I especially enjoy Brother Elmer Crumbley's CRWLC session for chapter advisors. Brother Crumbley does an excellent job in molding and mentoring the province's chapter advisors and now will impact all advisors of the Fraternity as he takes on his new Grand Chapter role. I commend and congratulate Grand Polemarch Sam Hamilton, for recognizing Brother Crumbley for his talent and leadership skills and I am especially proud and excited that Brother Crumbley will now lead us as Province Polemarch. I know you will all join me in offering all we have in support of his administration. Congratulations Brother Province Polemarch.

As I sat in Brother Crumbley's session last month, I realized I should dust off a column I wrote last year to remind chapter advisors that they have a serious job to do and discretion is not the better part of valor when dealing with the Fraternity's intake process. Advisors have no discretion when implementing the intake process and those who choose to vary from the MIOP provisions do so at serious risk to themselves and their assets.

Here is the column from last year. Read it very carefully.

Advice to Advisors: Know Your Job, Do Your Job

Chapter advisors are a critical component of our noble clan. They are the fraternity's guidance counselors for our undergraduates and our foot soldiers or first line defense against the senseless, insane acts of brutality that have plagued our integrity and strained our coffers. Advisors put a lot on the line and we owe them our gratitude but, more importantly, our support and guidance to help them do a vital job.

This need for support is highlighted in a recent appellate court ruling in Pennsylvania in a case styled Satana Kenner v. Kappa Alpha Psi. In that case, Kenner sued the Fraternity and several members, including the chapter advisor and certain other officials of Kappa, for personal injury sustained from hazing activities. The trial court entered judgment, without trial, in favor of the Fraternity, the chapter advisor, and the member officials. The trial court concluded that none of those defendants owed a duty of care to Kenner. Kenner then appealed the trial court's ruling to the intermediate appellate court in Pennsylvania and, in an opinion filed June 19, 2002, the appellate court changed the trial court's ruling in several very important ways.

The court, first, found the Fraternity has a duty to candidates to protect them from hazing activity, contrary to the lower court ruling. The appellate court found that because candidates pay an application fee to Grand Chapter for membership, there is, at a minimum, a contractual relationship that creates obligations for both parties (candidate and Fraternity). The court also found that hazing action, and the resulting harm from it, are clearly foreseeable and is in society's interest to prevent such activities. Based on these findings, the court found a Fraternity duty to protect candidates from acts of hazing. The good news is that, although the court found there is a duty, it also found the Fraternity did not violate or breach that duty with respect to Kenner and upheld the lower court's ultimate ruling that the Fraternity is not liable for plaintiff's injuries.

Likewise, the appellate court found the individual defendants also have a duty to guard against hazing but that Kenner failed to show how they breached any duty of care to him and upheld the trial court's ruling dismissing those folks from the case.

The chapter advisor did not fair as well. The appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings on the advisor. The court found the advisor failed to perform his duties in several respects and such failure could form the basis for liability under negligence principles of law. The court found the advisor allowed an "interest meeting" at a time when such meetings were not allowed. The court further noted the advisor failed to discuss hazing with the candidates and did not advise them of various Executive Orders, or provisions in the Fraternity Constitution and statutes regarding hazing. The court finally noted that the advisor did not understand the membership intake process and did not adequately monitor chapter activities that occurred after the informational meeting. The court, essentially, found there is enough factual basis upon which a jury could find the advisor failed to sufficiently do what is, minimally, required of chapter advisors.

This type of ruling could send chapter advisors running for the hills but there are simple safeguards against these types of lawsuits. KNOW YOUR JOB, DO YOUR JOB. Here are ten (10) simple rules for chapter advisors to protect themselves against this type of attack.

1. Thoroughly learn all the details of the intake manual/process and follow them religiously.
2. Thoroughly learn provisions of all Executive Orders, the Constitution, and Statutes of the Fraternity. Then, discuss, in detail, applicable provisions with all new candidates and chapter members.
3. Document your relationship with your chapter. Put in writing what you demand and expect of chapter members and what they can expect from you.
4. The chapter should never meet without your presence (you should document this requirement in your expectations).
5. Remember, you are the chapter advisor, first. The members' friendships are secondary to your mission and duties.
6. Never overlook chapter transgressions and immediately act upon them, report them, and document them appropriately.
7. Rarely delegate your duties and responsibilities. When you have to delegate, do so to individuals who will perform your duties as you would.
8. Stay in frequent contact with chapter members. Constantly keep current on chapter activities.
9. Don't fear saying "no" to inappropriate chapter/member activities.
10. Take tremendous pride in your job and what you do for the Fraternity.

Until next time, I am . . .