A Statement from the Association of Alumni Leadership

Monday, September 10, 2007

A Statement from the Association of Alumni Leadership

Dear Members of the Dartmouth Community,

We, a majority of the elected leaders of the Association of Alumni, comprising all 68,000 Dartmouth graduates, lament the decision by the Board of Trustees to eliminate the historic parity between the number of trustees chosen by the Board itself and those chosen by all alumni. This is in flagrant violation of an agreement between the College and her alumni that has benefited Dartmouth for well over a century.

Further, we deem unacceptable that the Board should now dictate the election process by which alumni choose trustees, a power which has appropriately and historically been determined and exercised by alumni themselves.

The lengthy report by the trustees’ governance committee, seemingly reasonable on the surface, is revealed upon a more careful inspection to be problematic and at times misleading. One positive in the report, creating standing committees for academics, student life, and alumni relations, is sadly outweighed by the negatives of reducing your role in electing trustees.

A more expansive response, including our proximate course of action, will be issued after we have had more time to digest and deliberate the full implications of the trustee decision.

Association Officers and Executives:

Martin Boles ‘80
Timothy Dreisbach ‘71
Frank Gado ‘58
David Gale ‘00
Alex Mooney ‘93
Marji Ross ‘81
Kathryn Wallop ‘80

74 Comments:

Thank you for speaking out. Please continue to fight. I am not certain I will ever feel the same way about Dartmouth after this brutal move, but on basic principles it is worth fighting.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 12:49 AM
Although I wish you had identified yourself, I am nonetheless grateful for your approbation. It makes standing up to all the nattering abuse worthwhile.

And yes, the soft words of the Trustees' Report cannot hide its thuggery.

By Tom Paine, at 9/10/2007 1:38 AM
Frank, the Board's considered action does not consitute "thuggery", and your responses demonstrate why they are right to be concerned about those who would put a political partisan agenda above the welfare of the college. Frankly, you are part of the problem.

As an alumnus, I believe the Board's action was consistent with its fiduciary duties, especially given the way Frank Gaddo and others have been allowed to conduct themselves in the name and on behalf of the association. I am also a Dartmouth parent and believe the Governance Committee report quite properly pointed out that there are many constituencies at Dartmouth, and that the college is not to be run by and for alumni.

William Hutchinson is absolutely correct to say that

"Dartmouth is a close family, and the attempts by those alumni and outsiders to advance their own agendas and smear the College in the national press are unacceptable."

Throughout this process, it appears to me that the majority of the elected leaders of the Association has regrettably chosen conflict and challenge, and have fanned the flames. You were elected by a majority of the 30% or so all alumni and should be acting in the interests of all alumni. Instead
of seeking common ground you seem to believe that continued confrontation is the only course.

Given your attitude and especially the unfortunate language that Frank Gaddo seems free to use on your behalf, the Board is properly requiring a different election process.

One can and should disagree and debate these issues, but there is no excuse for the level of language that Frank has used on this blog and in press.

Bill Hutchinson's statement concluded on a graceful and constructive note missing in yours:

"We look forward to working with all alumni and the Board to refocus on our critical mission of ensuring that Dartmouth remains the pre-eminent undergraduate institution that it is today."

Governance is the board's perogative not the Association's. As a Dartmouth parent, I am grateful for that.

By Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 9/10/2007 7:53 AM
The majority on the executive commitee of the Alumni Association do not represent me. The leadership of the Alumni body rests with the Alumni Council and it's duly elected representatives and I support them. ABOVE all, I support the Trustees and the College...

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 8:04 AM
I never had a chance to elect the president of the alumni council. I never even had a chance to elect the councilors who did.

That the council does not take a stand in support of what a majority of engaged alumni want gives proof to its non-representative nature.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 8:13 AM
Only a tiny minority of AC councillors are elected in open voting. Most are appointed.

Otherwise, the Council is a club of toadies who do not represent the alumni, viz. their unanimous support of the failed constitution.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 8:37 AM
No, I think this wwas an important statement. This is indeed thuggery. The board has taken its ball and gone on home. Where they garnered such poor ethics I do not know, but it wasn't at Dartmouth.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 8:58 AM
I would have preferred to see the Board outline desired reforms in the election process and ask the Council and Association to implement them but given the recent erratic behavior of the Executive Committee they probably believed that would result in no action.

[However, gtting rid of "Approval voting" is a good thing no matter who suggests it.]

But in the end I think the Trustees are really just looked at the numbers:

Last Association officers election - mixed result and about 10,000 alumni voting.

Last alumni constitution vote - split result with nearly 25,000 alumni participating.

Last Trustee election - Stephen smith elected by a bit more than half of the over 18,000 alumni participating.

2007 DCF campaign - record participation by nearly 25,000 alumni with a 27% increase in dollars raised from 2006.

I would think that the Trustees see the DCF participation numbers as an annual vote of confidence and with participation rising and gifts at record levels they probably feel like they are winning that vote.

I voted "no" but for reasons separate from governance topics.

By Geoff Bronner '91, at 9/10/2007 9:13 AM
I have watched and listened, and to some extent participated, in this battle from what some would say is the "inside" although I consider myself independant. I am saddened by the partisanship and mudslinging. It has hurt the reputation and standing of the College on a national and international scale. In my neck of the woods we call that "shooting ourselves in the foot."

Don't we all love Dartmouth as we remember it as undergraduates? Don't we all want it to be the best place it can possibly be? We need to let the experts govern.

We need to take a step back and put our time and considerable energy and talents into being part of solving the things that are really important- whether in our own back yards or on a larger scale- you can define that for yourselves depending on your proclivities-

On a larger scale, this battle is a tempest in a teapot, and I think that the vast majority of the alums feel that way based on voting percentages in the last contests. We need to stop "sawing sawdust" and move on.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 9:18 AM
I look forward to reading your full report and implementing the course of action that the Association recommends.

By Tracey Wyatt Atkins D'88 T'93, at 9/10/2007 9:28 AM
I support the Board's decision. It's nice to have some voice on the board of trustees, but the proper role of alums is mainly to give money(if they so wish) and otherwise to stay out of the way. Dartmouth belongs primarily to those who are there now---the professional administrators, faculty and students--and they are the ones who should run it.

By Providence, at 9/10/2007 9:33 AM
Geoff,

What do you make of the acknowledgment on page 22 of the report that "Alumni sentiment...was overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining the traditional "parity" between Charter and Alumni Trustees."?

The recent votes were not mentioned in the report, and the only comment I saw about alumni opinion is that it is "overwhelmingly" opposed to precisely what was proposed (and accepted). And, of course, I'm sure that Rodgers, Robinson, Zywicki, Smith, and various others would propose that alumni giving is up recently because alumni have suddenly felt that they had a real voice, most clearly shown in the Trustee elections.

Point is, causality is often a hard thing to determine, and when you want to know why someone is doing something, you probably ought to base your interpretation primarily on what they say their reasons are, rather than what you assume (or would like) their reasons to be.

By David Gale, at 9/10/2007 9:36 AM
I am writing as a member of the Alumni Council.

Let's set the record straight. There cannot be two groups representing the alumni body and it's my understanding that role of the Association of Alumni is limited to just alumni trustee election oversight.

That one role was left to the executive committee of the Association when the Council was formed almost 100 years ago.

The seven members of the AofA executive committee who signed the "statement" don't understand their role.

They can speak as individual alumni and they have that right but not as a committee representing the alumni blody.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 9:48 AM
I don't relish the time-wasting that seems to be inherent in responding to blog posts. Responses ultimately degrade to the Sisyphean task of keeping up with everyone who is willing to spend their time ...

However, I want to cast my support with the board of trustees. Simply, they are the stewards of the current college and know more about the "on the ground" running of the institution.

I will always feel the same way about Dartmouth --- changes my affect how I support it, or whether it's the right school for my kids, but it is what it is, not what it was.

Owen Astrachan, Dartmouth 1978

By owen, at 9/10/2007 9:59 AM
What should we make of one of our Alumni Councilors, claiming to be our one true representative, posting his opinion anonymously?

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 10:07 AM
To the anonymous Council Member:

There has been intense discussion among the Executive Committee of the Association about what, precisely, our role is. There are, indeed, some who agree with you--that we exist solely to run elections (a role which the Board of Trustees has stripped from us, until such time as we're able to convince a super-majority of alumni to amend our constitution). However, most of us point to our constitution, which stipulates that our primary responsibility as a committee is to "have charge of the general interests of the Association", which we feel includes a fair bit more than just running elections.

We do respect the Council, and feel it does a lot of good work; we sincerely hoped to work collaboratively with both the Council and the Board on addressing the issues everyone has acknowledged needed to be addressed in alumni governance. Unfortunately, the Board didn't respond to our overtures until a few days before filing their report, by which time they'd already made their determinations.

On a more personal level, I met my Councilor last year, and I think he's a nice guy; I wish I'd had the opportunity to vote for him so I could call him my representative.

By David Gale, at 9/10/2007 10:08 AM
The "for profit" world has seen several recent examples of incumbent directors attempting futilely to entrench themselves by packing the board with new members. The courts quickly overturn these efforts. Look at the recent Delaware decisions in Blasius and Liquid Audio. The rule is simple: When the primary purpose of a board of directors’ action is to interfere with or impede the effective exercise of the shareholder franchise in a contested election for directors, the board must first demonstrate a compelling justification for such action as a condition precedent to any judicial consideration of reasonableness and proportionately.

Does anyone doubt the primary purpose of this weekend's action is to interfere with and impede the effective exercise of the alumni vote franchise? Has the board articulated any plausible (much less compelling) justification for disenfranching the test of us?

The question is whether the courts will let this board get away with action they'd never dare to try in a for-profit company.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 11:11 AM
This posting, from Dartmouth Traditions, certainly sums it up:

Monday, September 10, 2007
Billet Doux

Dartmouth administration to Dartmouth alums, "F**k you!"

posted by George W. Potts @ 9:06 AM

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 11:38 AM
David,

What do I make of that? I suppose it was nice of the report to acknowledge that (despite the push-polling methods used to generate those numbers). I think the rationale given in the report for why the committee felt that parity was not in the best interests of the College is the more relevant material at this point since everyone seems to have stipulated that parity is the more popular option.

I will interpret the report as I please and if I choose to have an opinion that annual giving might have affected the thinking of the governance committee and the rest of the Board that's really up to me. You do not have to share my opinion.

-Geoff

By Geoff Bronner '91, at 9/10/2007 11:49 AM
It's nice to see the Dartmouth staff up early for a bit of sock puppetry.

Enjoy losing hundreds of millions a year in alum contributions, Dartmouth. You can either raise tuition or fire some administrators. Which will it be?

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 11:57 AM
Geoff,

I didn't mean to imply that you were not allowed to interpret the report however you wish; I was trying to find out how you reached your interpretation, and whether you'd considered all of the data (such as the quote I referenced), as your interpretation is not the same as mine. Of course, this merely serves to illustrate my point--you and I looked at a single report, and came to opposing interpretations; how can the Board look at a set of co-temporal events (the elections, increased donations) and determine causality with any certainty, especially while disregarding input from those whose actions are being interpreted?

I'll also note that the quote about alumni opinion, in the section that I elided, said that alumni opinion was "particularly" evidenced by the poll we did; the governance committee performed their own outreach to alumni (in fact, the college decided not to facilitate our poll--either through funding or even giving us access to our member lists--because of its "duplicative" nature), and presumably that outreach is included in the reference to alumni opinion.

By David Gale, at 9/10/2007 12:07 PM
I too support the Board. Like any corporate board of directors, Dartmouth's Board has wide latitude to determine its course of action. It is free to offend any sense of entitlement that some outsiders might hold in error. The Board's report makes clear that nothing it has done is thuggish, unethical, or insulting.

Trustees Zywicki, Smith, Robinson, and Rodgers all had a chance to make their voices heard and to participate in a democratic vote on whether to accept the recommendations of the committee. They know that in a democracy, the losers have to live with the consequences of their votes.

The seven people who signed the Association's anti-Board statement do not represent my views, and I wonder whether their statement would accurately represent the views of an informed Association. The idea that some Board action could be "unacceptable" to us implies that the Board is required to run its proposals past the alumni, which it is not.

If either the Executive Committee or the Association as a whole were to file a lawsuit against our alma mater, I would wonder whether such a decision would comply with the Association's bylaws or traditional rules. Such a lawsuit would obviously be a lost cause, and it would embarrass alumni as a whole and waste resources that would be better spent on financial aid.

By scott m. '95, at 9/10/2007 12:15 PM
i wonder if alumni like scott m. know that, in publicly supporting the board here, they are ethically tarred for life?

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 12:19 PM
David,

I do not see any evidence that the committee disregarded alumni input (regardless of the source) since to disregard is to treat as unworthy of regard or notice. As you point out the report acknowledges the feedback they got and it goes on to give a rationale for the decisions made. So clearly alumni opinion has been regarded even if it has not been followed.

On a different topic, what is it with all the anonymous comments on this blog anyway? Did I miss a Dartmouth Review article about the Trustees forming hit squads to eliminate troublesome alumni?

-Geoff

By Geoff Bronner '91, at 9/10/2007 12:41 PM
Providence said: "Dartmouth belongs primarily to those who are there now---the professional administrators, faculty and students--and they are the ones who should run it."

I have heard no one claim that Dartmouth should be "run" as a democracy, or that alumni can do so better than the professionals.

What some of us do believe is that the trustees are the ones to hire and direct the professionals, and that alumni, being the product of a Dartmouth education, are in the best position to choose the trustees through democratic elections.

Please do not confuse this distinction, which some are trying to do.

Similarly, reducing the proportion of alumni-chosen trustees from 50% to 33% should not be mis-represented as an increase in the alumni role in this process.

Should we leave running the country to the Congress without having elections of those individuals, or running the military to professional officers without a civilian head?

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/10/2007 12:42 PM
To David Gale:
I share your opinion that the Association and the Council should be working together, and share your concerns that we should not be sparring.

That said, I wonder if the "nice guy" councilor you wish you had voted to be your representative took any action in response to our Association request to the Council, which you were a part of, asking that they support our position on behalf of alumni that Board parity should be maintained. Maybe you can ask him or her?

I also wonder how to take the above comment of the Councilor who claims to represent alumni, but will not even identify himself.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/10/2007 12:53 PM
Do you realize that the alums from every other college - ivy or not- are laughing at you cry babies? They have no alumni vote and don't whine about it. You green extortionists keep blathering on that your alumni dollars go to good old Dartmouth at a steep cost - alumni votes for trustees. Parity! Equality! Or else! How laughable you sound.

Obviously you don't like Dartmouth enough to donate because, well, it, hmm, gave you perhaps a fine education, and an experience that you will cherish the rest of your life. Fuggedaboudit! You sound like a gaggle of Leona Helmsleys! "If you don't keep Dartmouth EXACTLY the way it is right now FOREVER I will never give you a DIME!!!!" Get over yourselves.

The trustees are obviously working to build a stronger more competitive school. What Zywicki, Smith, Rodger, Robinson and Gaddo and his gang are up to is something else entirely. They have an agenda that has more to do with their personal viewpoints than Dartmouth as an institution.

By the way, first Steven Smith calls President Wright and the administration thugs and now "Tom Paine" (Ha!) does. Lesser minds think alike!

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 1:30 PM
I can hear the noise of a thousand tiny saws sawing sawdust.

Why don't we take our energy and the money that will be spent on the pointless lawsuit that is sure to occur, hop on a plane to New Orleans, and help the Katrina victims, as a committed group of Dartmouth students has done through the Tucker Foundation.

Or, as someone said, put the money toward financial aid.

Even I, no bleeding heart liberal, think that that would be a better use of time and money.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 1:36 PM
To whoever thought that "The question is whether the courts will let this board get away with action they'd never dare to try in a for-profit company," you are right -- only backward. The courts would never let this board get away with selling off the powers it has under its corporate charter, although that is what some people believe the 1891 Agreement accomplished. By reaffirming that the Trustees are the only ones who can decide who nominates or elects people to the Board, the Board is upholding the law.

Only if the Board said alumni had those charter powers -- to the exclusion of the Board -- would the Board be doing wrong. And that's exactly what some alumni have told it to do.

You seem to believe that you are a "shareholder" of Dartmouth and have a right to vote on directors for that reason. Could you show us your stock certificate? Last time I checked, Dartmouth was a non-stock corporation owned in trust by 18 people, none of whom seems to be you.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 2:10 PM
Dear fellow neo-cons, now that we've liberated Iraq and cut taxes for ourselves again, let's save Dartmouth! Let's keep trying to stack the board of trustees with more CEOs and lawyers and petition candidates who think like we do -- it's just what our beloved College needs in 2007. That, and a winning Football season. And, room-to-room 'Tails for all Co-Eds. Now, what's all this talk about Evolution being taught at the College?

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 2:19 PM
Last anon: a comment worthy of a neanderthal, which seems to be how you position those you oppose.

Prior anon: just because the college is a "non-stock corporation" does not mean that it can break agreements it has with other parties. And even it it has the right to, the arguments that it should are questionable.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 2:37 PM
Yes, and the liberal media "made" Sen. Craig plead guilty.

How do you want to be positioned, if not Neanderthal-style?

Tap, tap, tap....

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 2:54 PM
As Professor cabranes has explained and the governance committee reiterated in its report:

"The 1891 resolution was just that--a resolution of the Board, and the Board remains free to enact a superseding resolution whenever it decides to do so. Indeed, not only does the Board have the authority to alter the selection of Trustees, it has the obligation to do so if it concludes, in the exercise of its fiduciary responsibilities, that the current process is not serving the interests of the College."

One can argue for parity but not on that basis.

On balance the Board seems to have compromised betyween the benefits of alumni participation and governance needs. Dartmouth will have more alumnbi elected trustees than other peer institutions.

By Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 9/10/2007 3:01 PM
Sadly, I believe that the majority of the current Board chose to act the same way most of the rest of US educational trustee boards do - moneyed sock puppets of the administration. Its latest step indeed brings Dartmouth board to the same level as others, stripping the alumni of the power gained in the agreement it chooses to ignore in spirit, if not letter. I think that at the very least, the President of Dartmouth, as well as chairman of the board should resign, and since some trustees have acknowledged that the non-elected trustee spots are essentially sold, I think they should be sold on an open and transparent basis.
Having been through one major alumni-administration confrontation (not in Dartmouth)that ended in termination of the college president I know it can be hard even when the chair fights the president, and much harder to fight both. I wonder if the lawsuit by the Alumni Association be proven ineffectual, whether the alumni would think it easier to simply redirect the contributions to a new school they could take over or establish - New Dartmouth is it could be known.

By Maxim, at 9/10/2007 3:05 PM
Anonymous 11:11 tried to pretend that the Board's recent decision was illegal and would be corrected in court because of some legalistic hogwash about the rights of "shareholders." He even said:

"When the primary purpose of a board of directors’ action is to interfere with or impede the effective exercise of the shareholder franchise in a contested election for directors, the board must first demonstrate a compelling justification."

He's on the wrong planet unless he can find anyone who owns an interest in Dartmouth who's not a Trustee. I'd pay double the market value of your certificates if you're a Dartmouth shareholder...

At least he's talking corporations, though, and hasn't resorted to the tired "government" or "democracy" metaphor. Don't you think the Trustees were aware of these ideas when it made its decision?

Let's drop the irrelevant rhetorical comparisons to institutions that are unlike the Board. Now that it is too late to convince the Board to act like something it's not, these comparisons are misleading and distracting.

(I can never figure out the "government" or "democracy" metaphor anyway: alumni (or students?) are kinda like U.S. citizens, and the Board (or the Association?) is kinda like Congress? If this mattered and "democracy" were enough reason for the Board to let us vote, then how could we settle for only half of the elected seats? And what kind of nation limits the duties it owes citizens to the provision of services for four years under written contracts, for which it requests voluntary payment over a lifetime?)

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 3:14 PM
Instead of "New Dartmouth," let's redirect contributions to a new school called "Dartmouth University"!

And we could ask the state judiciary to abrogate Dartmouth's Charter to change the way Dartmouth's Trustees are elected, so that alumni have a democratic voting right...

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 3:22 PM
Robo-trustee: I... must... keep electing petition candidates of like mind... to control... board... and... bring... College... back... to... 1950's... If unsuccessful... I will self-destruct... College... take out ads in New York Times and Wall Street Journal to give College bad name... anti-democracy... blah blah blah.... must self destruct... free speech... self destruct... I must get my way... won't donate anymore... self destruct...

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 3:40 PM
Will you grow up and stop whining!!! Don't any of you have a life? A job? Children? Volunteer work? A cat, at least? For god sake, grow up! The lot of you are why Dartmouth gets a reputation as being full of indulged and spoiled rich kids.

I bet NONE of you complainers care enough about the college to actually volunteer your time and energy there. How many of you get involved with your local alumni group? How many donate to scholarship programs? (Obviously you wouldn't donate to the General Fund because it is readily apparent that you DESPISE the college - "New Dartmouth" indeed!)

The alums have the EXACT SAME NUMBER of trustee reps as we did last week and as we did last year. Why are so many of you boohooing because you aren't getting more?

Could it possibly be because the trustees see who you are electing? Take a look at Smith: never lifted a finger for Dartmouth before, never donated a penny. Only had bad things to say about the President (a trustee!!!) and the trustees. And you, concerned alumni, wonder why the trustees felt they had to create a Governance Committee to begin with and address this issue? Why they made the changes they did?

Keep whining and crying and Dartmouth will make some more headlines and continue to be the most ridiculed college in the Northeast. President Wright brought this school some positive press lately with his work helping the wounded veterans get to college. Now some of you geniuses think he should resign.

What a farce...

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 3:55 PM
We're the only college in the nation where alumni have any input at all into the election of trustees. And crying over not getting four more seats doesn't make any sense.

When was the last time any of you(seven alumni who signed the letter I received this morning) did something for the college. When was the last time you served as a volunteer for your class or local club. When was the last time you served as a Fund agent?

The alumni association and the gang of "7" does not represent me. In fact they have no legal standing. The Alumni Council like it or not has been the representing the Alumni body since 1913 and if I have a concern I call or write my Council rep.

Let's work through the system that exists, recognize that not everyone is going to be happy. The college we all love is being hurt by this family fued.....

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 4:56 PM
We don't need an Alternative Dartmouth, we need an Alternative Association of Alumni that can't be pushed into an idiotic lawsuit by a minority of members. Does Frank Gado think he's on a mission from God? Let's hope he has the sense to listen to his lawyers when they tell him how far off the rails he's gone.

By stiff pong wrist, at 9/10/2007 4:57 PM
Is this statement the official position of the Association of Alumni? Or merely the position of some members of the Officers and Committee? If this is not an official position I find it highly inappropriate for the members to send this out as email from the Association address and to post this message on the blog.

I applaud the Trustees' decision and hope this will curtail the divisive tactics that have been used by some alumni to advance their own agendas instead of the well-being of the College

By Paul Asente '79, at 9/10/2007 5:03 PM
It's time for a change.

It's time for the "Gang of 7" who certainly don't represent me to realize they are beating a dead horse...

It's time for alumni to close ranks and say to those who are resisting change....enough is enough...

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 5:12 PM
To the last several Anons:

I empathisize a bit with your anger as you disagree with Association executive committee members who are doing what they believe to be in the interests of alumni and therefore Dartmouth.

But please do not let your disagreement lead to anger that in turn leads to ad hominem attacks. We were all elected last spring in an election open for the first time by all alumni, without any requirement to travel to Hanover, and thus we do have "standing".

For your information, I have served as class officer and head agent, and continue to contribute to the college financially. I am in fact the Vice President of a large regional alumni club. I have served our college by participation over the years on various administrative advisory committees.

Others who feel as I do about the positive value of alumni selecting trustees, and not wanting that diminished, have made sizable donations to various College endeavors. Our current time commitments are significant doing what we believe to be in the interests of the College. You may disagree, but your attacks are factually in error and unwarranted.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/10/2007 5:14 PM
sorry:
"empathize"

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/10/2007 5:18 PM
Tim,
I have no doubt that you are doing what you believe to be in the best interests of Dartmouth and your service is impressive. The same cannot be said of the company you keep, Messrs. Smith, Gado and Zwycki whose public statements to the press regarding thuggery and dictatorship have been way out of line.Certainly Smith and zywicki do not seem to have done anything for the college.

I respectfully disagree with your contention that the AOA speakls for all alumni, and would point out thaty your mandate wes provide by a majority of the 10,000 alums who voted, or less than 15%. Your group's charge is to run elections, no more no less.

I respect your postings which have been more reasonable than say Frank's.

At the end of the day, I would urge you to consider whether thios is really the best course to pursue. i would suggest that more attention be paid to the significant issues that yopu feel are impacting the college and the undergraduate education rather than who sits on the Board.

At the end of the day, alumni are not shareholders and do not govern the Board. One can disagree about this, but I have been disheartened by the confrontational tone of your statement as well as the inflamattory threats of litigation and statements made by Frank in the press.

You are not in good company when one of your numbewr refers to a Trustee's report as thuggery, especially since as someone who has prepared such things ( in the interest of full disclosure I am an attorney) I thought it was quite comprehensive in the way it laid out the board's position.

I applaud your passion and convictions, although I disagree with them. But I suggest to you that Frank Gado and the Hanover Institute seem to have a different agenda than yours.

By Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 9/10/2007 5:54 PM
"The seven members of the AofA executive committee who signed the "statement" don't understand their role."

Yeah, you people should know your place. I too support the board.

They realize, as you all should, that Dartmouth alumni are not smart enough to make decisions. They understand that the way to make alumni trust and respect this decision is to adopt a patronizing attitude usually delivered to third-graders. We should leave everything to the "experts"--the people who don't have enough honor or class to abide by election rules, deal with disputes in a fair manner, or meet their opponents on a level playing field. Given how ethically they've acted lately, I'm sure we can trust them in future.

There's nothing to see here . . . move along, now . . . oh yeah, keep making donations, though . . .

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 8:37 PM
I too support the board, and am definitely **not** a sock puppet. I don't see why you should find more than one person dubbing you "the gang of 7", even though this was just posted last night, to be suspicious at all.

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 8:57 PM
Can someone educate me if Alumni Council members are elected by their class, in one form or another? Or are they appointed? It was my understanding that many Alumni Council members are elected, similar to class officers.

I have to say I do find it odd that the petition majority AoA members are now positioning the AoA as the only organization that reprents alumni, per the tagline of the AoA press release:

###
For more than a century and a half, the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College has been the primary representative of Dartmouth men and women. Its eleven-member Executive Committee is the only body elected by all of the alumni.
###

The wording of the tagline implies that the AoA is ignoring the role of the Alumni Council and trying to imply that the AoA is the sole representation for Alumni matters. This implication is a broad interpretation to the vague clause in the AoA constitution that Tim cites and against recent historical precedent regarding the relationship of the Alumni Council to the AoA.

It appears to me that the AoA petition majority is trying to make a power play and wrest influence away from the Alumni Council. As is often said, power corrupts.

I trust for next year's election, we can bring in a new slate of candidates who will focus on a more productive set of issues, including a productive working relationship with the college. I do not like everything that is going on with Dartmouth, but there is more good than bad in my opinion. I will continue to give to Dartmouth in appropriate ways such as directing contributions to strictly financial aid. I do not believe witholding aid to current students, who have nothing to do with the administration's policies, is in the best interest of Dartmouth or future alumni. I also do not believe the current damaging statements or the many hundred of thousands of dollars that have been spent on ads, web sites, and law firm retainers is in the best interest of the college or its alumni, regardless of views.

I want to remind the petition AoA candidates that the petition slate did not win all AoA seats - and one could argue that you might not have had a majority if the AoA had not nominated more exec committee candidates than positions in comparison to the candidates from the petition slate. The petition slate lost elections for President, First VP, and Secretary/Treasurer. Clearly not a unanimous mandate for one view.

This blog demonstrates that there are many views, and I challenge the AoA to find activities and actions that encompass these diverse views. In my mind, lawsuits and quotes of "thuggery" are not encompassing actions. The non-anonymous comments on this blog prove that there is a diversity of rational views.

By Frederick, at 9/10/2007 9:40 PM
This is being written from the great state of Utah.

The Alumni Association's "gang of 7" don't represent me and it's time for them to cool it. In fact, they don't represent any of of us. My voice can be heard through my class' Alumni Council Representative a good and fathful volunteer.

Someone had to say, enough is enough and the Trustees have said exactly that. Now let's move forward as one!!!

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 10:48 PM
In response to Frederick's comments, Alumni Council representatives are elected or selected by the group they represent in many different ways, and this has become a point of contention in recent years, particularly with calls for “democracy” in alumni governance. The failed constitution made recommendations with regard to how councilors should be elected, when possible, but that became irrelevant when the constitution failed.

Currently, the Ad Hoc Committee on Council Structure (ACCS) of the Alumni Council is in the process of evaluating the Council and making recommendations on membership and committee structure, which will include recommendations regarding the election of representatives. To the extent that members can be elected, they should be elected, and mechanisms will be proposed to do this, most likely electronically, as was carried out recently by the Class of 1979, I believe using Survey Monkey.

While some have insisted that representatives who were not elected should not be allowed to serve on the Council, we believe that the primary goal of the Council is to provide representation for the classes, clubs, affiliated groups, and other designated entities, and broad representation is essential. We will not restrict that representation based on the mechanism of election or selection of the representative, since not all of these entities will be able to meet this requirement. Nonetheless, with approximately 100 members currently, the Council brings more alumni voices to the table and has rededicated itself to providing a means of two-way communications between alumni and the Trustees and Administration. In going forward, the Council will strive “to sustain a fully informed, representative, and engaged exchange of information and sentiment between alumni and their College, and to enhance and inspire alumni involvement that furthers the mission of the College.”

For further information, please visit the Alumni Council webpage at http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/default.aspx?id=82

Rick Silverman '81
Alumni Council President

By Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 11:47 PM
The decision shows that the administration does not trust alumni to make the right decisions and vote for what's best for Dartmouth.

Thank you for your dedication to this issue and please continue to support us!

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 12:41 AM
Does the AoA constitution allow for impeachment or removal of executive committee members? I want to have an alumni referendum to remove the majority slate of the AoA executive committee from office.

This would be democracy at work.

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 2:58 AM
For many alumni, what was most striking about this "Statement from Leadership" was its very odd definition of "Leadership," which excluded the President of the Association, who's taken a completely opposed position.

The too-artful concealment of this fact in the "Statement" may backfire. Alumni are tumbling to it, and an increasing number are questioning other press releases and campaign statements, especially those that intimate that today's faculty don't care about teaching and oppress "free speech," among other disgraceful charges.

Dan Tompkins '62

By Dan Tompkins '62, at 9/11/2007 4:35 AM
Did Rick Silverman really just say above that the representation of groups takes priority over democratic processes, and therefore people will be seated on the alumni council even if they are not democratically chosen?

"we believe that the primary goal of the Council is to provide representation for the classes, clubs, affiliated groups, and other designated entities, and broad representation is essential. We will not restrict that representation based on the mechanism of election or selection of the representative"

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 7:54 AM
I too am definitely **not** a sock puppet!

You should be ashamed "gang of 7!"

Quit claiming I can make my own decisions.

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 8:07 AM
To answer anon, yes, Rick Silverman said that. Class, club and affiliated groups will easily be able to satisfy the push for election of representatives. Other representatives, such as the student representatives, various at-large representatives (who are often nominated to represent otherwise unrepresented or poorly represented groups or regions), the representatives of graduate and professional schools, and the representative of the Athletic Council, as examples, might not be as easily put in place through elections. For those who hold strongly to tradition at Dartmouth, the question becomes, do we eliminate those representatives who have long had a seat on the Council, or do we continue to seat them? Because the nature of the Council is to bring information to and from the alumni, the broader reach we have, the better. Most of us on the ACCS want to retain those representatives, even if they are not able to adhere to a strict electoral process.

Rick Silverman ‘81

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 9:11 AM
Rick: Open elections? With multiple candidates discussing "political" issues regarding Dartmouth.

Do classes, clubs, and other groups really want to do that? I think not, with legitimacy, and thus disagree with your statement that these groups will do this "easily".

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/11/2007 9:18 AM
Ahh "The nature of the Council is to bring information to and from the alumni." This is a far cry from representing them electorally. Is the analogy more like the press, with different papers having different audiences, than a democratically-elected body?

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 9:22 AM
If you do not like how your Council rep. is elected speak to the people leading the group that holds the seat.

My own class recently held a contested election for the council seat we hold for the next three years (I ran and lost), it really is not difficult if the class or club leadership chooses to make it a priority.

Yes, the Council should put down some election guidelines but the leaders in classes and clubs need to hear clear from their classmates and members that they expect more.

-Geoff

By Geoff Bronner '91, at 9/11/2007 9:43 AM
Tim—Open elections. Sure. Multiple candidates. Sure. Contested with open debate. Sure. If the class of 1981 could find more volunteers to come forward and provide multiple candidates, I’d be all for it. Alas, and I suspect that this is true of many classes, there is a struggle to find class officers during the weeks before a reunion. Not everyone has the time or interest in volunteering in this way. Lucky for me, I have no wife, children or outside interests, so I have all the time in the world to answer your questions.

There will be recommendations or guidelines put forward regarding election of Council representatives, but the classes, clubs, etc. will have the flexibility to work within their structure in the way that works best. Are you familiar with that term—flexibility? We are volunteers, Tim. And I fear that the more barriers that are put up to volunteering in this way, the fewer alumni will step forward. But maybe that’s what you’re aiming for.

Rick Silverman ‘81

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 10:03 AM
Mr. Silverman is to be commended for his volunteer work, but volunteering does not give authority to claim that, singlely or in the aggregate, one "speaks for" the alumni. The Council keeps making this claim,and the Alumni Affairs Office and the Board do their utmost to reinforce it while simultaneously seeking to marginalize the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni.

Geoff Bronner: Good for your class! My class has NEVER voted for a class representative, even though my class rep stood up when Mr Silverman asked for those Council members who were elected to stand. According to President Manuel, who appointed him, there can only be an election on those rare occasions when the end of a rep's term coincides with a class reunion. This may have happened in the history of our class, but I have found no record of it.

By Tom Paine, at 9/11/2007 10:27 AM
Leave it to the student editors of The Dartmouth to expose a glaring fallacy which should have been obvious all along to alums furiously and self importantly arguing among themselves about “democracy at Dartmouth.” Democracy ordinarily refers to government by the governed. Here, the 65,000 Dartmouth alumni at large are not being “governed” by anyone. Only those alums who choose to participate in the Association of Alumni or the Alumni Council are subject to its “democratic” governance, its constitution, and its electoral politics.

Dartmouth College, on the other hand, is governed by its Board of Trustees in accordance with its own charter. Those subject to the governance of the Board of Trustees are: the administration, the faculty, and the students--not the alumni at large, the Association of Alumni, or the Alumni Council. If you actually gave the administration, the faculty, and the students the democratic right to elect the trustees who would govern them, can there be any doubt that the last four trustee elections would have had different outcomes? See the recent op-ed from The Dartmouth Editorial Board: “Over the last few years, elections for alumni trustees have seated the wrong people.”
http://thedartmouth.com/2007/09/07/opinion/verbumultimum/

But the administration, the faculty, and the students do not vote for any trustee, Charter or Alumni. Accordingly, there is not now nor has there ever been “democracy at Dartmouth” as currently being mistakenly argued by those who so stridently oppose the recent Board action.

Alumni do not have any legal or moral right to govern Dartmouth. True, alumni have been afforded an historical privilege by the Board to participate in governance of Dartmouth by nominating candidates for election to the Board. This is a privilege, not a right. The Association of Alumni has historically nominated its trustee candidates by conducting an election in accordance with its own constitution, which 49% of those voting two years ago felt was deeply flawed and warranted being amended to assure fair elections. The only election which actually seats alumni candidates on the Board is held by the trustees themselves--not by the Association of Alumni.

Graduates of a college or university are not even roughly comparable to shareholders of a corporation. Shareholders are literally the owners of the corporation as the result of their having purchased its capital stock. I suppose someone could make a far fetched argument that those who make substantial donations to Dartmouth (or any donations for that matter) should have something to say about how their money is used. For those of us who believe this should happen, imagine our dismay when the deeply flawed election procedure of the Association of Alumni produced as its most recent nominee a petitioner candidate who had not given a dime or a minute to Dartmouth since his own graduation in 1988.

The notion that simply by virtue of their having attended Dartmouth alumni have a perpetual right to govern the College is preposterous. The recent misconduct and demagoguery of certain leaders of the Association of Alumni as well as trustees Smith, Zywicki, and Rodgers (who publicly have accused the Board and administration of “thuggery”, “dictatorship”, and “totalitarianism,” using analogies to Soviet repression) unequivocally demonstrate to me their unworthiness to govern anything.

I have spent my entire adult lifetime supporting all things Dartmouth. As should be obvious, I strongly disagree with the sentiments expressed by the majority of the AoA executive committee, who in no manner represent alums like me.

By John H. Mathias, Jr. '69, at 9/11/2007 10:29 AM
Tim wrote that someone cannot "claim that, singly or in the aggregate, one 'speaks for' the alumni. The Council keeps making this claim,and the Alumni Affairs Office and the Board do their utmost to reinforce it while simultaneously seeking to marginalize the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni."

But is is true that the Association of Alumni legally delegated to the Council the specific task of representing the views of alumni to the board in 1913? The Council's history suggests that it did.

Tim has started a thread on alumni representation.

By scott m. '95, at 9/11/2007 10:41 AM
Mr. Lewin:
It appears you have finally learned to spell my name, so there is hope.

My description of the actions of the Governance Committee of the Board used a word we derived from an Indian fraternal association that justified its murderous acts by its worship of Kali. No, Ms. Bucklin and Mr. Haldeman did not kill anyone, but in my view, they did violence to a justly concluded agreement in 1891 whereby Dartmouth set an example for determining how the anomalous American institution of the private college (or university) should be governed. They did this by starting with the conclusion that the alumni franchise would be severely curbed and tamed, and then assembling arguments to justify it--regardless of whether those arguments were themselves justifiable.
The Bucklin Committee did not, in the course of its "study," ever confer with the Governance Committee of the Association--the successors to the group that concluded the agreement with the GOvernance Committee of the trustees in 1891. It has been argued here that the Board had no legal obligation to do so--and that is true--but it is then disingenuous to claim that the study reflected input from "alumni leaders."

By Tom Paine, at 9/11/2007 10:50 AM
Frank, all the study had to do to reflect input from "alumni leaders" was to collect ideas from two people who've ever led some alumni group. The committee also solicited what must have been hundreds of opinions on its website. There's nothing wrong with declining to have more than one meeting with the AoA Executives, especially when that body had already suggested that it was pursuing a radical agenda in opposition to the Board.

Once they found out you or the Gang of Seven was on the other end of the phone line, they were probably very wise to discount your opinion.

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 11:29 AM
Here's a story from a few years ago about the leadership at Yale: link

This is a detailed case example of wasted resources and opportunity, attempted misappropriation of intellectual property by prominent tenured faculty for private use, unauthorized practice of law in the Office of the General Counsel, blacklisting, extortion, and retaliation treated with a blind eye and silence by university officials, leading to an impaired effort to implement electronic medical records at Yale-New Haven Hospital.

Be thankful at Dartmouth. By comparison you probably are well off.

By MedInformaticsMD, at 9/11/2007 2:22 PM
So amusing, particularly the poster who said the number of alumni slots have not been reduced, so their power hasn't - even though the number of the other side has been increased in order to dilute the power of the currently elected alumni group. I guess the value of a Dartmouth degree should be seen in a lessor light after that statement. But I digress.

I have enjoyed the spirited fight, and while not an alum of Dartmouth have been impressed that there exists in some place in this country a group of alumni who are willing to fight the increased stupidity of college administrators in this country. Most of us either have no vehicle or no appetite to do so. Some of the single most undemocratic, intolerant organizations on this planet are universities, and Dartmouth is taking this action so their desire to become more like them can continue unabated. Please, don't fall into some thought that the administrators care for the University as a fountain of learning and educational experience and that is why they have taken this action in dispute. They have no such concern. They want control and power. That is what they understand, as all bureaucrats do. They want to keep power and the dissident alumni want to check some of that. It is that simple.

Universities need to realize that if they provide nothing more than a diploma and the assorted mess of coursework they decide to give an student for a major in some alleged field of study, the dollars necessary to fund that education will eventually soak up. Does everyone realize that whereas a college education used to be a no-brainer pay back-wise, already the mass drive for masters degrees is being challenged for the salaries from the work generally available. How much longer can private schools expect a $200K investment and a 30 year payback in loans? If all you give me is someone has been brain washed as opposed to educated, why should I bother hiring them? The whole idea of "post secondary" education is currently being re-evaluated. If you don't provide value in the graduates you produce, why hire them. Do you understand how some of these online institutions have become major players in the "education" market. They are not educators per se. They are trainers, and they train their graduates to do specific things in a short period of time in order to minimize cost to their students and provide trained employees to employers. I am not a graduate of such a system, and I am ashamed that they have begun to proliferate, but they do because if you - Dartmouth (or any other prominent public or private institution) - don't provide the work place a trained potential employee, nor do you produce one who can think. That is the status quo your adminstration wishes to maintain. If you don't produce either a trainable or educated graduate, why shouldn't I just go find someone who will at least get me a trainable one.

This isn't about going back to some 1950's era of how the world used to be, but rather considering whether or not the prominent educational institutions are producing graduates who can be trained or are capable of independant thought. I recruit your graduates - and increasingly they can do neither. And they are not alone. That is what this fight is actually about.

By JEM, at 9/11/2007 3:54 PM
http://dartmouthaoa.blogspot.com/2007/09/statement-from-association-of-alumni.html

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 11:48 PM
http://www.ivygateblog.com/blog/2007/09/rip_dartmouth_college_17692007_1.html

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 11:49 PM
Re: The Alumni Council

"Other representatives, such as the student representatives, various at-large representatives (who are often nominated to represent otherwise unrepresented or poorly represented groups or regions)"

Question - while I'm sure you see this as a noble goal, isn't this pretty counterproductive if you want to portray youselves as the representative of alumni?

The point being, beyond just poorly represented groups, if you're designating representatives as the making up the voice of Dartmouth alumni--shouldn't you be pretty sure the number of representatives, the number of representatives each group gets, the groups selecting representatives--are not poorly representated among alumni, but are as representative of them as possible.

That's why I don't see focusing on identity politics (and, sorry, but that's just what this sounds like here) as the answer. Say somebody focuses on their representative's election, that's great, but somebody can belong to multiple groups, some viewpoints, given the make up of who selects representatives can be far outweighed in the Council vs. its actual support among alumni as a whole.

Diversity for diversity's sake is great in many contexts, but it isn't here unless the make up of representatives reflects the views that Dartmouth alumni want portrayed (if a certain percentage holding one opinion on an issue translates into a certain percantege holding that view on the Council - not just collecting viewpoints from differing groups).

By Anonymous, at 9/12/2007 9:14 AM
JEM, are you referring to "alumni" or "the Alumni Association"?

You wrote: "So amusing, particularly the poster who said the number of alumni slots have not been reduced, so their power hasn't - even though the number of the other side has been increased in order to dilute the power of the currently elected alumni group. I guess the value of a Dartmouth degree should be seen in a lessor [sic] light after that statement."

You might not be aware that while the proportion of elected trustees who are nominated by the Alumni Association has dropped, the proportion of trustees who are alumni, as preferred by the board's own guidelines, has risen. The 18-person board was typically 8/9 alumni, while the expanded board will typically be 12/13 alumni. Since you didn't go to Dartmouth, I assume it must be explained to you: that's a higher percentage.

By Anonymous, at 9/12/2007 4:46 PM
Anon 446. You must have missed what was pointed out before:

100% of US Senators are American citizens, but that does not mean that only a privileged few get to chose them. A strong argument can be made, but ultimately a failing one, that only senators have the experience and judgement to be able to select a qualified senator.

Also the typical Dartmouth Board is 16/18 alumni already, and one can argue with legitimacy that that is too insular and unhealthy. The important point is that alumni choose the trustees, more than be them.

By Anonymous, at 9/12/2007 5:18 PM
No Anon - it just means you don't figure math very well. The new construct is meant to eliminate "meddlers" from upsetting the apple cart. If you wish to change where board members come from in order to control undesirable thought but feel that cherry picking alumni that will sleep and obey is the same thing then you know very little about unit measurements. I know exactly of what I speak - and so do you - so please lose the little interesting logic arguments you are attempting and demonstrate real ability to think. Here is the question: why did the executive board change the selection criteria with the added seats? What about the dissident agenda on the governance of the school is so scary that their current inroads must be administratively thwarted? I will admit, and in complete sincerity, I might not realize the full extent of their agenda. I haven't followed the ideological differences all that closely. I am just amused when a clear power play of this magnitude by a faction that likes to speak about democracy and tolerance seems to have a blind eye turned toward it. So I get interested. When I attended school, they tried to tell me to dig a little bit. Did Dartmouth shortchange you when you attended? It certainly appears that way.

By JEM, at 9/13/2007 12:03 PM
Whether or not you agree with the agenda of the petition trustees I cannot for the life of me see how the packing of the board is good for the average alum. With free elections, you can always persuade people to come over to your side, regardless of which side you are on. Now you will never have any influence at this school (which we all love) unless you can buy a seat on that board. I suspect many of us have always thought this was the case anyway, but now there is no possibility of anything else.

By Dartmouth '00, at 9/13/2007 1:29 PM

Monday, September 10, 2007

A Statement from the Association of Alumni Leadership

74 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous posts

Archives