A Statement to the Press

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Various news outlets have requested commentary by the Association of Alumni. We did not want to prejudge the trustees with a statement prepared in advance, and have not had a formal meeting of the Executive Committee since the announcement.

The following statement was released by members of the committee (a majority in fact, as noted) expressing their opinions. As noted earlier in the email message to alumni, a formal statement of position and courses of action will be made following thoughtful consideration by the commitee as a whole.

**********************************

HANOVER, NH -- A majority of the Dartmouth Alumni Association's Executive Committee has condemned the changes in the make-up of the school's Board of Trustees announced on Saturday. The statement echoes results of an alumni poll conducted by the Association in August, which showed over 92% in favor of maintaining the parity between"charter" (Board-selected) trustees and trustees elected by the alumni body.

As the Board's action on Saturday effectively wipes out an agreement between the trustees and the Association dating back to 1891, the Executive Committee is consulting the law firm of Williams and Connolly about its legal options. Dartmouth Trustees and administrators have already been advised to preserve all documents related to the Board's most recent action.

The Executive Committee had gone on record consistently in urging the Board of Trustees to maintain this historic balance between alumni-elected trustees and those chosen by the Board itself, called charter trustees. Frank Gado, an Association officer, said today: "The actions of Dartmouth's Trustees are more in keeping with the conduct of a totalitarian state than with a college dedicated to educating leaders of the world's greatest democracy. When you come right down to it, Dartmouth doesn't trust its graduates with a meaningful vote."

The Alumni Association leaders who are preparing for a potential lawsuit insist they are saddened by its prospect. All express their belief that, had the trustees' study group conferred with their alumni counterparts in good faith, solutions consistent with the historic 1891 agreement were available. Instead, all overtures were ignored. A single meeting with the Association's governance committee occurred after the trustee group had already completed its study and was just days away from finalizing its report to the full Board.

Dartmouth Trustee Chairman Charles "Ed" Haldeman maintains that the enlargement of Dartmouth's Board must be done without adding seats elected by alumni. These elections, Haldeman says, "increase rancor"and "divisiveness" and have become too costly. In response, Gado added: "Surely no strife generated in an election could compare with the rancor and divisiveness that have flared because of the trustees' unilateral stripping away of alumni rights. And the many hundred thousands of dollars consumed by this fight will overwhelm the $75,000 spent by each of the two frontrunners in this year's trustee race."

Undemocratic expansion of the Board is not the only issue being contested by the Association. Executive committee members Tim Dreisbach and David Gale have pointed to the Report's interference in the affairs of the Association, designed to operate independently of the College.

"I'm very disappointed," Gale remarked, "that the Board, rather than telling us which issues they'd like addressed and working with us to find solutions, has decided to mandate certain changes which they expect us to compel a super-majority of alumni to approve before we're allowed to manage further Trustee elections."

Dreisbach similarly questioned the right of the trustees to rip up the Association's constitution and redraft it to their liking. "What the trustees are now dictating for alumni elections accomplishes what was rejected in last year's constitutional referendum, strengthening the advantage of nominated candidates over petitioners. Is the Board teaching us that elections don't count if those in power don't like the results?"

37 Comments:

"Undemocratic expansion"? "Totalitarian state"? "Stripping away of alumni rights"? Who are you people? Don't you dare tell me that you represent me! This press release is clearly reactive and ill-considered. Obviously you people are representing yourself and your own radical viewpoint. Please make that clear and do not - I repeat, DO NOT - continue this craziness on behalf of the Dartmouth alumni. We are a diverse group, and I presume the majority believe, as do I, that the trustees are acting as responsible stewards of this college. The A of A, on the other hand is just plain irresponsible.

And don't give me s*** for posting anonymously! Should we all create pseudonyms like Frank Gaddo?!

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 11:52 AM
Tim, Dave, Frank et al., you just keep digging yourselves in deeper and deeper, and at the end of the day, you must look in the mirror and think, We brought this on ourselves. While I was never against the basic idea of alumni selecting nominees for the Board, in practice, the results of the last few years have infuriated me and lessened my overall regard of the College as represented by its alumni. With all the talk of Democracy and Fair Representation, I believe that the EC has forgotten one of the most basic tenets of our society, preventing the Tyranny of the Majority. This concept has indeed driven much of the policy-making of recent Dartmouth administrations, wherein protections and “affirmative actions” are granted certain groups who otherwise would be shouted down by the majority. Is this a bad thing for Dartmouth? One would believe that only if one wanted our College to be perceived as more regressive and reactionary than it already is. Is a continued focus on the quality of undergraduate education a good thing? I believe it is, but alas, the message has been lost amidst all the ancillary bickering, name-calling, finger-pointing and, incredibly, litigation, both past and threatened. Has all the national advertising, Trustee and Exec Comm freelancing, the proliferation of cause-related websites, blogs, institutes and organizations done anything to help our College achieve its mission of being the pre-eminent undergraduate institution in the world? I doubt it.

It seems obvious to me, based on reading this blog for at least a year-and-a-half, that alumni sentiment is running strongly against your confrontational tactics and “us against them” sentiments. Is it time for a new survey? Here are 2 questions written so as not to be a push:

1) Do you support the actions of the current AoA Executive Committee?
2) Do you support a lawsuit against the Board of Trustees?

I would wager that you would get a greater response than the one created by your last survey, with results that would surprise only your oft-cited “majority of the Executive Committee.” In perusing the constitution of the AoA, I see there is no provision for a recall vote, so I guess our duly-elected representatives are here to stay, at least for a while, but I add my voice to the rising cacophony proclaiming, “You do not represent me.”

By James McIntyre '80, at 9/11/2007 12:08 PM
Well said, Mr. McIntyre! I agree that that this so-called group of 7 is doing a disservice to the alumni of Dartmouth and, more importantly, to the good name of the college itself.

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 12:32 PM
Given the rancorous tone of this press release and the inflammatory nature of its subject matter, I am going to repost here a comment I made on earlier threads on this blog:

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 12:52 PM
The press release just has a lot of errors and embarrassingly misleading statements that make the alumni look like ignorant zealots.

It says that 92% of alumni favored parity between board-selected trustees and those "elected by the alumni body" or "alumni-elected." The survey is simply not reliable, and there are no "trustees elected by the alumni body" at all. There are only trustees nominated by the alumni body, as the board's recent report made clear and as the 1891 Resolution stated: "the graduates . . . may nominate a suitable person for election" by the trustees. The board retains the right to reject anyone it chooses, and the only distinction is in who does the nominating, whether it is the board's committee or the alumni. This distinction is so elementary that the Association should not be forgiven for flubbing it (or deliberately trying to mislead the public?) this late in the discussion.

Saying that the board's action "effectively wipes out an agreement between the trustees and the Association dating back to 1891" is presumptuous. The agreement, if it even existed, literally promised "five" seats. If that wasn't a gratuitous promise, then the addition of three seats since then certainly has been. The ideas that "parity" was some kind of promise and that it was part of some kind of agreement are too far-fetched to be mentioning in a press release as if they were accepted as facts. Not impossible, but far-fetched and thus inappropriate for this press release.

Frank Gado's vitriolic comment about the "totalitarian state" suggests that he has confused Dartmouth with a government. The Association should not have let Frank's embarrassing opinions find their way into the press release, because they imply that the Association is unaware of the fact that no corporation is obligated to pretend to be a "democracy." Tim, don't you see that as one of the lessons of the Dartmouth College Case? That private nonprofits in this country, as long as they play by the basic rules, are not beholden to the whims of corporate outsiders, whether they are legislators or alumni?

The press release is false when it states that the board did not confer with the Association in good faith. There is no question of "good" or "bad" faith where there is no duty, and the board has no duty to confer with the Association about any of its decisions. And the Association actually did get a meeting.

Gado's reference to a "unilateral" move by the board, and some "alumni rights," implies that he believes the board is not capable of acting without consulting the Association. This belief is false, and the Association must not allow it to become the basis of a lawsuit, which the Association would lose.

Gale's disappointment at having changes mandated is misplaced. The Association is free to take or leave the requested changes, and as long as it does not implement them, the College will run the alumni nominations. The board was not obligated to bargain with alumni clubs or other outsiders regarding nominations for seats that do not even exist yet.

Dreisbach's statement regarding "the right of the trustees to rip up the Association's constitution" was not in quotation marks but was part of the text of the release, which is very strange. This makes the Association look particularly biased, ignorant, and amateurish. The trustees have not "ripped up" any constitution, and they would not need a "right" to do so if they wished. It is the Association itself, if it so chooses, that may redraft its constitution. It is free to leave it as it is. The comment about "elections" is similarly misplaced: the only elections in which alumni have ever voted, as has been said many times, were polls taken to select a nominee. That is the essence of the 1891 resolution.

By scott m. '95, at 9/11/2007 1:41 PM
The "Gang of 7" has shot themselves in the foot with their press release. Scot's response says it all..

Your attack on the Board's action only serves to strengthen the resolve of those of us who love the College and will do anything to protect it's good name.

I can't believe that the seven of you stand together.

There has to be at least one of you(The "Gang of 7") who would like to disassociate yourself from the others. Don't be afraid to take a stand on your own. Remember in a law suit the Association of Alumni has no legal standing because it's a non entity and you would be suing as individuals.

The AofA has not presented the alumni body since 1913 when the Alumni Council was formed and assumed that role.

Anonymous, Class of 1985

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 2:07 PM
It's strange that we don't hear anything from the two women who are listed among the "Gang of 7"

Are you going along for the ride in which case it's going to be very rough?

Unless you believe 100% in what the others are doing do what a former blogger suggested and that is "disassociate" yourself and do it now.

Alumnus, Class of 1979

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 2:29 PM
First I read that 92% of the alumni favor "parity" (thus justifying a pre-conceived plan of litigation and thus dragging our poor college further in the mud) and then I read the first four or five posts and they agree with me and not with the 92% majority. What gives? I suggest that if the alumni truly love the college, they will subdue their egotistical, childish impulses and help the college get through this very difficult time. The letters from the dissatisfied alumni, the very selfish ads in the New York Times - where is the concern for the college? Who really believes that the "alumni" should have the final say in how the college is run? And who are these "alumni" that will have the final say? I certainly haven't heard a single idea put forward by these dissatisfied alumni that I want to support. How hard is it really to get any group of people to express their dissatisfactions rather than getting them to work on something together? Let's give peace a chance. This minor war has done nothing but drag down our college.

By Jim Sutton, at 9/11/2007 5:06 PM
To Jim Sutton:

The concern for the College that you request is there, felt greatly by those who believe alumni, of all groups, are best positioned not to "run" the College but to have a vision for what it should be. Thus alumni should have a material role participating in the selection of the trustees who set that direction and who hire the professionals who are to actually do the "running".

Those of us who feel this way did not start your self-described "war" by recommending changes. If there are concerns about how alumni go about conducting their selections, it is the AoA who should address them. This is a far cry from being told: make changes as the Board dictates and until you do, you alumni cannot run your own elections. The current AoA leadership is in a better position to propose amendments that have a chance of passage, as it includes those who opposed the past attempts.

Not that gender should be a factor, but to address the question above yours, there are two women on the committee, too busy to post here, who agree.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/11/2007 5:30 PM
"The statement echoes results of an alumni poll conducted by the Association in August, which showed over 92% in favor of maintaining the parity between"charter" (Board-selected) trustees and trustees elected by the alumni body."

And yet, somehow, we can guarantee that 8% will be the ones flooding this thread.

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 7:49 PM
To Tim Dreisbach:

While I appreciate the differences that different alumni may have regarding the vision for the college, I think that it is perhaps the very conflict in "visions" that has animated this struggle. The Board of Trustees have chosen a vision that seems to me to be totally amicable with the values of a liberal arts college in the early 21st century. I cannot say for certain what the alternative vision is. Smaller classes? Who doesn't want smaller classes? A better football team? More fraternities? Is that what it is about, seriously?

In my humble opinion, the college will benefit more from alumni who put their own egos under wraps in the best interest of the college. The recent wording of the letter sent by Mr. Zywicki and the ad in the New York Times have only served to reinforce the notion I had that I had made a mistake by voting for any of the alternative candidates. But of course I do believe that some contention is healthy and I think the new guidelines will allow for that contention to exist without it swamping the overall purpose of the college.
Jim Sutton 1969

By Jim Sutton, at 9/11/2007 7:56 PM
Jim: Since you provided a "personal" response, I will return the favor. You said "the Board of Trustees have chosen a vision that seems to me to be totally amicable with the values of a liberal arts college in the early 21st century." Perhaps.

The question is: are they asking the tough questions and requiring the needed accountability to prevent Dartmouth from drifting away from that vision? The pressures on her... monetary, faculty personal ambitions, short-term student desires for "everything faddish", even alumni desire for prestige, are enormous.

Living in the heart of Hanover for the last 6 years, immediately adjacent to campus, gives me pause. Dartmouth is still a first-rate institution, with great students and many outstanding teachers. But it can and must do much more to retain its special place.

The College has the opportunity to be a voice crying in the wilderness of modern day higher education. But if it continues to "me too" follow the perceived best practices of others, it will simply be lost in that wilderness. When a present day trustee was asked at an alumni council meeting a year ago what things Dartmouth was doing that would be truly innovative, he looked like a deer caught in the headlights. When asked to name just one, he stammed for a while and then came out with something totally non-memorable.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/11/2007 8:31 PM
You ought to read the Board's report. Dartmouth is not a "me too" institution. It has a higher percentage of Board seats nominated by alumni than any of the top schools the Board studied.

And really, aren't there better ways to be distinguished than to permit crass and shameful campaigning for positions of trust that are at their root still appointments by the board, never true elections? Of course "democracy is messy," but the Board of Trustees is not a democracy or a government and never has been.

A lot of older alums are (and have been for a while) upset with Wright's or the Board's policies, and they seem to be latching onto this governance change as something to criticize. They do not necessarily have a beef with expansion or the change in proportions, although they probably would reject the latter out of hand if asked; what they really dislike is the decline in football, the false impression of universitization, the frank discussions of birth control, and "kids these days" in general.

By Anonymous, at 9/11/2007 9:21 PM
Frank discussions of birth control are not the same as the College sponsoring events that promote "sex is hot" on officially-sanctioned T shirts, regardless of the preceding "consensual" adjective.

There is nothing wrong with sex, or young adults experimenting with sex, or with raising awarewness about safe sex. But how does promoting sex fit with the College's mission?

By A Younger Alum, at 9/11/2007 9:59 PM
"But how does promoting sex fit with the College's mission?"

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have no business criticizing the reduction in alum-nominated trustees on grounds of principle if your real concern is a student group's use of student fees to make shirts that promote consensual sex.

By Anonymous, at 9/12/2007 8:53 AM
And if the funds for the staff advisor salaries, if not the shirts themselves, come from a trustee-approved College budget? Funds that could be spend on faculty rather than SLI-related staffers?

By Anonymous, at 9/12/2007 12:18 PM
Everyone backing the dilution says that Dartmouth has the highest proportion of board seats for alumni.

They usually mean it as a good thing.

OF COURSE IT IS GOOD! So why diminish it?

You think it is a good thing. The alumni association EC and majority of its membership think it is a good thing.

So saying we have the most and will still have the most begs the question: if having the most is a good thing, then why was it reduced!?

Obviously, many of you think it is not a good thing, as does non-alum President of Dartmouth and hand-picked trustees. They think it is a BAD thing.

Thus they are acknowledging, by comparing us to the pitiful others who have even less of a good thing, that we still have a good thing, only not so much of that good thing, because too much would be a bad thing.

Makes you thingk, don't it.

Orwell maybe it doesn't...

By Anonymous, at 9/12/2007 12:23 PM
I think the board would have been more willing to consider parity if the elections had not become so politicized and opponents to the board were spending x00,000s to influence the vote.

When the spending approached political campaign levels and the elections became vociferous, responsible stewardship became an issue. The board made the best decision given the issues involved.

I want responsible diversity and alumni elected views on the board, but not at the cost of responsible stewardship. I know the current majority in the AoA may disagree with me, but this is the current situation. We all need to move on, and a lawsuit is not going to solve this.

By Johnson, at 9/12/2007 1:29 PM
Saying Dartmouth has the most alumni-nominated trustees is not necessarily saying that such things are good, only that the critics have nothing to complaint about.

Saying that Dartmouth is a "me-too" regarding best practices is not a valid argument. Dartmouth has adopted some practices from other institutions without losing its distinction. It still has a higher proportion of alumni-nominated trustees, for good or ill, than any comparable institution.

By Anonymous, at 9/12/2007 1:41 PM
AHA! Gotcha!

You say having smaller Trustee representation but more than others is "nothing to complain about".

Your own logic tongue sticks out at us and strangles you!

You are implying having a lesser amount of Trustee representation IS something to complain about.

I agree!

Lesser representation than the longstanding parity IS something to complain about.

I'm complaining!

By Anonymous, at 9/12/2007 2:48 PM
"Gotcha" isn't paying attention.

1. The phrase "nothing to complain about" refers to the idea stated in the comment: that Dartmouth follows "me-too" practices to the point that it retains no distinction. When someone counters that idea by saying that Dartmouth is still distinctive (percentagewise), he is not necessarily commenting on the value of alumni nominations. He is saying that critics of perceived "me-tooism" have nothing to complain about.

2. It is kind of you to refer merely to "longstanding parity" rather than some kind of contract. You seem to have admitted that the board is not obligated to provide parity in nominations. This is true, and that is why it has not harmed anyone by altering the ratio between alumni-nominated and board-nominated trustees that it had voluntarily maintained since 1961.

By Anonymous, at 9/12/2007 4:39 PM
Well goodness know that some people will always find something to complain about. The trustees are absolutely correct to move Dartmouth forward even if that means some disgruntled alumni. Certainly most of these people have been complaining about the Wright administration for awhile, and before that the Freedman administration.

The bottom line is you can't make all the people happy all the time. It is important to have some integrity and do what is right for the college, and by that I mean primarily the student body, the faculty and employees. The alumni has enjoyed their time at Dartmouth. Hopefully they have bettered their lives and are enjoying prosperous and productive careers due to the gift of Dartmouth. I know Dartmouth gave me something no other person or place could ever give me.

Now we have the choice to give back or not. Why certain alums feel they have some fundamental right to run the place is beyond my comprehension. Power and control issues, perhaps.

Read the Dartmouth charter, folks. Nowhere does it give the alumni an ounce of control. The trustees were given all power. Stop complaining that it isn't enough and be grateful for what we have. It's an awful lot more than we deserve given our pathetic electoral track record of late.

By Anonymous, at 9/12/2007 4:59 PM
I'm trying to follow the meaningful comments here, but it's an unfortunate reality that people given the opportunity to comment anonymously on boards tend towards the acrimonious and the reaction to this issue certainly doesn't do the alumni any image favors.

I'd encourage the AoA to disable anonymous posting here to raise the bar for those who would poison the debate and diminish the signal-to-noise ratio. Sure, the trolls can still get through, but it's easier to ban the abusive and encourage responsible dialog when identity is needed (and who doesn't have a Google account these days?)

There's nothing on any sides of the debate going on here that can't be presented with conduct worthy of a Dartmouth alum.

Personally I'd rather blog than comment, but I do appreciate the constructive and informative comments that manage to get posted here despite the need to winnow them from the chaff.

By Bill McGonigle, at 9/12/2007 9:06 PM
You claim to be speaking for the Alumni Association in your press release, but you're not speaking for me and majority of alumni.

You were not given a mandate for change last spring.

Out of the 18,000 alumni who voted for Trustees, you won your seats on the AofA executive committee with less than 7,000 votes each. That's 7,000 out of 68,000 alumni. That's not a majority by any stretch of the imagination.

By Anonymous, at 9/13/2007 9:20 AM
"You claim to be speaking for the Alumni Association in your press release, but you're not speaking for me and majority of alumni.

You were not given a mandate for change last spring.

Out of the 18,000 alumni who voted for Trustees, you won your seats on the AofA executive committee with less than 7,000 votes each. That's 7,000 out of 68,000 alumni. That's not a majority by any stretch of the imagination."

The voter turnout in the United States is regularly 50% (in off-year/state elections, it's regularly less). Presidents/Representatives/Senators are regularly elected with 50-60% of the vote -- making the percentage of people who voted for them ~25-30%. Now, if you're willing to apply this logic to the Alumni Association, feel free to apply it to the U.S. government.

More importantly, these are the people who cared enough about Dartmouth to vote. Though I don't have stats for it, I'd also wager these are the people more likely to donate money.

However, argue about the votes for Alumni Association, argue about the votes for the petition candidates, but at least there's something to go by that shows support for their position.

What poll and what election is there that shows support for the revisions taken last weekend?

What poll and what election is there that shows support for Wright and Haldeman's actions?

Cite any figure you'd like for the Association and petition candidates here, but it's still considerably more than the number of people who have been demonstrated as supporting the move last Saturday.

By Anonymous, at 9/13/2007 11:13 AM
Anon 9:20

If quantification of alumni sentiment is important to you, ask why the trustees have refused to release a numeric summary of the inputs they received directly.

By just wondering, at 9/13/2007 11:54 AM
I have explained how my use of the pseudonym happened, and I have never tried to hide behind it. I would have no objection if others used a pseudonym, but they should also declare who they are. I find it less than honorable for people to take potshots without identifying themselves. There may be reason for anonymity, but the anonymous contributor should at least be restricted to argument and fact. Casting aspersions falls into neither category.

The latest Anon (or is it the same person who tries to create the impression of being a crowd?) argues that however many votes were received by petition candidates for the Executive COmmittee do not represent a majority of the 68,000 alumni. True enough, but all 68,000 (for the first time) had the practical opportunity to participate in an election to determine who spoke and acted for them. We speak for the alumni because there is no one else in that position. That's the way democracy works (pace the objections of Rick Silverman and Martha Beattie). If we followed Anon's "logic," virtually all governing bodies would be reduced to inanition.

By Tom Paine, at 9/13/2007 11:54 AM
I agree with Frank that the elected Executives do speak for the Alumni Association. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for them to go beyond everyday business to take a major action such as launching a lawsuit against the College, however.

The possibility of a lawsuit is especially worrisome given that the chances for success seem low, that it might be funded by the same outside sources who are now funding the Execs' law firm, although their identities and interests are not yet known even to the whole Executive, that a suit would undoubtedly further damage relations between the Association and the College, and that majority support among the Association is not even clear right now.

I have heard that the Association's bylaws do not speak to the authority to take certain major actions, but it still doesn't seem wise to let seven people involve the entire Association in years of litigation, as seems to be a possibility.

Perhaps we could at least get an update on the war plans.

By scott m. '95, at 9/13/2007 2:05 PM
There is some agreement that the Executives speak for the Association (dare one say "represent") and that the Association is comprised of all alumni. Is this an admission by Scott M. that the AoA leadership group has as part of its mission the representation of alumni, regardless of who is incumbent in that group at any one time? Why are others trying so hard to say not so?

Even if the Association leaders would like to survey alumni, is there time to do a real scientific survey that the members would find acceptable before the trustees begin implementing their growth plan? Would the College pay for such a survey, or would that also be dependent on voluntary donations?

By Anonymous, at 9/13/2007 2:20 PM
Big picture...

"Dartmouth Diminished" (the Wall Street Journal editorial heading) is an accurate way to sum up what has happened.

Dartmouth has something different which was diluted.

The voices of those that differ from the administration perspective have different ways they can respond. Now their response will just be less forceful with the context of their voting rights.

Smaller picture: I think there are some very valid and interesting comments above. People have done some research.

Personally I have opinions about the way the College is being run. I feel strongly about the College aspect. I think it's getting short shrift for reasons I'm not bright enough (despite four years at Dartmouth) to get. Perhaps that's why I'm having my voting input diminished!

By B. L. Hayes, at 9/13/2007 3:00 PM
My name is Tom Pilla. I am a Dartmouth Parent, '06.

The recently elected Alumni Trustees have chosen to repeatedly criticize the Dartmouth Administration publicly, using simplistic terms to describe their concerns: Advocate for Freedom of Speech, Defend the Bill of Rights, Focus on Undergraduate Education, Protect the "Rights" of Alumni, Improve Varsity Athletic Performance, Reduce the Size of the Administration, Increase Full-Time Dartmouth Professors, etc, etc.

Taken on the surface, these are all laudable descriptions of ambitions any reasonable person might hold for Dartmouth or any other institution of higher learning. However, when examined more closely within the context of a large and complicated university which must be responsible to many different constituencies, each one has many intricate, complex ramifications.

Additionally, given the background and conservative associations/agendas of these recently elected petition Alumni Trustees, I question their sincerity in general.

In virtually every college and university in the United States, alumni have only limited influence on the overall direction of their Alma Mater. The precedent has already been clearly set and will, if need be, upheld by the court system of the United States, any prior “agreement” notwithstanding - concerning the rights of trustees of non-profit institutions.

Administration and trustees are elected or appointed to, as a group, help determine and further the overall course of the school, in best possible response to the myriad responsibilities and demands of the modern world - that is, to move forward and amend progressively, not advocate for special interests or desires to move “backward.” In time.

The arguable “loophole” of the 1891 Trustee Resolution, made 116 years ago, combined with the need for petition candidates to gather only 500 signatures out of 67,000 alumni has been supported by “bullet” voting by these same special interests. This creates a situation where the rights of the majority of the alumni body are actually abrogated by the petition candidates.

Of gravest concern is the escalation of spin-doctored misinformation recently advanced through The New York Times ad and The Wall Street Journal article, Editorial, and advertisement.

The WSJ Editorial was written by another opposition-trustee "sympathetic" individual, with no signature or disclaimer indicating the bias which was actually in effect. Would any rational person not question this deception?

The WSJ ad was signed by approximately 30 alumni out of 67,000. That fact speaks for itself.

The anti-Administration websites and ads provide no information as to who is actually funding them or ultimately responsible for them. Instead, made-up names and "Auto-Generated" responses are provided. These are disingenuous actions by petition Alumni Trustees or sympathizers.

It begs the issue to ask why so few would spend so much, without exposing true intentions, plans, or backing,
In what is ultimately an attempt to take over power in the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth.

Any rational person, when given all the facts, will see that these aims are quite different than those that comprise the best interests of Dartmouth or the majority of its Alumni.

Thank you,

Tom Pilla
Dartmouth Parent ’06
Advertising, Corporate Division
The Boston Globe Media Group
Direct: 617-929-7074
Fax: 617-929-2014
t_pilla@globe.com

By Tom Pilla, at 9/14/2007 4:38 PM
I keep asking myself why no women are ever heard from on this blog. I have a feeling it's because they want nothing to do with this family feud and the vast majority of them support the Trustees and if given a chance will vote the "Gang of 7" out of office.

John Fitzpatrick '65

By Anonymous, at 9/14/2007 5:25 PM
I too wonder about the appropriateness of some trustees' statements to the press following their board's decision. For example, the New York Sun reported:

"A lot of alumni said that they are taking Dartmouth out of their wills," an alumni-elected board member who petitioned to be included on the ballot, Stephen Smith, said. . . . The college has recently reached a 50% mark of alumni giving, Mr. Smith said, and now risks falling below that mark.

The Valley News reported:

“I argued strenuously, along with some of my colleagues, for maintaining the partnership with alumni that has served Dartmouth so well for more than a century,” read an e-mail from Stephen Smith, a law professor at University of Virginia who won election to the board this spring. . . .

“Our College is now faced with the prospect of a dramatic reduction in alumni contributions in protest of -- or possibly even filing lawsuits to overturn -- the action taken by the Board,” Smith's e-mail read.

Given that Smith has been linked to the the CSDC in the Chronicle and The Dartmouth, his discussions of a funding boycott and a lawsuit might contain a hint of a threat -- especially since he issued them after the board made its decision, so they aren't meant as lobbying any more.

By Anonymous, at 9/14/2007 5:33 PM
Who can blame the Board if it were not happy with the alumni nominee presented as the result of the last Association of Alumni election, won by a petitioner candidate who (1) had not given a dime or a minute to Dartmouth since his own graduation in 1988; (2) had been secretly interviewed and slated for nomination by trustees Rodgers, Zywicki, and Robinson in apparent collaboration with the secretive Hanover Institute, which steadfastly refuses to disclose its financial supporters; (3) is already publicly maligning his fellow board members in the press; and (4) is publicly threatening litigation against the College. Great trustee.

I was amused by the comments (referenced above by poster Tom Pilla)from Trustee Smith printed in the New York Sun:

"A lot of alumni said that they are taking Dartmouth out of their wills," an alumni-elected board member who petitioned to be included on the ballot, Stephen Smith, said. Mr. Smith, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, is the most recently elected Dartmouth trustee that petitioned to be included on the ballot. The college has recently reached a 50% mark of alumni giving, Mr. Smith said, and now risks falling below that mark.

This from a man who has never given anything to Dartmouth! Good thing for him speech is free.

By John H. Mathias, Jr. '69, at 9/15/2007 3:18 PM
Some of the Smith quotes come from an email that, although it seems to touch on trustee business, did not come from the board and does not seem to be publicly available.

Smith's quotation in the Bloomberg story speaks of "our goals" and "our resolve," but the quotation does not make clear who "our" refers to:

"Dartmouth College Trustee Stephen Smith, who was elected this year, criticized the board's move, saying it could cause `a dramatic reduction in alumni contributions' and even might lead to lawsuits.

"'Our democracy has been changed, perhaps forever, but our goals -- and our resolve -- remain the same,' said Smith, a law professor at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville."

Maybe someone who received the email would consider posting it here.

By Anonymous, at 9/16/2007 4:22 PM
Anon before this comment said "Obviously you people are representing yourself and your own radical viewpoint."

Radical? Hardly. In my micro-cosm of classmates and dartmouth friends who are liberal leaning and generally democratic, non-activist and so on, I can't point to anyone that is FOR the recent outcome of the Trustee vote.

The issue is simple: If you have a certain amount of power as a constituency, why would you vote or otherwise provide support for an action which limits that power?

In other colleges, alumni dont have as much power. Is that a good thing? For some, sure. In the usual scenario, alums can only vote with their dollars. Dartmouth is strong because alums can also vote with their will and their volunteerism - and there is an interaction between the two.

Especially when the College has been running just fine, there is limited need for change. What we do need is a campaigning process that is less divisive and costly. The simple answer is:

- Let anyone run without having to first campaign to get onto the ballot

- Restrict campaigning to a college managed, authenticated, password protected website so that whimps can't post Anon messages and so that election communications are bound, as they ought to be, to the constituents who need to see them.

By Jordan Frank, at 9/17/2007 8:32 AM
"If you have a certain amount of power as a constituency, why would you vote or otherwise provide support for an action which limits that power?"

This is exactly the kind of wrong-headed thinking the Trustees are trying to reduce.

The Board must keep itself from falling into the clutches of outside groups, even when they are well-meaning alumni.

By Anonymous, at 9/18/2007 10:51 AM

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

A Statement to the Press

37 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous posts

Archives