IFC plans to monitor parties for BYOB policy violations

The Interfraternity Council revised its BYOB policy this week by instituting a new social monitoring system at parties, IFC President Jim Rettew said in a written statement last night. Under the old policy, fraternities could hold parties without monitors unless the Greek Peer Judicial Board found them guilty of previous violations of BYOB policy. The new policy calls for two roving monitors to visit all "large parties" to look for violations. Rettew said yesterday the new policy sets up a formal process for monitors to report BYOB violations and calls for the IFC executive board to review reports of violations and decide if they go on to the GPJB. He added that the new rules should not affect students attending parties. "I doubt that party-goers will see a difference," Rettew said, adding that the policy will take effect after spring break. Rettew said fraternities came to a consensus that change was necessary. According to GPJB prosecutor Chris McLaughlin, this consensus was reached before an IFC meeting on Monday. "Jimmy [Rettew] sat down with the presidential round tables [a group of ten chapter presidents] and hashed out everyone's problems with BYOB," said McLaughlin. College junior Rettew added that the new monitoring system is just a step in the process of refining the BYOB policy. "[The new policy] is not a response to the fact that BYOB is not working," said Rettew. "BYOB is a successful policy that manages risk effectively. In that sense, it is working." Under the new social monitoring system, two volunteer monitors from different fraternities will go to every registered "large party" to look for any violations of BYOB policy, McLaughlin, a Wharton senior, said. Each monitor will be given a checklist of what to look for at a party. McLaughlin said the lists will "take subjectivity out of it [the process]." A monitor will not be at a party all night, McLaughlin said, but will probably visit a specific party once or twice a night. If a monitor sees a BYOB violation, he will record it and then leave the party, he said. McLaughlin added that monitors will not be "policemen." If there is a BYOB violation, then a monitor would report it to the IFC. The IFC Executive Board would then decide whether or not to send it to the GPJB prosecutor, said McLaughlin. He said that in his opinion, a major violation of "the spirit of BYOB" would include a keg of beer at a party. Such an offense should be sent to the GPJB prosecutor through the IFC or directly to him, he said. In addition to this change, the IFC redefined its definition of a "large party." Under the new BYOB guidelines, McLaughlin said, a "large party" is now defined as a party with over two invitations per brother. The IFC will receive all social monitoring reports, Rettew said. All major violations will be sent to the GPJB and all minor violations will be handled differently. These "will stay within the IFC board," Rettew said. Rettew would not define a "major" and "minor" violation. The Panhellenic Council's GPJB Administrator Lisa Spivack said the new system could prevent hostility between individuals or fraternities. She noted that the new process calls for the IFC board to report violations to the GPJB, eliminating pressure on the individual who would otherwise have to file a complaint under his name. But Spivack said if minor BYOB violations are handled only by the IFC and not sent to the GPJB, the jurisdiction of the GPJB will be undermined. "If we [GPJB] are going to have any sort of power on the campus we better handle minor violations," said Spivack. "We have to start somewhere. It [not hearing cases] will undermine the integrity of the Greek law system of this board." IFC president Rettew said he does not expect an increase in the number of BYOB cases heard before the GPJB. "I feel that they [fraternities] are following the basic part of the guideline already," he said. But GPJB administrator Spivack said social monitoring will mean more cases for the GPJB. Spivack added that no BYOB cases have yet been heard by the GPJB. However, she said that the prosecutor may have investigated incidents and found it unnecessary to bring them to trial.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.