The Harvard Plan for Dartmouth Governance?

The following is an individual opinion piece posted to stimulate discussion. The Daily Dartmouth declined to run it as a guest editorial, so the author wishes it to be presented to alumni here.

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

In three weeks, the Dartmouth trustees will be receiving and likely acting upon the recommendations of their Governance Committee study group, regarding the composition and selection of Board members. The elephant-in-the-room question is whether they will honor their historic agreement with alumni that half of the Board (excluding the president and the NH governor) be chosen by alumni.

A related question that should be asked: Can the Board honor this agreement in name only while in substance reducing the level of material participation by alumni? The scenario is simple: The Board continues down the path of size expansion, maintaining the 50/50 balance. At the same time, it creates an Executive Committee and delegates real decision-making power to that smaller group. Alumni receive no assurances that the trustees they chose will have a corresponding level of representation on that smaller committee.

Several facts indicate this is a distinct possibility:
*The Board is already committed to expansion, arguing there are advantages to having more seats.
*The trustees are studying “best practices” and several other institutions have a model of a large board- for “advisory”, financial, and other support; and a smaller group where the real power lies- approving budgets and providing direction to the administration. Let’s label this model after one university that employs it: “the Harvard plan”.
*In its questionnaire to a small select group of alumni, the trustee governance committee asked for comment on the Board’s “executive” committee even though there is no such group listed among the current Board committees.
*The trustee questionnaire also raised the issue of a larger board needing to delegate more to operating committees.
*The current governance group of five, a permanent standing committee, was chosen without any guarantee of participation by alumni-chosen trustees and not one of the last four alumni-chosen trustees, being those elected by petition, is included.

Given that Dartmouth’s mission is education, those in the proper position to choose overseers of that mission are the products of that education, i.e. the alumni. Alumni can judge what educational elements have had value, and what improvements can be made. They are “disinterested” and do not have the conflicts inherent with administration, faculty, students, and other groups, possibly even incumbent trustees. Alumni choose trustees not to represent interests of alumni, but to represent what they believe to be the best interests of the College; no other group can make as clear a claim without conflict.

Some claim alumni do not have the expertise to manage a complex academic organization like Dartmouth. That is not their role. They do have the experience, obligation, duty, and right to select the most appropriate trustees, who in turn oversee the College’s mission and hold accountable the administrative experts who are hired to fulfill it. Few of us have the expertise to decide how to reform Medicare, what to do about the Iraq war, or how to battle pollution. But we do not abolish our democracy and turn over power to an unelected oligarchy of “experts.” Rather, citizens elect those who share their broad vision for the country and delegate to them a determination of the means to achieve it. Dartmouth alumni are at least as wise and engaged as the average American citizen, and reducing the alumni level of participation in college governance, by centralizing power in a non-elected committee, makes no more sense than limiting democracy in the United States of America.

So the question for both alumni and trustees: Will our mutual agreement be honored in spirit and deed as well as in word? Following the above scenario of consolidating power will be a violation of the premises behind our agreement. Indeed, a plan for a larger alumni advisory board and a smaller operating committee was specifically rejected by alumni in the discussions that culminated in the 1891 Agreement. Eventually they and the trustees opted for the benefits of a more direct engagement by alumni. One hopes the Board has the wisdom not to execute this scenario; Dartmouth alumni are discerning and will once again deem it unacceptable.

Tim Dreisbach '71
South Royalton, VT

Too Much Alumni Power?

This topic is posted by Tim Dreisbach as an individual. Any other alumnus/a who wishes to initiate a new discussion is encouraged to do so.

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

Two weeks ago the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni mailed its members to ascertain alumni opinion regarding the level of alumni participation on the Dartmouth Board of Trustees, specifically should the current balance be maintained with 50% charter trustees appointed by the Board and 50% chosen by the alumni in open elections (excluding the seats reserved for the College president and the NH governor). A second question queried alumni on their opinion as to whether or not any concerns about the election process should be referred to those individuals that alumni elect to lead their Association.

The responses to this mailing are beginning to come in, and quantified results will be shared with all alumni after the input period ends on August 27. One reply received to date may stimulate some thoughtful discussion. One graduate from the class of 1959 has disagreed with both propositions. He added the comments: “Too much alumni power” and “Too much athletic emphasis”. This is certainly a counter-point to claims that the survey was intentionally biased and that no one would disagree with its postulates. The committee wants to learn the extent of agreement, and disagreement, in order to understand and represent the sentiments of alumni.

Quantification will come with the survey’s completion. But for now, why not some discussion as to the underlying premises of alumni involvement. Is the current participation by alumni in the governance of the College, via trustee elections, a net negative for Dartmouth, or a positive? Anticipating the “anonymous” postings that are likely to follow, it is suggested that people will be more credible by identifying themselves, especially those with the courage to take a position they believe will be in the minority. The gentleman from ’59 identified himself in his reply card. Perhaps he and others who agree with his comments can explain their positions to their fellow graduates, and what negatives are implied in the phrase “too much power”. Others may disagree and wish to argue that the body of alumni collectively should have an even stronger voice.

Some related questions to spur discussion: If alumni power is too controlled by an “outside” group of activists, or too concentrated in a small group of “insiders”, how can it be made more democratic? Does the college Administration have too much power by controlling the principle mechanisms by which alumni communicate? Given an increasing number of communication channels, is an empowered alumni base smart enough to separate true information from one-sided opinions? And finally, what can the Association leadership, perhaps in conjunction with alumni Councilors, do to improve the understanding by Association members as to College issues, and accurately represent those members' desires?

Do alumni really have too much power? All of them, or any one group? Your thoughts?