakers.

I'm proud that Ross has done so much great work for the National Mental Health Awareness Campaign and CAMPUSPEAK. I truly, truly wish that every college student and advising professional could see his presentation. Colleen Coffey (also with NMHAC) joins our roster this year to help meet the demand for programs on this issue, and she's fantastic also.

If you don't have mental health issues on your list of programming priorities, you should be fighting to get it on there. Sure, issues like alcohol abuse and sexual assault prevention are critical, but too many campus limit their programming priorities to these two topics, ignoring the fact that mental health is an issue that crosses into all others. If awareness of mental health issues isn't on your programming priority list, it needs to be.

Many students also struggle with mental health issues in their families. My mother's depression and bipolar disorder shaped my childhood more than almost anything else. It's part of the reason my professional commitment to promoting mental health awareness is so very personal. My younger brother and I spent our childhoods doing everything we could to compensate for my mother's struggles, and we never got any help. We didn't know that anyone else faced these issues, and we never knew there was anywhere to turn for help. We would have given a limb each just to better understand what our mother was going through.

In your capacity as a student leader, or a program advisor, you can help many college students understand that their struggles – or those in their families – are not unique. Best of all, you can help students who feel trapped (like I did) to understand that there are resources to help them end the shame and the fear that surround mental health issues.

The new year is coming. This is your chance.

The downside of nicknames

I had a fraternity brother named "Squirrel." Everyone on campus knew the guy as "Squirrel," and he was very popular. He was very cute, very small, and his hair kind of stood up in the front. If only he had pockets full of peanuts, the name would have been the most perfect nickname in history.

Even our composite listed his name, simply, as "Squirrel."

Fast forward 20 years. We were putting together our reunion mailing list, and we have absolutely no idea what Squirrel's real name was. We searched our composites and our alumni lists, but alas, we could not figure out his damn name. I'm not sure if the committee ever resolved it.

I think his name was Brian. Brian "What?" I absolutely have no idea.

I have a nasty habit of depending on nicknames. The guy who paints my house? Al the Painter. No idea what his real name is. Angie the UPS Woman delivers me several boxes from Amazon.com each week. One of my father's best friends was named "Blue." I had no way to invite him to my dad's funeral.

Speaking of rodents, I have a Facebook "friend" named Beaver. I don't think the guy looks anything like a beaver, so I'm not asking...

I'm making it a point these days to learn first and last names, even for my most casual acquaintances. It's tougher, sure, but it sure makes it easier to find people when you really need them. If you have a cell phone contacts list full of nicknames, you might want to fill in the blanks one of these days.

Sorority point systems

I am a fan of using a point system to reward members for participation, attendance, and scholarship. But, my encouragement of them has a few qualifiers:

1. Point systems are high maintenance. If you're going to have a point system for participation, then you have to maintain it zealously. It can be time consuming, so you have to make sure that a very responsible and organized person or committee is handling it.

2. Having the highest point totals can be a bad thing. You need to acknowledge that a woman who is completely unhealthy about her sorority involvement will get a high point total. We should not reward a woman for getting a ton of points while she is failing her classes, burning herself out, neglecting other relationships and responsibilities, etc. Just think how unmotivating it is for the 3.9 GPA pre-med major who is moderately involved when she sees the chapter celebrating the woman with a 1.9 GPA who scored the most points.

I strongly recommend that you set a reasonable point threshold that you are encouraging all women in your chapter to pursue, then reward EVERYONE who reaches that benchmark. For example, you can say that every woman who achieves (X) number of points will be entered into a drawing for free dues next semester. This way, everyone who is involved in the chapter in a meaningful way has a chance for reward.

3. Make points an incentive, not a source of punishment. It's not wise to say, "If you don't get this many points, you can't go to formal." Instead, offer women who reach a healthy point total a reward, such as a discount on attending formal, or free favors. I do believe it is OK for a chapter to expect a minimum amount of points, but it needs to be a very low number – literally the lowest amount of involvement your chapter can tolerate. If a woman falls below this incredibly low number, she probably doesn't want to be active in the sorority anyway. Basically, the pursuit of some really high minimum standard of points can cause your women stress, and that's not a good thing.

4. Use a transparent system for keeping track of points. I believe the Gin System, Chapter Communications, and some of these online chapter management companies have mechanisms that work pretty well (or they are in the process of developing them). Check with them. However you keep point totals, it's important that you make it clear and easy to understand. No last minute point awards on a subjective basis because the president wants to reward a certain group, for example.

5. Keep the point spread minimal. I think it's a bad idea to have any event be worth more than five points. I support making ritual worth 5 and an intramural game worth 1, for example. But, if you make ritual worth 20 and intramurals worth 1, that's too much of a spread.

Point systems make sense when they motivate women to do more for their chapter. They don't make sense when almost everyone hates the system and feels like it's one more reason to hate their chapter, their leaders, and their letters. If more than half of your members would vote to abolish the point system right now, then you need to fix it or get rid of it, because you're not doing it right.

Many thanks to Lori Stokoe, an Alpha Phi chapter advisor, for the topic suggestion. If you have one, email me.