If my memory serves me, the old board wasn't an organized message board back then (around the late 1990s). It was just a page where people entered random comments and hit "post"--basically a place for greeks to go and make announcements. I was still an active and some of my sisters who liked surfing the internet would post messages to each other. Then one day, I typed in http://www.greeksource.com and I got "Greek Chat." :)

Cool

We keep telling you to shut up, but it's not working!

#TeamSen

Not focus, but size.
 

As a member of one of the orgs that left NALFO, I think that NALFO's current situation is not due so much to some orgs changing their focus, as for the large difference in membership size between its member orgs. That is the main reason for the creation of NALFO in the first place, as many (not all) of its founding orgs could not meet the membership requirements for CNHL, which was composed of larger orgs.

I think LGLO/HLGLO's could work together well under the same council, if that council served as a trade organization. Those orgs are already well established, have a solid Alumni base, and may be looking, not so much at expansion (which of course they are) but at serving its members. Smaller orgs, be them LGLO or HLGLO, are looking towards achieving greater stability, still thinking their organizational structures, and expansion might be, although not necessarily, a greater priority.

NALFO's limitation on new orgs has lasted as long as it has due to NALFO's internal restructuring. It is very hard to find the right balance for its internal structure when each member org has a very different strategy in mind.

By the way...
 

By the way, I always enjoy Knight_Shadows comments.

What do you mean by trade oraganization I thought NALFO already was a trade organization...again I haven't rearched this....lol trying to get work done today

I had not heard that NALFO came about because there were restrictions on participating in the CNHL. My understanding (and I was still an active at the time :)) is that CNHL was formed by primarily East Coast founded organizations, and at the same time, we had West Coast Latino Greek Council. In discussions I attended locally on the topic at the time, NALFO was developed in an attempt to get everyone under one umbrella. But it very possible that it was a combination of many factors that lead to NALFO.

Whether LGLOs and HLGLOs can collaborate under one council (NALFO or otherwise) is doubtful to me at the present time, because many in LGLOs don't know quite what to make of the new "HLGLOs"--are you still Latina/o orgs? Are you saying that your orgs were founded by Latinas/os but now you are focusing your programming elsewhere? Is your demographic no longer predominately Latina/o, so that a student seeking a brotherhood/sisterhood with members of his/her own culture might not find what they are looking for in your org?

In my view, organizations that are no longer predominately Latina/o, and no longer place their primary focus on serving the Latina/o community will not have much in common with LGLOs, and therefore, it would be problematic to have them under the same council with LGLOs. I would not feel comfortable with having an organization so dissimilar to mine voting on issues that impact my organization (i.e. GPA requirements, pledging requirements, etc.).

This is what I've heard, too.

ditto...

As you say, many factors came together for the founding of NALFO. I was also active at the time and I remember one of the factors being the size difference between CHNL orgs and most orgs that eventually became NALFO founding members.

I didn't think that the west-east was not such a big factor, but I could be wrong. Back then, of the 9 founding members of NALFO, 1 was Midwest founded (APsiL), 1 was founded in the South (ODPhi), 3 were West Coast founded (GZA, LThN, NAK) and 4 were East Coast founded (SLU, LAU, OFB, ARL), while in CHNL, 2 were from the Midwest (SLB, SLG), 2 from the south (ODPhi, KDChi), and the rest were from the East (LTPhi, LTA, LSU, CUS, Phiota, SIA, LUL).

Yet, if you look at the list, there is a 30+ difference in chapters today, as it was back then, between the smallest CNHL fraternity and the largest NALFO's. As for the Sororities, SLU could have been easily in CHNL, while there is a 15+ difference to the next NALFO sorority. Size does matter for each org strategy making process and NALFO can't really serve the same way an LTA with 100+ and an APS with 10-.

I agree that the strategies and goals of LGLO's and HLGLO's are different, but a trade org, such as NIC, does not govern its member organizations. I cannot speak for other orgs that left NALFO, but SLB left due to NALFO's increasing regulatory policies. If the council is a governing council, LGLO and HLGLO's might not fit together, but under a trade org, which main purpose is lobbying for its members and creating programing that help them, and not so much governing them, there would be no problem.

Although I do see you point LatinaAlumna and I agree with you. I don't want want anybody imposing policies that affect my organization's government.

East-West
 

Looking back at some emails, I think NALFO's orgs were worried about being govern by East Coast orgs, while CHNL's orgs were worried about being govern by smaller orgs. That the reason they did not join together.

I wonder what would have happened if the CHNL fraternities had not dropped CNHL to create the Latino Fraternal Council, which resulted in LUL and the sororities joining NALFO. Would we have two councils today? Would the merge would have happened anyways? The differences between the original members of both are still there today.

I suspect orgs would just flip back and forth in between coucils everytime a vote didn't go their way if their were still 2 councils ...

Lane swerve again...this reminds me a bit of the predominantly Jewish organizations that have opted to be under the NPC umbrella. I know that there have been some NPC issues on which SDT was the lone hold-out, and it trickled down to the campus level, in some cases. On the other hand, it has probably meant a lot of opportunity for SDT (and AEPhi/DPhiE), so I wouldn't go so far as to say different goals mean different councils.

Just some food for thought.

So we never got to the point of this thread...should an organization that no longer promotes themselves as latino or latina be allowed to stay in NALFO.

Also, what about the orgs that left? I doubt they will be allowed into NMGC so is a new council the best fit for organizations who were founded as Latino or Latina but now consider themselves multiculturals?
Just some thoughts people...

P.S. this is stupid but what would you call the council? :D slow work day...

I think NALFO should be made up of peer organizations regardless of racial focus.