Trustees Vote to Endorse the Proposed Constitution
On September 9, at their annual planning retreat, the Board of Trustees adopted a motion (passed by a 14 to 3 margin) to support the proposed constitution:
VOTED: to express appreciation for the work by the Joint Committee on Alumni Governance and Trustee Nominations (2001-2003) and the Alumni Governance Task Force (2004-06), and to thank the many individuals and groups who participated in the process that has led to the proposed system for alumni governance and the nomination of alumni to the Board of Trustees.
VOTED: to record the Board’s support of the proposed constitution of the Dartmouth Alumni Association that provides 1) a more representative alumni governance structure; 2) better communication channels with the Trustees and College administration; 3) a fair trustee nomination process; and 4) modernized voting methods for election of Association officers and representatives.
Full text available from Speaking of Dartmouth
posted by Anton Anderson at
9/10/2006 10:40:00 PM
7 Comments:
I hate to point this out, but the third point is questionable--since the only Trustees who won their positions in elections that involved both NomCom-selected candidates and popularly petitioned ones all voted against this motion, the third point is questionable at best (I've contended that the new system is far from fair), and the fourth option is something the current executive committee promised to do during its own election, and has not done yet, despite repeated calls by alumni to do so. I have my own doubts about the first two points as well, but I'll leave it at that.
By
David Gale '00, at 9/11/2006 1:41 PM
David,
Regarding your first comment, you may not have realized that a petition candidate, James Harris, ran in 2002 (I believe) and lost to one of the Nominating Committee candidates who currently sits on the Board (Jose Fernandez, if I've got my dates correct).
By
Bill Hutchinson '76, at 9/11/2006 2:59 PM
Harris vs Fernandez notwithstanding, it appears that the three dissenting votes all came from trustees who won their seats from a petition candidacy. Apparently none of them voted yea. Similarly, all of those who did vote yes were either charter trustees or those nominated by the 100 member Council's nominating committee.
It is a real disappointment that the College (for it and the Trustees are the same) has reneged on its pledge of neutrality at the eleventh hour.
Importantly, for an institution that wants to increase alumni participation and understands communication is a vital part of that, it demonstrates an ignorance that communication involves sincerity in LISTENING. How else to explain that the Trustees (minus three) have presumed what is best in how alumni define their governance, and want to influence the outcome to their own beliefs through a pre-election endorsement, without waiting to hear if that is what most alumni desire. It does not set a good example to members of the College staff, that they should involve alumni on a regular basis and not merely when convenient or for PR purposes. Unless of course one is willing to abide by a "Father Knows Best" philosophy that 66,000 Dartmouth-educated alumni should find insulting.
I am very disappointed not that trustees as individuals believe in the proposal, but that they have used their collective position and power to pre-judge the alumni. They had a more honorable alternative of speaking out as individual alumni themselves, rather than representing the College.
The Trustees have stated the ALB will improve communication, but through this pre-emptive action, they have demonstrated that they are not willing to listen to the alumni body at large. How disappointing, and what better indicator that we need to retain our ability to add petition candidates to the Board.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/11/2006 5:22 PM
If the petition trustees have accomplished nothing else, they have at least forced the board to rescind its rule that ALL VOTES MUST BE RECORDED AND REPORTED AS UNANIMOUS.
Maybe the noxious Trustee
Oath will be next to go.
Bill apparently no longer answers me, but I would nonetheless like to ask him whether his AGTF crew will issue a public statement condemning the Board just as they published a letter in the D some months back condemning the petition trustees for writing a PRIVATE letter to the AGTF expressing their objections as alumni. Stevenson was very sure that trustees should not interfere in alumni affairs at that time.
Or has the Executive Committee issued a new guideline against consistency?
By
Frank Gado '58, at 9/11/2006 10:15 PM
I would like to point out that the post below this one was, in fact, posted after this one; it seems to have been intentionally back-dated in order to keep this post at the top of the blog, so that any alumni who check here before voting will see this first.
This is not the sort of behavior we should expect or receive from our elected leadership.
By
David Gale '00, at 9/13/2006 8:24 AM
The post-dating I mentioned in the above post has been corrected. Thank you, Merle, for correcting the issue.
By
David Gale '00, at 9/13/2006 11:27 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 5/29/2007 11:28 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home