New Alumni Trustee Nomination Guidelines
New guidelines for Alumni Trustee Nominations are now available. Information on the candidates nominated and ratified by the Alumni Council as well as information on the petition process can be found on the Vox the Vote web site.
posted by Merle Adelman '80 at
12/06/2006 07:15:00 AM
14 Comments:
Transparency and Independence:
Along with electing a new Trustee, Dartmouth alumni now face the more mundane task of electing a new Association Executive Committee to represent them. Such individuals must understand their first duty is to represent all alumni and to deliver on promises of open, transparent government. A slate has been proposed by nominators chosen by the current leadership, and contains some members of the current committee; there are also plans by others to run independently.
The next group of officers should pursue no agenda not aligned with the interests of a majority of alumni. We need a group committed to openness with their constituents, which includes honoring the Association’s constitutional requirement to inform alumni of expenses resulting from our leadership’s decisions. These funds do not come from a separate Association bank account, but are funded by a supportive College. Nonetheless we have a fiduciary duty to insure that such monies are spent wisely, and we question why a special constitutional election was held in the fall instead of in parallel with this spring’s trustee election, doubling the costs. Alumni deserve to know what an “all-media” election costs, and how many scholarships could have been funded in lieu of the special election’s Vox-the-Vote campaign expenses.
When asked to provide a treasurer’s report as required by our constitution, and a summary of how their decisions cost the College money, our current Executive Committee inexplicably refuses to do so, in a written response stating there will be no report on past spending and that there are no similar reporting plans for the foreseeable future.
Compounding this reluctance, an unsolicited communication from the Alumni Relations office conveys the opinion that no purpose is served in informing alumni of expenses spent supporting Executive Committee decisions. It is claimed that, as these sums are already “transparent to the Trustees”, there is no reason to share such information with alumni. Yes, the trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to review and approve how Dartmouth spends its money. At the same time, our Association owes its members a report of our expenses, regardless of whether the funds to cover them come from the College, member dues, or a loan from the World Bank.
The next Executive Committee must take heed. While the need for a cooperative and constructive relationship with the Administration is a given, our leaders’ first priority must be to represent alumni. The independence of their decision-making is assured only if it is indeed “open and transparent”. Let’s elect people philosophically committed to this, as proven by a willingness to understand and report on the numbers rather than hide them.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 2/08/2007 5:12 PM
Association Officer and Executive Committee Elections
Association elections begin April 1, 2007 by both paper and internet balloting. In addition to voting for a new Trustee, alumni will be asked to vote for new officers and members of the Executive Committee to lead our Association over the next year.
It is time for new, different, and independent leadership of the Association. For those who desire a positive change from the status quo, a slate of independent petition candidates is asking for your vote. The Association’s Vox-the-Vote election site announced a slate of officially nominated candidates, and later published an alphabetic list of all candidates; it neglected to announce the list of petitioners when their names were accepted. The Ballot Committee rejected a request to list these names on a pre-existing page titled “Petition Candidates”, which was subsequently replaced by “Petition Process” after the process was already concluded.
The independent petition candidates are:
+ Dean Spatz ‘66 for President
+ Jim Baehr ’05 for First VP
+ Frank Gado ’58 for Second VP
+ Rich Roberts ’83 for Secretary/Treasurer
+ Martin Bert Boles ’80 for exec committee
+ Tim Dreisbach ’71 for exec committee
+ David Gale ‘00 for exec committee
+ Alex Mooney ‘93 for exec committee
+ Noah Riner ‘06 for exec committee
+ Marji Ross ‘81 for exec committee
+ Kathryn Wallop ‘80 for exec committee
You can click on any name above and link to the individual’s bio and statement on the Association Vox site.
Alumni with strong concerns, and with good ideas, should speak to the issues they think are most important in deciding for whom to vote. Until there is a new thread, let’s post them here.
By
Marji Ross '81, at 3/12/2007 9:23 PM
How is the Independent Petition Slate different?
Every candidate in the Association election cares greatly for Dartmouth, and has volunteered his or her time in service to fellow alumni. Candidates nominated by the current Executive Committee and those supported through alumni petitions are both promising to represent all alumni, by listening and communicating more effectively. Voters need to look beyond similarities and understand differences in order to make an informed, and effective, choice. Here are several items for consideration:
+ The independents were made candidates by petitions from hundreds of alumni. This differs from the Association’s official slate, which was nominated by a group that was itself hand-picked by the current Executive Committee. The petition slate was not selected nor is it endorsed by the current Executive Committee.
+ No petitioner sits on the Ballot Committee overseeing the rules for their own election. Two of the officially nominated candidates sit on that committee and have participated in decisions regarding the ballot on which they themselves and their opponents both appear.
+ No petitioner is a College employee who will have a conflict of interest when alumni and Administrative desires may differ. The candidate chosen by the current executive committee for the Secretary position is paid by the College and charged with managing alumni relations.
+ While the petitioners collectively have served the College in many volunteer capacities, their independent candidacy demonstrates a willingness to challenge the status quo when necessary.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 3/12/2007 9:25 PM
What unique actions will the Independent Petition Slate take?
1. Implement clear rules of order and proxy representation at Association meetings. Four of the officially nominated candidates, including those for president and first vice-president, serve on the present Executive Committee which specifically rejected requests for these things last year.
2. Make “all-media” absentee officer voting be a Constitutional right, rather than a committee-changeable guideline. The present Executive Committee, which includes those running again, specifically recommended that alumni vote No on a stand-alone amendment to do exactly this in last year’s constitutional elections.
3. Report annually on all expenses incurred to support Association activities. The current Executive Committee is on record that it will ignore our Association’s constitutional requirement to provide a Treasurer’s Report at the annual meeting. The committee-nominated candidate for Secretary-Treasurer recently questioned what purpose is served in providing alumni with such information.
4. Stand down, or stand up for re-election, when our annual terms are up. The current leadership, including those four running for office again, cancelled their own elections last fall, and unilaterally decided to extend their term to nineteen months, arguing they were necessary to implement the transition to new governance under the proposed constitution.
5. Require that members of any Association committee recuse themselves from decision-making that involves any conflict-of-interest. As noted above, two of the officially nominated candidates have participated on the Ballot Committee’s layout of the ballot for their own election, and the judging of Executive Committee election guidelines.
6. Work to restore the right of all alumni to decide if alumni trustees are seated for a second term, or not. This basic provision was not a part of the AGTF-proposed constitution; the executive committee candidate for president was also a member of the AGTF that failed to include this provision.
7. Eliminate the Association requirement that alumni desiring to serve in trustee positions must first sign a “secrecy oath” as a pre-condition to placing their names on the election ballot. How Dartmouth’s Board handles its confidential matters should be decided among the Trustees themselves and not be policed by alumni.
8. Provide an electronic communications forum where individual alumni have equal access to put forth and share issues of concern. This is very different from this present “blog”, with its headlined threads under the editorial control of the executive committee and alumni relations staff. The current leadership, including those running again, rejected a request to provide such a capability on the Association website. The committee-appointed candidate for Secretary, the lead position for insuring communications to and from alumni, rejected a request to provide this on the Alumni Relations website, even though the software to do so is already running there.
9. Conduct and publish all the results of alumni-wide surveys. The current Association executive committee (again four are up for re-election) have not conducted any formal surveys, at least that alumni have been informed of. They may be aware of survey results from those conducted by the College, but no data regarding alumni sentiments has ever been disclosed.
10. Publish the vote counts for all candidates, in both executive committee and trustee elections. In the past, it was argued that publishing results for losing candidates might hurt their feelings; withholding such data obscures an understanding of the breadth of sentiment across the alumni body.
By
Jim Baehr '05, at 3/12/2007 9:29 PM
I'm rather disappointed by the candidate listing on the official site, as the symbols used to differentiate how candidates got onto the ballot are not the ideal way to do this. I've broken the candidates out into tables on my site.
While I'm a candidate on the petition slate for the Executive Committee, this particular post is meant to be purely factual, and should be useful to supporters of both (or neither) slate.
-David
By
David Gale '00, at 3/13/2007 6:13 PM
In response to the question about two members of the Balloting Committee also running for the Association Executive Committee, both members have recused themselves from any decisions related to the Ballot, process or any other issues related to the Election of Officers and Executive Committee of the Association. Their experience as current members of the Executive Committee continues to be invaluable to the Committee, but they do not participate in decisions in this regard.
Related to the listing of candidates, all candiates are listed in alphbetical order on the ballot, which is consistent with the Trustee nominees.
By
Merle Adelman '80, at 3/14/2007 8:37 AM
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Merle: I would have hoped that we could stay focused on issues of importance to Dartmouth and her alumni. But since you post the above, and because we are talking about transparent and honest governance, it must be pointed out that you are incorrect.
You and I were both copied on an email from one of the current nominated candidates, also sitting on the Ballot Committee, that was sent to all Ballot Committee members with that individual's committee input and interpretation of election guidelines for ballot material submission.
I do not disparage any individual for conscious manipulation, but the potential should not even be allowed to exist. Even honest individuals find themselves in conflict-of-interest situations, but let's at least have full disclosure to our alumni.
Perhaps you would like to comment on other substantive points raised by the honestly-open "agenda" of the independent candidates.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 3/14/2007 9:08 AM
Merle,
If the two members of the executive committee who are also on the ballotting committee "have recused themselves from any decisions related to the Ballot, process or any other issues related to the Election of Officers and Executive Committee of the Association", what is their purpose on the ballotting committee? As I understand it, that committee exists solely to run the election (creating the ballot, sending it out to alumni, tallying the votes, adjudicating any disputes); if they have recused themselves from that, then there doesn't seem to be anything left for them to do.
Why were they placed on the ballotting committee in the first place? There are five members of the executive committee who are not running for office; surely two of them would have been willing to serve, in order to prevent this appearance of impropriety?
-David
Also, it's been pointed out that my link (above) to the official site doesn't work. This is the correct link.
By
David Gale '00, at 3/14/2007 9:27 AM
For the record and for new readers:
Merle Adleman is First VP and acting president of the Association. She also chairs the Ballot Committee.
By
Anonymous, at 3/14/2007 9:48 AM
David, the balloting committee was formed at the same time as the nominations committee, so at the time we did not know who would be up for election out of the existing executive committee. Since Ann and Al's nomination, they have recused themselves from discussions regarding the association executive committee but have been valuable participants in issues pertaining to the trustee election.
By
Kaja Schuppert '95, at 3/14/2007 12:00 PM
Kaja: You are not helping Merle by digging the hole deeper.
You are also on the Ballot Committee and were aware of the request I made specific to matters of the Officer and Exec Committee statements, not trustee statements, pertaining to length and submission timing. Further you were also copied, as was I, on the email from one of those supposedly-recused candidates who weighed in on your committee decision.
I am not making the actual email public simply so this does not become unfairly represented as a personal attack. The issue is not the legitimacy of their input; rather it is the lack of full disclosure as to their involvement. Fighting a rearguard action over the non-disclosure with false statements about recusal does not help anyone running on a platform of openness.
Alumni should form their own opinion as to who is doing a better job providing information to voters... the incumbents, who have laid out a ballot following the same basic structure as the Association Vox site, or the petitioners, as represented by the layout on candidate David Gale’s site.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 3/14/2007 3:56 PM
Kaja,
As Tim pointed out, there's been at least one e-mail from one of the nominated candidates/ballot committee members giving that person's opinion on a matter that pertained directly to the Association elections. Tim has shown me this e-mail, which he was copied on by the sender. This is pretty strong evidence that this person, at least, has not fully recused him/herself as you and Merle have claimed.
Again, my concern is the appearance of impropriety; since the ballotting committee's discussions and actions are not made publicly available (there hasn't even been an official announcement of the committee's membership), it is impossible for alumni to know that Al and Ann have properly refrained from trying to influence their own elections. How can alumni know that they really are limiting their actions to Trustee issues, especially given the parallel ballots?
Would it not have been appropriate for these two to step down from the balloting committee when they agreed to run for office, so that they could be replaced by members who weren't running?
-David
By
David Gale '00, at 3/14/2007 4:03 PM
David: Merle and Kaja were themselves direct recipients of that email, prior to making the false statements here about recusal. Perhaps as 2 of the 3 (?) ballot committee members not themselves running, they were nevertheless unaware of the inputs from others in this large group.
Enough. Alumni will be better served if we move off this topic.
I am curious if others have comments on the action plans of the petitioners, as presented above, or if the nominated slate can offer some specifics as to their own plans. With issues on the table, engaged alumni can then begin a productive discussion as to which ideas have merit and which do not.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 3/14/2007 4:22 PM
Don't know if thisis the place for it, but I'll ask anyhow: Can anyone locate a statement by Stephen Smith that the Dartmouth faculty is getting smaller? What he did say is that the faculty is growing at a much lower rate than the administration.
Neither Jim Wright nor Bill Neukom should be getting into this trustee election, but if they assert the right to "correct the record," shouldn't there be clear reference to that "record"? I must confess, I am alarmed by this intrusion--and with distortion at that.
By
Frank Gado '58, at 4/02/2007 4:23 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home