Door fees law's deep roots

An old law, newly enforced, has had a dramatic impact on Penn's fraternity parties. When the University began its efforts in fall 1996 to prevent fraternities from charging door fees at parties, it sparked an ongoing controversy that has threatened to alter the traditional social life of a student body that once took for granted a full slate of weekly parties. Because the University only recently began to implement policies aimed at banning cover charges at parties and increasing alcohol management, some students believed that the actions were in response to new city or state regulations. Others thought the University was merely cracking down on parties. The controversy heated up last month when, after The Daily Pennsylvanian reported that several fraternities were charging door fees, the InterFraternity Council increased its standard penalty for the violation from a $10 fine per brother and four weeks' social probation to a $30 fine per brother and 10 weeks' social probation. Despite the confusion, the reality is that the IFC, the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs and the administration are merely enforcing laws that date back to Prohibition. The issue first surfaced shortly after the national repeal of Prohibition in 1933 when the Pennsylvania General Assembly began to debate the issue of liquor control, according to officials at the state Liquor Control Board. In 1933, a law was first passed by the legislature requiring any establishment to get a state liquor license to sell alcohol, according to Christine Fritz, assistant counsel for the LCB. Tom Carroll, the assistant OFSA director at Penn, explained that the courts later determined that charging money to enter a party was equivalent to indirectly selling alcohol, and therefore requires the same permits. And proving that Prohibition continues to have an influence, houses or bars that fail to comply with the licensing requirements are considered illegal "speakeasies," Carroll added. OFSA officials maintained that the reason the regulation was never applied by the University in the past had a lot to do with their lack of enforcement mechanisms. When OFSA set up an alumni monitor system for parties in December 1996, it also banned charging door fees. The alumni, who are representatives of the Greek Alumni Council, went around to campus parties and enforced any violations they saw. But OFSA Director Scott Reikofski explained that the alumni were "inconsistent" in their enforcement. Only since the creation of the graduate observer system -- under which graduate students report back to OFSA and the IFC's Judicial Inquiry Board -- has effective enforcement taken place, said Reikofski, adding that the graduate students have been more consistent and fair. In addition to a liquor license, houses must also obtain an amusement permit from the state if they have a band or other form of entertainment and plan to charge to cover its costs. And the City of Philadelphia requires that they get a zoning variance to make the residence eligible to conduct business. Reikofski said it would be nearly impossible for any fraternity or off-campus house to obtain a liquor license. OFSA recently attempted to qualify fraternities as charitable organizations, a status which would grant them a temporary permit and allow them to charge money. But the State Police's Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, which enforces the laws, denied the request. While the letter of the law precludes Greeks or non-Greeks from charging money, the lack of enforcement until December 1996 -- when the University officially banned charging -- has apparently confused many students about the law's origins. For instance, when Penn decided to ban charging and subsequently hire monitors to observe the parties, then-IFC President Josh Gottheimer told the DP that the IFC was considering a proportional charge system. The plan was that parties that undertook greater expenses such as a live band could charge more than those who simply hired a disk jockey. Although Gottheimer and other Greeks might have hoped for administrative support in this compromise, the IFC might have failed to realize that state and city law could not permit the University to allow such a provision. And in 1990, when the IFC first considered eliminating cover charges, fraternity officials told the DP that this policy would bring them in line with insurance regulations that had been in effect for two years. Those officials made no reference to state or city law in explaining their reasons for considering the ban. While most fraternity members have since been educated on the provisions of the law, many students are unclear as to why the University needs to enforce the law now. Also, they don't know where to direct their frustrations with the law. College junior and former Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson Noah Bilenker explained that as far as he was aware, "enforcement [of the regulations] is somewhat up to the property owners." "Some people may think it's a recent law," the Phi Kappa Psi brother said. "Others think the University is trying to change whatever kind of party image we've had." Bilenker added that the entire situation "really is confusing." Whether or not the University's enforcement of the laws is vital may still be a matter of debate. When contacted by the DP, several LCB officials did not even know of any liquor laws that applied to charging cover fees at parties, and suggested calling other departments, such as the State Police, the state legislature and the city's Department of Licenses and Inspections. But Jeff Lawrence, an LCB supervisor, said he was aware the regulations for liquor licenses made charging at parties illegal. Despite many students' claims that the 1996 enforcement of the law was sudden, Carroll pointed to a 1992 incident at Phi Kappa Psi that helped lead to the change in the University's alcohol-management policies. According to Carroll, LCE agents broke up the party after they found brothers had charged money and were serving alcohol to minors. Police arrested several brothers, though the charges were eventually dropped. Carroll said this incident caused officials to be concerned about the implications of violating charging laws. If someone were injured at a party where hosts charged and served alcohol to minors, and that person sued the University, both the fraternity and the school may be held liable. But Mike Steib, a College senior and former IFC judicial manager, said he believes the risk of liability for Penn in such a situation is remote. Steib, a Delta Kappa Epsilon brother, said the charging regulations -- which are "enforced at very few other schools" -- are being enforced by the University in order to crack down on fraternities and drinking. He explained that the officials who originally drafted the laws surely did not do so with the intent of preventing hosts of parties from recovering incurred costs, but rather to diminish the prevalence of unlicensed bars. Steib also questioned the idea that the Phi Psi incident led to a drastic change in policy. "It's ironic that the school would use LCE as excuse when they personally invite LCE to bust chops," he said, referring to the administration's request for an LCE presence during Spring Fling weekend in each of the last three years.