The Annual Meeting of the Association of Alumni and the Election of Officers
The Executive Committee presents its plan for the next Annual Meeting and the election of officers in its most recent letter to the Alumni body. Because the proposed new constitution transitions the Association and the Alumni Council into a single, new organization, the Darmtouth Alumni Association and the results of the vote will not be available until after October 31, 2006, the Executive Committee is postponing the annual meeting from the October 15, 2006 date originally planned to the first half of calendar year 2007. The election of officers and executive committee members will be elected via all-media voting. Please refer to the May 24 letter to the Alumni body for additional details. You may address questions directly to me or to other members of the Executive Committee, through the blog, or through the Association web site. The letter is available through the Association of Alumni web site at: http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/leadership/association/
posted by Merle Adelman '80 at
5/26/2006 01:37:00 PM
14 Comments:
As a point of order, Merle's new letter states the deferal of the next annual meeting and officer elections until the first half of next year is "consistent with the current constitution", in that "the AoA operates under the same calendar year as the College".
In fact there is nothing in the current Constitution that defines what the operating year is, only that the meeting must happen "annually", and if not around Commencement, than whenever the Executive Committee declares it.
The published minutes of the Dec 2003 Annual meeting clearly state the meeting the following Sept will be the 2004 Annual meeting. That makes the October 2005 meeting "the 2005" annual meeting. The minutes of that meeting refer to the next meeting, to be held Oct 15,2006, as the "the 2006 annual meeting". By defering this until the first half of next year, it means "the 2006 annual meeting" will not be held in 2006. Nor will it be held anywhere near to an annual basis... being delayed as much as 75% of its total term.
There are advantages to moving back to a spring annual meeting, but it should be accomplished by either advancing the date, or by obtaining member agreement to delay it. Defering it solely by the decisions of those whose incumbencies are extended is an incredible abuse of power.
There was no reason for this delay, as officer elections could have been conducted this fall around a better scheduling of the AGTF constitution vote. What this does is insure current officers are locked into the multi-year "arc" of the new governance rather than suffer the risk that others might replace them this fall.
Regardless of one's position on the new constitution, all should feel the shame of this power-play. Other than "convenience", or perhaps an undemocratic way of insuring the new governance begins on a pre-defined track, there is no reason for it.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5/26/2006 10:07 PM
>Because the proposed new constitution transitions the Association and the Alumni Council into a single, new organization, the Darmtouth Alumni Association<
Will we be renaming the College "Darmtouth" as well? I'm sorry to be such a prig, but you show so much contempt for your fellow alumni, and so little respect for your own honor, that it is truly appalling. You and your junta have to step down. The sooner, the better.
By
Vermontaigne, at 5/27/2006 11:37 AM
Let's face it -- the only real power the officers hold is the potential to influence the selection of nominees for an open trustee position. No one envies their jobs for the day-to-day business of running the AoA, certainly.
So will their staying in power longer than expected make any difference? (Other than to our misplaced notions of "democracy," that is -- as if this were a government, not a club.) Are there any trustee openings whose nominees they will be able to influence during the extra few months they are at the helm and taking abuse from the rest of us? It doesn't seem like it.
Why don't we all agree to say ahead of time that whatever they do must be wrong? That's the rule we've been living under so far, it seems.
By
Anonymous, at 5/27/2006 5:45 PM
To the Last Anonymous Blogger:
First, I do not believe that the intent of several commenters here is to prejudge that "whatever they do must be wrong". The intent, here and on the AGTF site, is to provide thoughtful comment and feedback, as intended when these forums were created. Credit is given when due, along with constructive criticism. The immediate event merits stronger criticism.
Second, do not dismiss a few months with no trustee election as unimportant. We are collectively talking about how trustees may be nominated far into the future, as well as the process as to how future governance may or may not be further amended.
We alumni are neither a government nor a club, though past actions have been more similar to the latter, whereas ones more similar to the former are more appropriate.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5/27/2006 5:59 PM
Also, at the end of last weekend's Council meeting, when they were talking about the outgoing chair of the Council's Nominating Committee and her replacement, there was some indication that there would, in fact, be a trustee nomination period coming up. Or, at least, that's what it sounded like to me.
So the extra half- to three-quarters of a year could very well mean that this Executive Committee will preside over a trustee election.
Of course, that's assuming that a) the AGTF proposal fails, and b) there really is a vacancy. The E.C. is basing their moves on the assumption that they will get their way--that the AGTF proposal will be accepted. If it is, they become the largest part of the transition committee, which has nearly unbridled power--from section 12.8 of the proposal: they are "authorized to take such actions, consistent with this Constitution, as are appropriate to address unforeseen transition issues and to achieve an orderly transition from the previous alumni governance system, including, but not limited to, such actions as shall be necessary or advisable to fulfill those responsibilities previously discharged by the Alumni Council and its committees (e.g., Honorary Degrees Committee and Awards Committee) that the Transition Committee determines should be discharged during the Transition Period." That is, until June 30th, 2007, they will have supreme authority over everything the Council currently does. They will also control the procedures for selecting the at-large members of the Assembly and the ALB; sections 12.3.1.1 and 12.4.1.1 give them total control over how at-large members are chosen (they don't have to follow any of the rules in Articles 5 and 6)--they could even hold a vote amongst themselves, and it would satisfy the language of 12.3.1.1 and 12.4.1.1!
If the E.C. had established all-media voting for officers as they promised when elected, and hadn't cancelled this year's election, all alumni would determine who will be on this ridiculously powerful transition committee. Instead, we are being forced to accept a committee that was elected by a few hundred alumni--less than half a percent of the alumni body! Even if they hadn't fulfilled their campaign promise, and the vote was restricted to those who could get to Hanover, those voters would make their choices with the full knowledge that they could be electing the transition committee. As it is, last year's vote was for far lesser positions than the E.C. are seizing for themselves, and I find their actions outrageous, disgusting, and wholly unworthy of alumni of Dartmouth College.
By
David Gale '00, at 5/27/2006 10:32 PM
I've put a post up at my blog examining the Executive Committee's motivations behind this delay, and the powers given to the Transition Committee.
"This is like a student saying that he can't take his final exams because he's scheduled a trip to Hawaii for term's end, despite knowing full well then that was going to be. Somehow, I don't think that would fly."
By
David Gale '00, at 5/29/2006 10:27 AM
Merle's alleged statements in today's D regarding the current AoA officers was incorrect and misleading, as anyone reading the Article XII transition rules can see.
They have a major role in the Transition Committee, independent of any alumni elections. If I understand the rules, Merle herself actually continues PAST any next alumni election under the new multi-year officer "arc", without ever having to stand for another election.
If this is mere sloppy misquoting by the D reporter, than the EC owes a correction TODAY before the D ceases publication.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5/30/2006 9:13 AM
Clearly there is some confusion regarding transition teams, succession plans, etc. I'd like to begin by encouraging everyone reading this to take a look at Articles 4 and 12 within the AGTF-proposed constitution which lay out very clearly who leads the transition team and how this leads into the new leadership structure outlined in the document.
The following Association members will continue to hold their offices during the transition period.
President of the Association
President of the Alumni Council
President-elect of the Alumni Council
These are all elected officers.
At the end of the transition period, these officers transition into new positions within the leadership structure; the President of the Association, Al Collins, becomes the Immediate Past President and transitions out of the structure. The First Vice President is elected at the end of this transition period according to Article 4, and enters the leadership cycle -- a cycle that works for many non-profit governance boards because it encourages a smooth transition from one board to the next.
Note that I, as the current first Vice President, do not enter the leadership structure unless I am elected at the end of the transition period. In fact, there is no "leadership lock" for any member of the current Executive Committee.
Our decision to delay the annual meeting and election of officers was discussed at length and considered all options. While some may not agree with the rationale, it seemed to be the best alternative for the alumni body given the uncertain results of the vote on the new constitution as well as amendments to the current constitution if any are proposed.
Our focus is on ensuring smooth change and transition for the governance structure.
We encourage everyone to read the new constitution and to vote when the voting period begins on September 15. Your voice WILL make a difference.
By
Merle Adelman '80, at 5/31/2006 8:36 AM
Merle,
In yesterday's article in the D., you're quoted as saying that you won't become a "de facto" part of the transition committee and that there'll be elections instead. Article 12, section 8, of the proposal says, however, that the executive committee as it exists before the proposal is approved will become the bulk of the transition committee; there is no provision for a vote (and, if there were, who would run the election? Under what guidelines? Since the executive committee would be disbanded when the proposal is approved, they can't; but since the transition committee wouldn't have been decided yet, they couldn't either...) Will you be issuing a statement to be published in the D., correcting the record?
As for the rationale for the delay--this fall's elections were scheduled last October. The new voting guidelines (which were written by a subcommittee you chaired) call for amendments to be voted on in the spring. The executive committee intentionally chose to call for a special voting period this fall, knowing full well that the voting period conflicted with the previously scheduled annual meeting and elections (I'd pointed this out on April 6th). Then the executive committee uses the conflicting vote periods to justify cancelling the elections. How are rational alumni to interpret this sequence, if not as a blatant attempt to remain in power as long as absolutely possible?
Also, isn't the fact that you felt you needed to seek legal counsel before making this move indication that it is, on its face, extremely questionable? Even if it is technically legal (which I question, given the standard interpretation of "annual" as well as the current guidelines that require the date of the elections to be set at the previous annual meeting), doesn't it give the impression of underhanded-ness, and thus ought to be avoided?
By
David Gale '00, at 5/31/2006 11:46 AM
David,
We are really taking things one step at a time, and we are doing the best we can in a time of pending change. The transition committee includes representatives from the Executive Committee, AGTF and the Alumni Council, with leadership coming from those members I listed yesterday. The Executive Committee is working to ensure a smooth transition assuming the AGTF-proposed constitution passes, and yes, we consulted with counsel to make sure we were within our own constitution. Nothing wrong with that -- people always consult with experts when they are not experts themselves.
I enjoyed your description of all the things we "intentionally" did to manipulate the voting period and annual meeting.
It didn't happen this way - and anyone who knows me, Al Collins, Stan Colla, Rick Roesch, Precious Stargell, Kate Aiken, Kaja Schuppert, Bill Hutchinson, and Al Cook, know that none of us would ever manipulate a process in this regard.
You give us food for thought, however . . . .
By
Merle Adelman '80, at 5/31/2006 2:53 PM
David: Merle disagrees with ("and enjoyed") your claim that the EC "intentionally" scheduled a constitution vote knowing full well it conflicted with the previously-scheduled officer vote. The only logical conclusion is that they knew of the potential conflict but "UNintentionally" chose dates that overlapped with the already-scheduled annual meeting. Darts, perhaps?
Clearly those who favor getting constituional considerations behind us (including the officers who put passage as their #1 priority) want a timely passage, even to the extent it overrides the guideline for spring voting on amendments, as well as the alumni expectation for annual officer elections.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5/31/2006 4:19 PM
Merle,
In the D., you indicated that there would be elections for the transition leadership. Now, you say that the transition committee will have representatives from the executive committee, the Council, and the AGTF. My read of the proposal is that this latter statement is closer to the truth*. So, again, will you issue a statement to the Dartmouth correcting the record, or will you allow the alumni who read the D but not these blogs to continue under a false impression?
Also, I stated that the executive committee "intentionally" chose the voting period for the AGTF proposal in such manner that it overlapped the upcoming elections. That's the only time I used "intent" on this page; you can do a search to verify. As Tim did, I ask: do you contend that the selection of the date was not intentional, that you were surprised to find that October 15th was between September 15th and October 31st? Or was it already the plan to postpone the election--in which case the alumni ought to be told why that was the case, rather than explaining it as being in conflict with the AGTF vote? The letter that has been posted says that the elections are postponed because they conflict with the AGTF vote; if they were already to be postponed before the AGTF vote was scheduled, shouldn't we be told why?
* The transition committee is composed of the executive committee and the top three members of the Council; they are to act "in consultation with" the AGTF, but the only AGTF member on the TransCom will be Bill Hutchinson, based on his membership in the executive committee. The other AGTF members will have no standing in the TransCom.
By
David Gale '00, at 5/31/2006 9:09 PM
Merle, perhaps your reference to my "description of all the things we "intentionally" did to manipulate the voting period and annual meeting" is actually referring to a comment I posted on a different thread (before it was announced that the elections were postponed/cancelled). To date, there has been no response from the Executive Committee to my post, either answering my question or rebutting any of the details I provided. Here's the first part of that post, which I would still very much appreciate an answer to:
"I'm still very interested in hearing why the Executive Committee is so committed to getting the AGTF proposal ratified. Many of their actions to date seem aimed solely at getting the proposal before the alumni, and biasing the vote to ensure passage."
(Note that I wrote about what the intent behind the actions seems to be; there may be a valid reason for all of their actions that is not to force passage of the AGTF proposal, but I cannot think of one, nor has anyone attempted to provide me with one. Until one is provided, I stand by my premise--the executive committee seems devoted to trampling democracy in order to get the AGTF proposal ratified. Merle, since you enjoyed my description of the problem, perhaps you would also let us enjoy your explanation for why the executive committee has acted the way it has?)
By
David Gale '00, at 6/01/2006 11:04 AM
I've been away for a while, tending to pressing matters, but I return to a familiar scene: Execcomagtfistan remains a land of cockaigne. David still patiently talks rationally, as if reason were a factor in this debate, and the Execcomagtfistanis blithely offer outrageous evasions.
There is only one solution to this circus of prevarication: Tro da bums out.
By
Frank Gado '58, at 6/05/2006 1:50 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home