Compliance by Crisis
Select the image above to download the whitepaper (PDF).
Introduction
Some may argue fraternities have deteriorated the fabric of host universities by their actions, or in some perspective, their inaction. The behavior of fraternities, or more specifically, its members, has required the host institutions to attempt to shield itself from legal liability, tort litigation, or criminal inquiry by enacting policies against the most notorious of those violations or those concerning unethical actions, or of moral turpitude. The legal liability will not hold harmless the host university for the lack of appropriate behavior on the part of chapter members (Morrison v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, 1999). The current legal climate leans towards the university’s obligation to manage the behavioral aspects of the fraternity’s noncompliance with the most severe risk management issues (Furek v. University of Delaware, 1991). Universities could be proactive and approach the fraternities in a collaborative manner to resolve or mitigate perilous behavior, as well as the less common aspects of precarious activity with regard to chapter operations (Hall, 2009). Mandating the members of a chapter to contribute to the overall governance of the organizational behavior could prove a quality risk reduction technique success.
The standards and expectations of fraternities on any college campus leave the impression that its members are responsible campus leaders with a vision for improving the culture of their chapter and of the host university through action. Their action is seen by the college leadership as an outward demonstration to provide an exemplar to other students to emulate throughout their college careers. However, the underlying issues these fraternities are challenged with can bring the chapters to a close. Along with the most obvious unacceptable behavior of fraternity members is the lack of self-regulation when it comes to chapter operations. Fraternities need to reconcile this lack of appropriate action with their mission, culture, and rules to avoid the inevitable pitfalls and penalties (Shonrock, 1998). Host universities could improve student organization handbooks to mitigate the outcome of inappropriate behavior by fraternities, but the counterargument would be if fraternities would regulate themselves better, there would be no need for such micromanagement. The national organization of the college chapter has also developed its own set of rules to follow, which includes reporting requirements (Early, 1998). The connection between standards, culture, and the conduct of specific chapter members can be described as a paradox, which may cause school officials to have misgivings towards the continued value of constituency chapters (Dowiak, 2016; Lizza, 2017; Norman, 2003; Reis & Trockel, 2003; Sasso, 2012; Shonrock, 1998).
Operational Review
Fraternities have long been associated with risk factors, such as hazing, alcohol, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, membership, finances, and academics, all of which threaten the individual chapter, its members, the national organization, and to some extent, the host university (Allen & Madden, 2008; Biddix et al., 2014; Kingree & Thompson, 2013; Knutson et al., 2011; Neighbors et al., 2010; Nuwer, 2001; Rosenberg & Mosca, 2016). These are just several challenges each fraternity will have to overcome constantly, in order to maintain their status on campus, membership in an appropriate governing Council, and good standing with the national organization. The problems are explicated in the literature and bolstered by data, which holds relevance to the notion that change must occur. Without change, the chapter and the larger fraternal system are in jeopardy.
The decision to close a fraternity chapter is not one to be taken lightly. It is a decision that requires reflection, serious thought, discussion, debate, and advocacy from all sides to reach a compromise amongst its stakeholders. There is no checklist or set procedures regarding the manner in ultimately deciding to close a fraternity chapter. Each occurrence is unique and isolated from other closings in reason, rationale, explanation, or determining factors. The best defense to closing another chapter may lie in the ability of the chapter members to proactively identify, detect, and mitigate risk to avoid closing while simultaneously negotiating proportional sanctions handed out by the university, national organization, or both for the same event. The ultimate defense to risk is not to engage in the behavior, which leads to a final decision on the part of the stakeholders to close a chapter.
A Compliance Program
Fraternities need to make changes to their organizational governance and accept the fact they need to pivot from a values-based compliance program to a standards-based compliance program. The recommendation is to develop a pragmatic framework for a compliance program. The development of the framework for an effective compliance program needs to prescribe purpose and scope, authoritative guidelines, and in definitive terms easily absorbed by the entire fraternity upon implementation. A compliance program would be a strategy to manage the problems, challenges and change the culture (SCCE, 2014). A compliance program can be defined as a pragmatic framework developed to ensure an organization and its members act in accordance with generally accepted principles, rules, regulations, law, or policy (SCCE, 2014). It requires periodic evaluation to determine adherence to those principles, rules, regulations, or law, (SCCE, 2014). It would also allow the organization latitude to investigate, mitigate, and educate its members concerning chapter operations (SCCE, 2014).
The specific focus of this discussion is to present the business case for the establishment of an effective compliance program for Fraternities to meet, not only emerging statutory requirements, but be better equipped to handle risk management or compliance issues as they arise. The reason for this undertaking was clear when Fraternities lack of having an established program, guidelines, policies, or other procedures in place to mitigate the outcomes of constituency Chapters failures or prevent and detect deficiencies. A Fraternity could use the following policies to assist them in forging a pathway to compliance; Code of Conduct, Records and File Management, Whistleblower and Retaliation, Education and Training, and Financial Management, just to name a few.
An effective compliance program should be required, since Fraternities have become more complex enterprises. Policy development is essential in mitigating risk, self-preservation, holding their members accountable, transparency in actions, and building confidence with stakeholders. An actionable strategy to address compliance concerns presently would place Fraternities ahead of the wave of mandates being considered for these organizations. Rules, regulations, and laws are constantly being considered to address conduct, retaliation, records and training of staff, volunteers, members, consultants and agents. Fraternities should not be allowed the exception to the rule. The strategy should be a standards approach to compliance to provide objective and meaningful benchmarks for operations, management and financial functions of a Fraternity.
References
Allan, E. J., & Madden, M. (2008). Hazing in view: College students at risk: Initial findings from the national study of student hazing. Darby, PA: Diane Publishing Co.
Biddix, J. P., Matney, M. M., Norman, E. M., & Martin, G. L. (2014). The influence of fraternity and sorority involvement: A critical analysis of research (1996-2013). San Francisco, CA: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey-Bass.
Dowiak, S. (2016). Fraternity at the crossroads. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. Peter's University.
Earley, C. (1998). Influencing ethical development in Greek letter organizations. New Directions for Student Services, 1998(81), 39-47. doi:10.1002/ss.8104
Furek v. University of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506, 1991 Del. LEXIS 282 (Supreme Court of Delaware July 24, 1991, Decided). https://advance-lexis-com.mccc.idm.oclc.org/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RRT-75B0-003C-K3G9-00000-00&context=1516831.
Hall, J. (2009). Risk reduction and fraternal organizations: Tort liability, legislation, and suggestions for practice. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 4(2), September, 30-40.
Kingree, J. B., & Thompson, M. P. (2013). Fraternity membership and sexual aggression: An examination of mediators of the association. Journal of American College Health, 61(4), 213-221. doi:10.1080/07448481.2013.781026
Knutson, N. M., Akers, K. S., Ellis, C. K. and Bradley, K. D., (2011). Applying the Rasch model to explore new college sorority and fraternity members' perceptions of hazing behavior. MWERA Annual Meeting, St Louis, Missouri
Lizza, J. P. (2017). A qualitative case study of the congruence between fraternal organizations and members values, principles, and standards. Rowan University.
Morrison v. Kappa Alpha PSI Fraternity, 738 So. 2d 1105, 1999 La. App. LEXIS 1345, 31,805 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/07/99); (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit May 7, 1999, Rendered). https://advance-lexis-com.mccc.idm.oclc.org/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3WFG-N6G0-0039-41MY-00000-00&context=1516831.
Neighbors, C., Labrie, J. W., Hummer, J. F., Lewis, M. A., Lee, C. M., Desai, S. Larimer, M. E. (2010). Group identification as a moderator of the relationship between perceived social norms and alcohol consumption. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(3), 522-528. doi:10.1037/a0019944
Norman, E. M. (2003). Analysis of the Greek Five Star Chapter Evaluation Program (Order No. 3100109). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (288066320).
Nuwer, H. (2001). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge drinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Reis, J., Trockel, M., & Wall, A. (2003). Promoting student support for alcohol misuse prevention on campus: The role of secondhand consequence expectancies. NASPA Journal, 40(2). doi:10.2202/0027-6014.1223
Rosenberg, S., & Mosca, J. (2016). Risk management in college fraternities: Guidance from two faculty advisors. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 9(1), 7. doi:10.19030/cier. v9i1.9545
Sasso, P. A. (2012). Towards a typology of fraternity/sorority programs: A content analysis. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity and Sorority Advisors, 7(1), 22-42.
Shonrock, M. D. (1998). Standards and expectations for Greek letter organizations. New Directions for Student Services, 1998(81), 79-85. doi:10.1002/ss.8107
Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics [SCCE] (2014) The Complete Compliance and Ethics Manual. Minneapolis, MN.
