Final Candidate Listing

Friday, February 29, 2008

Here is the final list of candidates for office on next year's Executive Committee:

President - John H. Mathias Jr. '69; J. Michael Murphy '61
First Vice President - Cheryl A. Bascomb '82 (current member, AoA EC); Martin Boles '80 (current member, AoA EC)
Second Vice President - Douglas H. Keare '56, '57Th, '57Tu; Paul Mirengoff '71
Secretary/Treasurer - F. Marion Chambers '76; David P. Spalding '76 (current Sec/Tres, AoA EC)
Executive Committee Members:
Marian Zischke Baldauf '84
Veree Hawkins Brown '93
John S. Engelman '68
Frank Gado '58 (current 2nd VP, AoA EC)
Zack Hafer '99
Ronald G. Harris '71
Kaitlin Jaxheimer '05
Otho E. Kerr, III '79
Alexander Mooney '93 (current member, AoA EC)
Richard Roberts '83
Marjory Grant Ross '81 (current member, AoA EC)
Ronald B. Schram '64
John Steel '54
Charles Urstadt '49

Additionally, the Executive Committee has proposed the following amendment to our constitution:

Article IV, section 1 of the constitution of the Dartmouth Association of Alumni shall be amended in its entirety to read: 'The executive committee of the Association will consist of eleven officers: the president, the first vice-president, the second vice-president, the secretary-treasurer, and seven additional members. Candidates for all offices will be nominated by a committee on nominations appointed by the president; other candidates may be nominated by petition from the membership. Ballots in the election may be cast by mail or electronic transmission.'

This is the only amendment which will appear on the ballot. It requires approval by a two-thirds majority of alumni who cast a vote in order to be adopted.

Update:
I just realized that I forgot to include the dates of the election. Voting will begin on April 28th, and end on June 5th; the annual meeting (which will include a last-minute opportunity to vote will be on June 10th.

97 Comments:

The Dartmouth alumni community should be united in support of the finest undergraduate college anywhere.

By john mathias '69, at 3/01/2008 12:48 AM
Ummm, is it a secret where these other names came from? I guess the EC just get some petitions in the mail and we take it for granted that they had enough signatures? Could we know whether they were handed over by a political machine or sent by the candidates themselves? Maybe an announcement that there were indeed petition candidates and they are X, Y, and Z?

I assume they will be distinguished on the ballot again this year.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 8:35 AM
The Dartmouth alumni community will be united for the first time many years. John MacGovern and the Hanover Institute cannot be allowed to dictate who is going run and win an election. The time has come for alumni to stand up and say enough is enough.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 8:58 AM
John Mathias:

I agree with your vision of Dartmouth as "the finest undergraduate college anywhere", and her alumni being supportive.

To be united, we alumni must be in general agreement. Will you please give us the details of what you mean? What is your philosophy regarding the role of alumni in providing that support. What actions will you and your slate of candidates pursue in leading alumni. I presume ending the lawsuit over parity on the Board tops your list; what beyond that?

If you want alumni to unite for "change" vis-a-vis incumbents, what specific changes do you envision? Are you going to communicate more, or less? Are you going to survey alumni opinion more, or less, or differently? How do you plan to represent alumni, and what representations will you be making?

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 3/01/2008 9:05 AM
John,

While I appreciate the sentiment, almost everything I read here is about the undergraduate college. DMS is the fourth oldest medical school in the country and of the finest. Tuck is regarded as one of the top few business schools in the world. Thayer, while small, is extremely well-respected. The other graduate programs also have students and faculty that are comparable to those at the best graduate schools. If you do become the president of the AOA, please do not forget those of us who are alumni of the graduate and professional schools.

Undergraduate education is important but the graduate and professional schools have been an integral part of Dartmouth since DMS's founding in 1797.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 10:35 AM
I thought that Frank Gado was his own man, but I see the Hanover Institute has relegated him to the executive committee instead of 2nd VP.

Frank, did you have a say in the matter? Either way you're going to lose.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 11:37 AM
So, now we have petition candidates that are clearly in the camp of Zywicki and McGovern, trashing the College, suing the College, encouraging alumni to withhold funding, and doing everything possible to spread dissent. Some choice! Gado is the Hanover Institute (aka McGovern meal ticket)rep., Steel (a former petition trustee and Zywicki confidant) and Urstadt (representing the Kopp faction and the now defunct DAOG)are just a few examples. More to come.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 11:39 AM
"Urstadt (representing the Kopp faction and the now defunct DAOG)are just a few examples."

I thought DAOG was represented by Bill Hutchinson, AOA president and nominator of those running in opposition to the petitioners, and by JB Daukas, president in waiting of the Alumni Council and drafter of its Amicus brief to the Court.

Let us all wait to hear what these candidates have to say, before prejudging any of them.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 12:11 PM
Don't be so hard on Frank. He is simply stepping back to have more time to further his writing career, possibly funded by his pal, Joe Asch. Joe has more funds to spare since the College and his nemesis, Carol Folt, won't take any more of his money. For Frank's latest effort, check out his mystery piece in The Valley News of 2/29, page A6.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 12:15 PM
I have not heard anyone lobbying against the professional schools, or against the existence of graduate programs in the "arts and sciences", or against scholarly research by faculty and students. This includes all the trustees and Association officers who were nominated by alumni petitions.

The arguments for an undergraduate-focused college are really against the dangers inherent in a research university where people get caught up in the chasing of grants and publishing of papers, to the detriment of the educational experience.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 12:19 PM
To set the record straight, JB Daukas did not write the Amicus brief for the Alumni Council and that has nothing to do with the AOA election slate. Bill Hutchinson, Tim Dreisbach and David Gale are not on this year's ballot. Hutchinson, Daukas and Doug Keare, who is running for office on the AOA slate, all realized that DAOG was on the wrong path and, because their loyalty to Dartmouth was greater than the litigious goals of DAOG, they have all stepped up to support the College. It is not too late for others to do the same.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 12:27 PM
To clarify: The petition candidates, whose petitions were delivered by Joe Asch to Blunt in a snow storm yesterday are:

Murphy, Boles, Miregoff, Chambers, Gado, Mooney, Roberts, Ross, Steel, Urstadt, Hafer.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 1:08 PM
Who are Mirogoff, Roberts and Hafer? What makes them worthy to stand for election? Have they ever been a volunteer in any shape or form?

Of course when you're running under the aegis of the Hanover Institute you don't need to prove your worthiness so long as you're willing to do the bidding of the HI.

Steele, Kopp and Urstadt fuel the fire. Now it's time to to call out the troops.

John Fitzpatrick '65

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 1:54 PM
I'm a Floridian and I've known Mike Murphy for over 20 years. I've always felt he was a stand up kind of guy who made his own decisions. To see him now taking his working orders from the Hanover Institute is beyond me. Sorry, Mike, but I've got to vote for John Mathias

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 7:42 PM
How do we know anyone is taking orders from the Hanover Institute? I always thought John McGovern was just the factotum for the dissident alumni and played a role similar to David Spalding's for alumni cheerleaders.

By Anonymous, at 3/01/2008 8:05 PM
I would suggest that the Floridian give higher priority to his own twenty years of personal experience with Mr. Murphy in forming his opinion of Murphy's independence, rather than accept the unsupported accusations of his being a pawn, already being leveled against him in the comments here.

By withholding judgement, at 3/01/2008 9:53 PM
If the petition candidates have been hand picked by the Hanover Institute and their election campaign is being underwritten by the same organization, isn't it reasonable to expect that they will be beholden to the HI. At least that's what I see happening and why as a group they're pledged to continue the law suit.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 2:13 PM
I think we should demand to know if the petition candidates have pledged to continue the lawsuit.It should be included as part of their campaign statement.

We also should demand to know who is funding any mailings that will sent out on their behalf-oh duh, the HI of course.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 2:33 PM
The petition candidates of course, were hand picked by the Hanover Institute, otherwise why did all the petitions go through John MacGovern's hands. Of course, the HI of course will fund their election campaign. How can we think otherwise.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 3:29 PM
"...we should demand...We also should demand..."

Who is this anonymous "we" group, and why does any candidate owe them anything?

Even the infamous "HI" is better identified.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 3:41 PM
The "we" group is 68,000 alumni, (too numerous to list here) and if a candidate is running to lead our association, they owe us an explanation of their position.

Scary to think that a candidate for AoA election feels that they don't owe their constituents anything-(unless that constituent is the HI)
Shades of the Gang of 6 and the resulting lawsuit.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 4:15 PM
The petition candidates owe it to all of us, all 68,000 alumni, to say where they stand on the law suit. They must have made a pledge to the Hanover Institute, now let's hear it.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 4:26 PM
Is the election merely a referendum on the lawsuit?

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 5:05 PM
No, but the outcome could be that we can finally put it behind us and stop wasting College resources that could be better spent on educating students, since ousting the Gang of 6 could(will) result in dismissal of the lawsuit.
It would also be nice to reunify the Alumni body and move forward.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 5:16 PM
Every day between now and June 10, via this blog, we must make sure that our alumni, all 68,000 of them, understand what they're voting for. Yes, a vote for the petition candidates is a vote to continue the law suit.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 5:32 PM
VOTE YES!

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 5:41 PM
Asking that candidates provide information regarding their platform to alumni is proper. Dare we say that disclosing an "agenda" through "campaigning" is healthy, contrary to what some say when elections do not go their way.

Candidates do owe this to the 68,000 alumni, which is entirely different from any obligation to a few cranky posters here. I expect we will be hearing from these candidates. Any "demands" for such information should be addressed to all candidates, not just a select few admitedly targeted on this blog for "badgering".

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 5:48 PM
What waste of College resources.

President Wright stated that it is not taking much of his time. Presumably it is taking zero faculty time. There should not even be much financial expense, as the College has (or should have)insurance that covers such lawsuits.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 5:52 PM
It is also incumbent on the other slate, the one that is running on a platform of ending the lawsuit, to tell us what is their position on parity for alumni-elected trustees.

Do they have some other approach for insuring that parity is maintained, or are they capitulating on this issue despite the fact that alumni overwhelmingly want it, the latter believing that parity is in Dartmouth's interest?

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 5:59 PM
"It is also incumbent on the other slate, the one that is running on a platform of ending the lawsuit, to tell us what is their position on parity for alumni-elected trustees."

Why? The Association of Alumni does not have anything to do with writing the bylaws of the Board of Trustees, where the numbers of alumni-nominated and Boardnominated trustees are set down.

Some people are asking how the petition slate could be "pawns" of the HI. At least one of them is legally obligated to put the Institute's interests above his own, because he is an officer of the Institute (undisclosed in the last campaign, that's how "transparent" he is).

MacGovern is not merely the factotum for the anti-Dartmouth side. He sued the Association to get his supporters' votes counted, and lost. He pledged to raise a million dollars to sue the Board, and he endorses EC candidates without disclosing which ones are officers in his corporation, and he seems to have sent out AoA propaganda at the request of the EC majority. There is no comparison to having a College employee on the EC.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 7:57 PM
Anon 7:57-- Why? Because if they are going to stand for election to represent alumni, they should report to alumni on any and all Dartmouth-related issues that are of concern to alumni. Parity is one.

Or they can claim that representation is not their job, and defer to the Alumni Council. They need to be honest if they believe this, BEFORE asking fellow alums to vote for them.

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 8:06 PM
Yeah!

Petitioners: Where do you stand on keeping the law suit going?

Anti-Petitioners: Where do you stand on parity?

By Anonymous, at 3/02/2008 8:09 PM
The upcoming election is not about parity. Parity may be a legitimate issue, but the election is about putting people in charge of the AOA who believe in all the positive things about Dartmouth and who don't sue their alma mater when they don't get their way. Let's be honest here, six people with an agenda took it upon themselves to sue the College and the board. Now two of them are not even willing trying to stay around to participate and the leader of the Suing Six (now The Failing Four) , the erudite Mr. Gado, is opting out of the leadership. "Let's you and him fight". Yes, in some way, this is a referendum about the lawsuit, but it is more about responsibility, loyalty, openness and maturity.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 12:33 AM
Anon. 8:06 -- the lawsuit is an election issue, parity is not.

It is true that representation of alumni opinion to the Board is not the job of the EC, but that does not make parity an issue for the Alumni Council either.

Candidates should truthfully admit it if they still support the lawsuit, and if they helped organize CSDC, and if they requested anti-Dartmouth legislation in Concord, and if they showed up to testify about it.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 6:38 AM
I agree, parity is not be an issue in this election, but rather electing 11 people who will do the right thing; who recognize that the role of alumni association executive committee is limited to just running elections.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 6:49 AM
Yes, this is our chance, all 68,000 of us, to send a message to John MacGovern and the Hanover Institute that they're no longer running the show. Their day is finished.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 7:09 AM
Re. legislation, it appears dead, but, Alex Mooney was the first person to appear before the committee, speaking in favor. John McGovern also spoke in favor of the proposed law. Mr. Mooney is a state senator from Maryland and we understand he was somehow involved in the writing of the text. He has every right to do this, but he ought to be up front about it.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 7:20 AM
Questions for John Mathias and for Mike Murphy:

Reading the previous few comments, do you believe:

1. that representing the Association you will lead before others, including the Board of Trustees, is NOT your job.

2. Your role is LIMITED to just running elections of your successors and of alumni trustees.

3. In the nominating elections of alumni trustees, you will follow the rules specificed by the Board of Trustees, even if you and other alumni feel other rules are more democratic for all candidates.

4. Parity of alumni trustees is NOT an issue for alumni.

Please be specific in your answers.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 7:37 AM
"the lawsuit is an election issue, parity is not."

I think the voters get to decide what the issues are and how to evaluate the candidates.

Oh wait, I forgot this is just a ceremony.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 9:09 AM
Anon. 7:37, let's ask some good or relevant questions instead of seeking "opinions" or "positions" regarding facts that are already well known.

1. Representing the Association is obviously the job of the President and EC of the Association. There is no debate about that.

2. The main role of the AoA is to count the votes for its own elections and trustee nominations. The role of representing alumni views was formally given to the Alumni Council.

3. The AoA "will follow the rules specified by the Board of Trustees" if it wants its nominees to be accepted. Whether some alumni can think of a voting method that they believe is more "democratic" makes no difference.

4. Parity is a moot point as long as the alumni maintain a lawsuit that tries to get a judge to award parity.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 10:53 AM
Is parity possible if the lawsuit is dropped?

Why does the College spend money ($60,000?) to run an election of a group whose only job is to count votes for its own election?

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 11:07 AM
Anon 11:07

Ridiculous to spend that amount of money on an election of a balloting committee, I know.

Too bad the new Alumni Constitution didn't pass. It was drafted to correct some of these archaic anomalies.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 11:34 AM
Parity is certainly possible if the lawsuit is dropped. All it would take is a board resolution.

The AoA has jobs other than electing its own officers: it holds an annual meeting, and it counts the ballots in trustee nominations. It is vestigial, but not irrelevant.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 11:51 AM
Maybe the college should cancel the election. What does it have to lose?

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 11:52 AM
"Maybe the college should cancel the election. What does it have to lose?"

What it has to lose is the possibility that the old officers will stay in office, perpetuating the meritless lawsuit.

Really, it's not up to the College to determine whether the election happens or not. It's up to the AoA. The logistics of counting ballots and maintaining a voting website are funded by the College.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 12:29 PM
If the lawsuit is meritless, who cares how long the old officers stay in office?

What would happen if the college just refused to pay the AoA's bills?

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 1:23 PM
How can the new Association officer, if elected, drop the petition?

It is already before the court.

Certainly if it is a big deal to initiate a lawsuit (without voter consent) then it is a big deal to drop a lawsuit (without voter consent).

Will the anti-lawsuit candidates pledge to sponsor a referendum among all the alumni before the drop the lawsuit?

There is no money involved, only a determination of association rights to a contract, which the Judge has already acknowledged exists.

How can an anti-alumni slate get elected and how can an anti-alumni slate, if elected, then drop the petition without approval in an alumni referendum?

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 2:45 PM
JB Daukas
Bill Hutchinson
Doug Keare

Were they members of DAOG
Dartmouth Alumni for Open Governance?

If so, then congratulations to them.

They've helped open up Dartmouth Governance with higher alumni participation at every level, internet voting, opposition candidates, reform in the association and council, independence for alumni, greater interest in governance, focus by the administration on alumni and college problems (dropping USNWR ranking, class sizes, speech and discipline issues).

Congratulations! Democracy and checks and balances have been working.

I'm puzzled that they are both former DAOG leaders and anti-alumni leaders now.

If they were DAOG, then were they just spies or plants to interfere with DAOG? If they've flip-flopped, then what was the cause? If the flipping DAOG people now run the Association and Council (-elect), then what does that say about the alumni organizations before DAOG had its influence?

Congratulations on your impact over the past several years:
JB Daukas
Bill Hutchinson
Doug Keare

You've participated and had some effect on Dartmouth. Now let the rest of us also participate, too, and help stop the administration and trustees from taking away alumni powers.

If you get elected, then let the Court determine if there was a contract. We'll know in several months what he thinks. Trying to steal this decision before its made is mean spirited. Allowing the decision is the only peaceful outcome.

Why not demand both sides agree to a final mutual Motion for summary judgment based on the documents submitted?

We could have the judge's opinion within three weeks on the available evidence and be done with it.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 3:00 PM
"If the lawsuit is meritless, who cares how long the old officers stay in office?"

Do you mean "who cares how long the lawsuit drags on?" Because the old officers should depart at the end of their terms no matter what.

The lawsuit should be withdrawn because it is an embarrassing distraction and is costing all sides money and attention that would be better devoted to Dartmouth. It's hard to say Dartmouth or the class of 2012 would not be better off with $1m in financial aid or an endowed chair than with this litigation.

"What would happen if the college just refused to pay the AoA's bills?" The AoA would probably manage to conduct the election anyway, but probably with a lower turnout.

"How can the new Association officer, if elected, drop the petition? It is already before the court."

Easy: the officers vote by a margin of 6-5 or greater to instruct the lawyers to move for a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. This action (which the voters already know as the result of their votes today) would be a much smaller deal than the lawsuit without voter consent.

Remember, the lawsuit (and Hanover Institute's influence) was not tested by any valid referendum and was not clearly on the agenda of the candidates who now form the Gang of Six. They were elected before the Board amended its charter.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 3:11 PM
Anonymous 3pm, your comment is confusing. JB Daukas does not show up on the final candidate listing. Is he running for something?

Bill Hutchinson is the outgoing AoA President and also, as far as I can tell, is not running for office. Why would you think he is "anti-alumni"? He's done a good job keeping civility in a board that's not only split but has people who complain on the record about the verbs being used by their fellow officers.

Doug Keare, the third person you mention, is running for 2d VP. What makes him "anti-alumni"?

And why would you use the phrase "mean-spirited" to describe someone who wants to stop the lawsuit against the Board of Trustees? This is the lawsuit -- egregious, power-grabbing, even vicious -- promoted by people who accused their fellow alumni on the Board of "a pure act of thuggery" and asked both the legislative and judicial branches the government to intervene to hamstring Dartmouth and curtail the rights of its Board? You think withdrawing this suit in shame would be mean-spirited?

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 3:21 PM
If you believe thuggery has been attempted, it is not mean-spirited to oppose it. Under the sugar-coating of their justifications, the Board unilaterally decided to reduce the ratio of alumni involvement. They were informed in advance as to the consequences they would risk vis-a-vis possible responses by the Association, and yet refused to sit down and discuss the matter with its officials. How is it mean-spirited if the Association merely followed through on the only recourse they had left?

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 3:56 PM
Anonymous 3:56, the public criticism by some EC members and some Board members was mean-spirited. They published statements that were unprofessional and extremely disparaging and were meant to belittle the Board or insult it. Their statements were not dutiful.

No one has carried out"thuggery" or "sugar-coating" (funny how critics have used those two utterly different criticisms...). The Board makes all of its decisions unilaterally. That is because it is a board of trustees and is required to make decisions on its own.

You are a special person, but that doesn't mean the Board has to run its decisions by you. The idea that the Board pushed the alumni to "the only recourse they had left" is ludicrous. You or the EC seem to suffer from an inflated ego or an undeserved sense of entitlement.

Why, again, is the Board is required to consult the Association of Alumni and run its ideas past it and you first? Would you be any happier with the Board's decision if it had spent more time than it did listening to some EC members ramble and rant first?

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 4:28 PM
Anon. 3:00 asked "Why not demand both sides agree to a final mutual Motion for summary judgment based on the documents submitted?"

The answer is that doing so would waste more money, would delay the board's legitimate decisionmaking, would give legitimacy to the actions of the EC majority, and would create some risk that the plaintiff would prevail. Then there would be more expense and delay for the appeal to straighten out the errors.

By Anonymous, at 3/03/2008 4:33 PM
I read with great interest Frank Gado's editorial in the Valley News. on February 29, which I will repost below as it's not available on line.

Mr. Gado appears reasonable and acts as if he were not suing the college and the Board in order to see his policy ideas carried out. He wants to "debate" something about which he cl;early has sytronmg opinions. That is his right. Insulting fellow alumni and misusing his position on the AoA in order to sic the trial lawyers on your alma mater at the direction of the Hanover Institute is not "dissent," it's thuggery, to use his phrase..

And here he's finally laid out his reasons why: the lawsuit appears not to be really based on a sense of fiduciary duty or the rights of alumni (contract rights violated and all that), it's based directly on his personal interest in changing Dartmouth, or at least in affecting the form and mission of the College. Mr. Gado is no different than Zywicki, who at least openly proclaimed his agenda in his North Carolina speech.

Mr. Gado has used his officer's seat in the Alumni Association to advance his personal goals, and those of the Hanover Institute, rather than act in the best interests of all alumni and the college.

The Dartmouth Alumni community should reject him and the rest of the Hanover Institute Slate.

DARTMOUTH NEEDS TO DEBATE ITS FUTURE
FRANK GADO
For the Valley News
2/29/2008

FOR DECADES, Dartmouth alumni have manifested such extraordinary devotion to their alma mater that, not altogether jokingly, the devotion has been likened to a cult. How remarkable, then, that an insurgency is raging among these same alumni. What accounts for it?

In a Valley News commentary Feb. 4, "Dartmouth's Critics Misunderstand the College Experience," professor of government Richard Winters credits the successive victories of alumni trustee candidates nominated by petition instead of by an establishment committee to "a coalition of Œlosers' who have little in common with each other" but are infuriated by singular causes. As instances, he cites the suspension of a fraternity, the precipitate decision to eliminate the swim team, a decline in legacy admissions, losing seasons in football, "and so on." The contention has a certain professorial logic, but is it true?

Suppose it were. Would Dartmouth's trustee elections then be unique? As professor of government, Winters should know that majorities in all elections are typically an aggregate of minorities. But quite aside from this fact, his facile explanation is inaccurate. As a leader in "the movement," I have heard from hundreds of Dartmouth alumni. None fits Winters' categorization. Particular grievances vary, but the underlying concern is a constant: the changing nature of Dartmouth and how it affects the quality of its education.

Despite his coalition-of-losers theory, Winters seems aware of the reason for alumni disquiet. Of the six italicized "claims" he tries to refute, the first three restate one issue: the adverse effects on undergraduate education caused by research university policies. To his credit, Winters does not introduce the canard that Dartmouth has long been a university in all but name because it has professional graduate schools. No one is proposing elimination of those separate entities.

Instead, like us, Winters focuses on the growing emphasis on published research for the college faculty. He pronounces it beneficial. We see it as detrimental ˜ and Winters' own arguments support our case. Before I proceed in rebuttal, let me emphasize that I do not oppose research per se. A good teacher remains intellectually involved through an entire career; his or her enthusiasm for learning is at least as important as the subject matter itself. But what drives a research university is the unending quest for grants, in areas of inquiry directed by particular interests of the money providers (usually the federal government) and by career pressures ˜ not by intellectual curiosity for its own sake.

Does the nature of the research matter? Of course it does. Certain fields are "hot" at different times. Half a century ago, physics was at the top of the research hierarchy. Today, it is biology ˜ or, more accurately, special areas of biology. Outside the sciences, the current rage is for economics. When salaries and promotions are tied to research "productivity," faculty outside the favored studies (such as the humanities) tend to imitate what is remunerative in more rewarded disciplines. The plaque that clogs the arteries of scholarly activity in disciplines not well suited to the scientific model is directly attributable to the influence of "research" policies.

In his Leslie Conference address, President Jim Wright proclaimed as Dartmouth's new mission the "production of new knowledge" (presumably superseding the old mission, teaching undergraduates). This "new knowledge" assembly line is expensive business, however. One example: When President James Freedman set Dartmouth on the university course, he cut the faculty teaching load by 20 percent. Subsequently, reflecting the new emphasis of Dartmouth U., teaching duties in the sciences have been reduced by another 25 percent, with grants cutting teaching obligations still further. Today, it is the rare faculty member who meets classes for more than 18 weeks a year.

Curiously, as professorial classroom presence shrinks, the curriculum swells. Winters' own department has doubled in faculty since his arrival in 1969 but tripled the number of seminars. The inescapable logic: Staffing of lower division courses has diminished. Unreined, a faculty rewarded primarily for publication will shape the curriculum to serve its own interests rather than those of students. Seminar topics tend to mirror the professor's special professional focus, and the students who elect that seminar often abet the professor's investigation. The mitosis in Dartmouth's doctoral programs also cited by Winters illustrates the same drift.

Winters asserts that alumni do not recognize the reality of today's Dartmouth, that undergraduate instruction has clearly improved. One of the places he bids us examine is the English department. But in the day of "inferiority," freshman English ˜ which introduced students to the Old Testament, Shakespeare, classical tragedy and Milton ˜ also developed writing skills. Today, despite various inducements (including the teachers' choice of "fun" subjects) that failed to lure most of the English department to such plebeian instruction, the teaching of writing has been turned over to adjuncts and administrators. Has the cause of education gained?

Winters claims that "a significantly better research and publishing record" proves his case: using Panglossian logic, he declares, "For undergraduates, this is the best of all possible worlds: Great teachers plus great minds equal great classes." But is a longer curriculum vitae proof of a great mind or a great class? The evidence is missing. Indeed, some of the dullest classes I endured in graduate school were taught by pedestrian intellects with elongated bibliographies.

Back in the unglorious days of 1969, Winters writes, his department had only "one superlative instructor (the legendary 'Zinger)." But Vincent Starzinger, it is worth noting, wrote just one book during his entire career. His monumental reputation instead derived from his brilliance in challenging students to think, and in employing the broad base of scholarship. He directed his intellectual vitality at a range of heterogeneous students, not just government majors. It is that kind of mind, operating with that kind of passion, that Dartmouth should be seeking and rewarding. The Winters model turns in a rather different direction.

At this critical moment in its history, Dartmouth should benefit from vigorous debate about its future course. Unfortunately, supported by faculty like Winters, the administration has tried to blast such debate by asserting that dissent harms the college. Among its ordnance of pernicious petards is the allegation that dissent has caused Dartmouth's drop in U.S. News and World Report rankings. This is dangerous nonsense. The very universities Dartmouth wishes to rival are currently arenas of conflict regarding, in part, the consequences of their research model; none trembles from apprehension over the effects of debate.

In my view, Dartmouth's best prospect for distinction is the cultivation of the possibilities of undergraduate instruction, focused on the liberal arts. Taking the research university as a template is a grave mistake. "Life's follies," Samuel Johnson reminds us, "stem from the attempt to emulate that which we do not resemble."

By Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 3/04/2008 12:15 PM
To be clear, the portion of the 12:15 comment above the quotation is adapted from a comment at Dartlog.

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 1:09 PM
Andrew Lewin above stated: "Mr. Gado has used his officer's seat in the Alumni Association to advance his personal goals, and those of the Hanover Institute, rather than act in the best interests of all alumni and the college."

However his logic is faulty... it can only be correct when one makes an assumption, as Lewin does, that Gado's personal goals are in conflict with the best interests of all alumni and the College. Lewin presumes this as fact, but without tangible support it is merely his opinion. If the personal and organizational goals are aligned, which Gado and others believe, then there is no conflict and no act against the interests of Dartmouth and her alumni.

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 1:32 PM
Bringing a lawsuit against the College without a mandate would seem to me to be an act against the interests of Dartmouth and her alumni.
And, no, that silly survey did not provide a mandate...

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 1:51 PM
96 days and the gang of 6 will be history and, yes, the lawsuit will be history...

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm ready to vote...

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 1:55 PM
Reading through the comments here by anonymous poster(s)--remember, if you post anonymously, you can hold conversations with yourself, pretending to be multiple people...or even pretending to be an alum when you're actually, say, an employee of the college!--anyhow, reading through the comments, I have to wonder: do alumni want to find out whether or not the Board is abrogating a contract it entered into with its alumni, or do they want to just be told to sit quietly by, sending checks in, but having no say beyond that?

The anonymous posters seem to feel that alumni have no right to find out whether there is a legal contract between the Board and the Association; that, even if there is such a contract, the Association should ignore it because the Board wants to; that the Association's role is merely to run its own elections, and any scraps the Board happens to toss its way; and that, despite all that, alumni are supposed to still support the college, especially through donations. Seems an odd attitude to me...

By Cognitive Dissonance, at 3/04/2008 2:09 PM
If the lawsuit runs its course, the debate will soon be history, one way or the other.

If a new EC ends it prematurely without a decision, the debate simply goes on.

Therefore the best way of accomplishing the goal of alumni unity proffered at the start of this thread by John Mathias is to vote against him and his promise of "immediate withdrawal".

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 2:15 PM
If the lawsuit is withdrawn, the debate (if not the complaining) will end as well. The status quo of Dartmouth's historic charter will remain in place, and the Board will continue to be the only organization that elects trustees.

The best way to end this wasteful controversy is give the current EC majority (and the Hanover Institute) the boot.

The EC majority did not file the lawsuit just "to find out whether or not the Board is abrogating a contract." They did it to enhance or retain their Association's perceived authority within an independent corporation. If this were merely a matter of curiosity, a quick question to the Board (which keeps detailed records of the contracts it signs) would be enough.

There is nothing "odd" about the attitude that the Alumni Association has certain responsibilities and lacks others. Nominating alumni trustees is a worthy job.

What's "odd" is the attitude that there must be some quid pro quo, that alumni "donations" are not gifts but are payment for influence or power. "Cognative Dissonance," this is what you are proposing. I assume you have a price per seat in mind? Have you paid your share? Do you suggest that some alumni not be allowed to vote if they haven't donated in a while? Or do big individual donations get spread among the non-payers? Perhaps the big donors should get multiple votes, as is the norm in the shareholder's corporate "democracy" that people are fond of referring to.

Lewin's logic is not "faulty." It would be wrong for Frank to use his office to advance his personal goals whether or not they conflict with those of the Association. This rule of ethics exists because it is so easy for officers to describe their actions as being "in the interest of" the group.

Federal agency heads who encourage their employees to vote for politicians of a particular party, for example, could claim that having this party in power would be in the interest of the country or the agency, and they might even be correct. But that does not make their behavior ethical.

Anon. 1:32, it is your logic that is "faulty." Frank's proposals, if not outside the interest of Dartmouth, are currently not being followed by the Board of Trustees. Therefore you cannot assume that his use of his office to further his personal educational agenda is also in the interest of the Association or the College (if his use of his office in this way were even permitted). And the interests of the Hanover Institute clearly conflict with those of the College. That is why the Institute is funding and influencing the lawsuit against the Board.

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 3:05 PM
"Perhaps the big donors should get multiple votes", as stated above facetiously.

According to the proposal of the governance committee, the truly big donors get two thirds of all the votes.... 16 people get the equivalent of 13,600 individual alumni as it pertains to determining Board composition. No facetious comment, but their actual plan! Members of the Board have made it pretty clear that Board seats are for sale, to the right types of people.

"It would be wrong for Frank to use his office to advance his personal goals whether or not they conflict with those of the Association."

Let me get this straight. No one is allowed to advance the goals of the Association even when one's personal goals are the same? Some logical brilliance. Then every College volunteer should cease and desist from whatever they are doing.

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 4:13 PM
The interests of the Hanover Institute may conflict with those of the Administration.

Can Anon 3:05 provide the evidence that the HI's interests conflict with the College?

Why is it assumed that the interests of an organization and the interests of those currently running it are always the same? Recognizing that conflicts between these two are often the case, and putting in conflict-free oversight, is exactly what good governance is all about. In this instance, President Wright's statement that this debate is all about "independence" is telling.

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 4:20 PM
Think about this...The petition candidates didn't suddenly decide to run on their own. They were asked to run, each one of them, but John MacGovern and others associated with the Hanover Institute.

They didn't go out and get people to sign petitions on their behalf, that was all done for them. So once again I ask, if they get elected who will they be beholden to?

Certainly not you and I. They have made a promise, each one of them, to keep the law suit going.

Between now and June 10 never lose sight of these facts...

John Fitzpatrick '65

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 9:18 PM
No trustee gets more or fewer votes based on how big his donations are. Every trustee gets one vote. The majority rules. Read the charter, Anon. 4:13. Please stop whining about how you have no say in this corporation. Maybe you should try getting a say in the elections of some corporation closer to home. Are there any educational nonprofits in your area that have no obligation to you? Call them up and demand a vote.

Frank's personal goals (of furthering the interest of his own corporation, reforming higher education, or changing the direction of Dartmouth) are not consistent with the goals of the Association. But he has not let that inconsistency, or a sense of propriety, or logic stop him from using the Association to pursue his own goals.

Anon. 4:20 wants evidence the HI's interests conflict with those of the College. Why? If you can't see this, then, as John Bruce might say, you probably didn't really go to Dartmouth. If their interests were the same, then one of them wouldn't exist. The Hanover Institute is funding the suit against the Board of Trustees. The defendant and the institution it operates have an interest in seeing the plaintiff lose.

The interests of the College are those of its Board.

Why is Wright's statement about "independence" telling? The fact that some people pretend to see phantoms in that statement is what is telling. The Board must be and is legally obligated to remain independent from outside interest groups or organizations. It could no more let the AoA elect trustees than it could the Princeton Alumni Association, or the Hanover Rotary. The AoA has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to reduce the independence of the Board and gain influence for itself. It must be stopped.

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 10:14 PM
Frank Gado is now using the Dartmouth Review to campaign for the upcoming AoA elections. I encourage everyone to read the spew of propaganda. His attacks on John Mathias are particularly egregious (and uninformed: it seems Frank hasn't let his vast ignorance of the law stop him from commenting on legal matters yet again).

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 10:17 PM
Anon 10:17 above. Thank you for the link to the online Dartmouth Review site, which is more than a Frank Gado campaign piece, but a Dartmouth Review article recapping developments in the governance lawsuit and how the upcoming Association elections relate to that. The interview with Gado is only the second half of the article.

People should by all means go read it and form their own opinions.

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 11:33 PM
Gado on Mathias, in the interview:

"TDR: Have you ever interacted [with] John Mathias, and if so; what is your impression of him?

"Gado: ... Mathias, if I recall correctly, made much of his extensive background in litigation and his expert judgment that our case was wholly without merit. Well, even the best lawyers make mistakes, but what is of far greater concern is his view that parity itself is a bad thing. This puts him in opposition not only to 116 years of Dartmouth history but also to the alumni interests of the very association he wants to lead. I find that quite extraordinary."

Mathias on parity, on this blog:

"I have come to the view that 'parity' is not a good thing, driven principally by the abusive electioneering and demagoguery of the last two petition trustees, the slating done by the Hanover Institute, the formation and financing of petitioner candidate slates by the Hanover Institute for election to the AoA EC, the acceptance by the Hanover Institute of non-Dartmouth financial support, the egregious misconduct of Trustee Zywicki (who should never have become a Dartmouth Trustee under any credible system of selection), and the ideas currently being advanced by the likes of Mr. Gale that alumni trustees should somehow 'steer the Board'--among other things.

"So, I do not think parity is a good idea at all."

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2008 11:50 PM
Regarding the post of 9:18 this evening,

Think about this...The nominated candidates didn't suddenly decide to run on their own. They were asked to run, each one of them, by Bill Hutchinson and his handpicked members of the Nominating Committee.

They didn't go out and get people to sign petitions on their behalf, since being nominated was all done for them. So once again I ask, if they get elected who will they be beholden to?

Certainly not you and I. They have made a promise, each one of them, to end the law suit before a clear decision is reached, one that their backers might not like.

Between now and June 10 never lose sight of these facts...

John Patfitzrick

By John Patfitzrick, at 3/05/2008 12:04 AM
"So once again I ask, if they get elected who will they be beholden to?"

Would you rather have the nominated candidates openly beholden (in a figurative sense only) to the nominating committee, or petition candidates secretly and legally beholden to the Hanover Institute? Because that is what will happen if this crop of petitioners is as disingenuous as the last batch.

By Anonymous, at 3/05/2008 9:42 AM
OK, I have read the article and the softball questions tossed at Mr. Gado.

Here are two questions he was not asked.

"If you are so concerned about the trustee process, why are you not standing for re-election as an officer of the AOA? It looks like you are retreating to the lower level to get out of the battle."

And, "If your group of six who filed the lawsuit are so commited, why are only four of you standing for reelection? It looks like both Dreisbach and Gale want out before the roof caves in.

By Anonymous, at 3/05/2008 9:47 AM
Anon 9:47 would ask Frank "why are you not standing for re-election as an officer of the AOA?"

All this time I thought he was running for his 2nd VP slot again. He said he was back on Feb. 14. But now that Asch or the HI has nominated him by petition as an EC member, has he switched positions?

Is this just confusion and indecision, or more EC manipulation behind the scenes? I hope John MacGovern was consulted.

By Anonymous, at 3/05/2008 10:40 AM
For the record, here's the e-mail I sent to the rest of the EC on December 20th last year:

"At this point, I don't have any real desire to run again. I've got too much else going on in my life, and, quite honestly, we haven't been able to address the issues I felt needing addressing because of the mess with the Trustees, and I see no likelihood that we'll be able to get to do anything about them in the foreseeable future, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.

-D."

(Sorry about the typo in the middle there.)

My decision was not based on my view of the merits of the lawsuit, but simply on the other demands on my time--my third child will be born this summer, I have a full-time job, and I started an MBA program last fall.

I believe that, if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed to its conclusion, the Association's position will be borne out; however, I also believe that, even if the case is decided against the Association, the College and the Association will be stronger for having the resolution.

To explain: if the Association wins, the College will be strengthened through the continued involvement of her alumni; if the College wins, many dissatisfied alumni will accept the decision and get back to supporting the College. If the lawsuit is dropped, though, the alumni who support it (or at least the sentiment behind it) will continue to contend that the Board has breached faith with the alumni and at a minimum, a significant number will probably refuse to donate in support of what they believe to be a corrupt Board. Alumni donations will drop, and alumni willingness to do volunteer work (such as interviewing prospective students) will suffer. This could easily have a negative impact on Dartmouth's rankings.

The alumni body is currently very divided over this issue, and we're approaching having an answer--one way or another--through the lawsuit. Once the court renders its verdict, the alumni body can work to come back together and move on to other issues (though that will take some time, and as I stated, I don't expect next year's EC to be able to accomplish much). Those who want the lawsuit dropped, in my personal opinion, do not have the best interests of the college or her alumni at heart, since dropping it will only further this division; there will not be any healing of the alumni body without a resolution of this question.

By David Gale, at 3/05/2008 10:40 AM
Thank you David Gale for stating well your thinking about the lawsuit, its merits, and the advantages to Dartmouth to seeing it through, regardless of ultimate outcome.

Robert Donin, the College's in-house counsel, revealed a similar way of thinking in the press release when he said: "We are eager for the case to proceed to trial so we can secure a ruling on the merits."

Your further insight into the implications of not getting the matter resolved is excellent.

For those of who falsely portray David and me as rats deserting a sinking ship, let me also be on record (again!) that my decision not to run is for family reasons. I did not run last year with a belief the position was "honorary" for past service and with little effort required. I do not own a powdered wig.

Time has now shown that much work and attention is necessary, and I believe that will continue for the next group of executives. No one should be running unless they are prepared to commit to the 1,000% effort required, and I cannot.

My decision is bittersweet, because I believe it means passing up an opportunity to serve on an EC where no one will be able to question their mandate, and one facing a historic opportunity to firmly establish the role of alumni as a strong, supportive, but independent part of the Dartmouth community, not subservient to the desires of the College administration and its arm responsible for managing "alumni relations."

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 3/05/2008 11:34 AM
Tim, why would the AoA deserve to be "independent" from the college if it can't even extend the same courtesy to the Board? If "independence" were the virtue you imply it is, then you would get the AoA to stop trying to overrule the decisions of a private (and independent) nonprofit.

By Anonymous, at 3/05/2008 12:18 PM
David, I respectfully disagree with your prediction about "healing" once the lawsuit is dropped. The question of alumni trustee elections has an answer right now, and that is the status quo. Your lawsuit is an attempt to upset the status quo. Dropping the suit removes any chance of upsetting the status quo, but it does not leave alumni without answers to necessary questions.

By Anonymous, at 3/05/2008 12:23 PM
Anonyomous: You use my first name as if we are acquainted, but then do not have the courtesy of saying who you are. But since others may wonder about your question:

I am not trying to control the decision-making of the Board of a private organization. Rather we are attempting to hold that Board accountable for a decision it made in the past, making a commitment to our Association.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 3/05/2008 12:27 PM
Mr. Dreisbach:

I do not see how you can maintain that “I am not trying to control the decision-making of the Board of a private organization. ” You were an active part of a group that initiated a destructive and expensive lawsuit against the college, pushing forward the agenda of the Hanover Institute and Zywicki, without obtaining the of the alumni you were elected to represent. Please refrain from mentioning the biased survey that others on this blog have demonstrated had no real validity. As I have noted before, Fierce opponents of the Boartd’s actions such as Dan Linsalata have said publicly that the lawsuit was a bad idea.

Nothing in the organizing documents of the AoA empowered you to act in this manner, yet you proceeded. You also neglected your fiduciary duties to represent all alumni and act in the best interests of the association when you delegated control of the litigation to Frank Gado, and made no real effort to find out where the source of the funding was coming from.

When you state that “we are attempting to hold that Board accountable for a decision it made in the past, making a commitment to our Association,” you should specify that you are following Gado and the Hanover Institute’s lead, not the interests of Dartrmouth alumni and students.

By Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 3/05/2008 1:14 PM
Cutting through all the debate here, I conclude that the Association election is nothing more than a referendum on the lawsuit.

Voters need to decide if a vote for stopping the lawsuit is good or bad for the college or, if you prefer, a vote for continuing the lawsuit is good or bad for the college.

By Anonymous, at 3/05/2008 1:25 PM
Thanks to Mr. Gale and Mr. Dreisbach for responding so promptly to explain their reasons for not staying with the AOA to fight the battle they started. The "family" and "job pressure" excuses are a good start. They can save the "health" and "exploring new career opportunities" excuses for their next "cut and run" foray.

As for Mr. Gado, he seems to be MIA.

By Anonymous, at 3/05/2008 1:29 PM
Mr. Dreisbach, "attempting to hold that Board accountable for a decision it made in the past" is the same thing as trying to control the decision-making of the Board. This is true because holding the Board accountable for its regular changes in policy is not your job, if it is anyone's job.

The EC majority have latched onto the made-up idea of an 1891 agreement as a way of trying to affect the decision-making of the Board. The contract "rights" argument is one of convenience only. The real goal is to halt what some see as Board decisions leading to the creation of a university, or to consolidate enough power on the Board to steer Dartmouth in directions it is not currently pursuing.

Board decisions, including the decisions of whom to elect, belong only to the Board and not to outsider groups that try to use the legal system to get their way.

Claiming to "hold that Board accountable" is just spin, and it is an order of magnitude more disingenuous than the spin that the Board has been using ("strengthening" governance seems to receive much criticism).

By Anonymous, at 3/05/2008 1:57 PM
Mr. Lewin:
Thank you for your comments. The majority of your statements are ones of opinion, not fact. I respectfully disagree. Further, as many of your opinions regarded my own actions and motivations, I can state with assurance that you are flat out wrong.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 3/05/2008 5:10 PM
Mr. Dreisbach:

By majority vote, the Board made a presumptively valid decision to draw four of its future nominees from a Board committee rather than from an Association vote.

You have taken the Board to court to overturn that boardroom decision. You have asked the state judiciary to control the decision-making of the board of a private corporation by invalidating the Trustees' vote. Your intentions could no be clearer, and you should stop pretending you want to do anything other than get a court to order the Board to take certain actions against its will.

By Anonymous, at 3/05/2008 6:26 PM
Any time one organization resorts to the courts in a dispute with another organization, it obviously is an action against the will of the management, and Board, of the second entity. There is nothing wrong with this.

If decisions by one entity relating to agreements with another can never be legally challenged, because doing so undermines the fiduciary powers of the former, the entire field of contracts law is obviated. Without resolution by the courts, one is left with anarchy and rule by power and intimidation. We are a nation built on the principle of laws, including being held accountable to bargained-for and therefore binding agreements. Dartmouth governance is no exception and the trustees do not get a free pass relative to prior commitments they may have made.

By Anonymous, at 3/05/2008 7:11 PM
The upcoming election campaign presents a clear choice: On the one hand, a slate of candidates who have signaled their acceptance of the Board of Trustees’ abrogation of the 116-year old Agreement with the Dartmouth Association of Alumni that has consistently ensured parity on the Board, and who have pledged, if elected, to act immediately to withdraw the current court action which seeks to maintain that Agreement; on the other hand, another slate of candidates who have been nominated by alumni petition and who believe, as does the current majority of the Association Executive Committee, that active alumni involvement has been a crucial factor in Dartmouth’s great success, and that any significant diminution of alumni rights or that involvement is harmful to Dartmouth’s long run well being. I am honored to head that slate as a candidate for President of the Association.

In the election campaign ahead, our slate will make every effort to communicate our position on the issues, and respond to inquiries that will arise. We look forward to a vigorous, full participation in the debate, which ultimately is about what is best for Dartmouth.

However, we have unanimously agreed that we will not participate in any discussions on this web blog, at least as it is currently constituted. We have two objections: (1) this site demonstrates a lack of civility that disgraces Dartmouth and Dartmouth alumni. Nasty, personal, ad hominem attacks are too frequent to ignore, and (2) this site allows “Anonymous” listings, which lately account for 80 to 90 percent of all postings. (This second problem may account for most of the first problem.)

We eleven petition candidates have put our names on the line, and we look forward to respectful – even if occasionally intense – discussion with alumni who will do likewise. We are not interested in hearing what persons who hide behind anonymity have to say. Accordingly, this is my first and this is my last post on this site. We are building our own web site – www.dartmouthalum.org – as part of meeting our communication responsibilities in the campaign ahead for alumni support.

J. Michael Murphy ‘61
Bert Boles ‘80
Paul Mirengoff ‘71
Marian Chambers ‘76
Marjorie Grant Ross ‘81
Frank Gado ‘58
Alexander Mooney ‘93
Charles J. Urstadt ‘49
John Steel ‘54
Zach Hafer ‘99
Richard Roberts ‘83

By J. Michael Murphy '61, at 3/05/2008 7:57 PM
I find it obnoxious that Frank Gado continually misrepresents the state of affairs at Dartmouth. As a recent student, I'm not sure what college he's talking about.

If students shared his concerns, it would not be the case that every major student newspaper, from the left to the right, has come out vehemently against the lawsuit.

Tim claims that his only intention is to force the Board to adhere to a past commitment; he obviously has a very principled respect for New Hampshire contract law. Any man who would take his own alma mater to court simply to enforce what he perceives to be the rule of law would make pious Euthyphro proud. But what would Tim have said to Socrates when he asked: "Whereas, by Zeus... you think that your knowledge of the divine, and of piety and impiety, is so accurate that, when those things happened as you say, you have no fear of having acted impiously in bringing your father to trial?"

The problem is that the very question at the heart of the lawsuit is whether or not such a commitment exists. At least Athens, in the case of poor Euthyphro and his father, had the corpse of their servant as plain evidence of obvious wrongdoing--the question, then, was to assign blame. But what does Tim have? He doesn't even have evidence, for he and others admit themselves that the point of the lawsuit is to determine whether or not such evidence exists.

I don't buy the pious Tim argument. I don't think that Tim is unprincipled, its just that he's multiprincipled, perhaps even principally confused. The lawsuit isn't about enforcing a contract, then; no, like others have suggested, it's about flexing the arm of the Association, about exerting force over Dartmouth College, with the legal system as a means to an end. Tim supports this, because Tim thinks that alumni participation (or governance) is important and beneficial to Dartmouth. So be it. But do not pretend that you are not going through the New Hampshire courts so as to exert outside influence on a private non-profit corporation, your former college.

Trustees v. Association of Alumni is Dartmouth v. Woodward all over again. This is why the Free Press, The Dartmouth, and The Dartmouth Review, with their vastly disparate editorial positions, can come together to denounce the utter foolishness of this situation.

By a. schlosser '07, at 3/05/2008 8:18 PM
So long, John Michael et al. We'll see you over at your new digs when you settle in. Have a great trip. I'll bet you'll peek back over here once in a while to see what people are saying about you. You may even come back as "anon" yourself, just to have a little fun and keep people busy. P. S., don't forget to take Tim, David and the whole gang at The Hanover Institute with you (that's one person).

By Anonymous, at 3/06/2008 12:01 AM
Mike Murphy is an old friend which is I'm not putting my name to this blog. But, Mike, those aren't your words. I know you too well. Someone else wrote that blog and put your name to it.

If you did write it, answer these questions;
1) Who in the Hanover Institute got you to run?

2) Are you paying your own campaign expenses?

3) If elected will you be your own man and not take orders from the HI?

By Anonymous, at 3/06/2008 7:10 AM
Mr. Murphy wrote: "a slate of candidates who have signaled their acceptance of the Board of Trustees’ abrogation of the 116-year old Agreement with the Dartmouth Association of Alumni."

That is nothing but a bunch of spin. There is no enforceable agreement to be abrogated, notwithstanding the stilted claims of few permanent agitators. Mr. Murphy needs to swallow his disagreement with the latest of many iterations of Board policy and present the facts accurately.

By Anonymous, at 3/06/2008 9:20 AM
Anonymous 7:11 is incorrect when he says all bargained-for agreements are binding. All corporations get a "free pass" relative to prior commitments when those commitments were ultra vires. Absent special circumstances, you couldn't hold Yale's board to a contract to sell you a trustee seat even if you had it in writing.

While Yale's board is authorized to make contracts for ordinary purposes such as hiring faculty, it is not authorized to make contracts to alienate fundamental elements of its corporate authority. Yale's board can't sell off the jobs it (and it alone) is required to do by its charter.

By Anonymous, at 3/06/2008 9:22 AM
Alex Mooney is running for office despite instigating the introduction of an anti-Dartmouth bill that the New Hampshire legislature found unacceptable.

Whatever opinion individual alumni might hold regarding the lawsuit, we can all agree that Alex Mooney's act is unforgivable, an attack on his alma mater and an insult to Daniel Webster. Alumni should not forgive him in the election.

By Anonymous, at 3/06/2008 10:06 AM
I must correct a statement made yesterday in my post on this thread. As of the meeting of the Association of Alumni Executive Committee on Tuesday evening, March 4, the web site www.dartmouthalum.org became the web site of the current Executive Committee. Accordingly, it is not the web site of the petition candidate slate of Officers and Executive Committee which I lead. As I mentioned, our slate is in the process of setting up a new web site for the direct exchange of information, and the URL for that site will be announced soon.

By J. Michael Murphy '61, at 3/06/2008 6:31 PM
The extremists here are NOT those willing to go court if needed, to defend what (legal mumbo jumbo aside) clearly has been interpreted by both sides as a permanent binding agreement for 116 years.

The extremists are the ones who sought to put the future of Dartmouth in the hands of a self-electing elite, in 2006, and then when they failed to win the ballot, sought to do the same by legal trickery and secret unbalanced committees.

If there was any doubt who the extremists are, witness the propaganda effort since that time, where all alumni regulalrly receive communication presenting one half of the story, and access to mailing lists is denied to those in disagreement.

I don't know the petition trustees or AOA candidates; I may not agree with them on one damn thing except this one: Dartmouth has been hijacked and we as alumni should take all necessary steps to stop it.

By valuefan, at 3/23/2008 7:30 AM
Valuefan (I guess pseudonymous posts get past the ban on anonymous posts), you are an extremist who presents a radically warped interpretation of the facts that is out of touch with reality.

Please provide us with some evidence of your idea that the Board entered "a permanent binding agreement for 116 years." The Board has unilaterally resolved on three occasions to let alumni nominate a specific number of trustees for election. That is not a binding agreement any more than is your decision to give someone a birthday present year after year.

Dartmouth has always been in the hands of "a self-electing elite," called the Trustees. If you don't like it, propose to the Trustees that they amend the Charter. Or switch your loyalty to a state school where the Board of Visitors is an elite appointed by the Governor or the Legislature.

You repeat the misleading and irrelevant mumbo-jumbo regarding the "secret unbalanced committees." I believe you are referring to the lack of a "petition trustee" (a potential subset of alumni trustees) on the governance committee. You are probably ignorant of the fact that all of the people on that committee were alumni or the president, and most were even alumni trustees.

You are right that the propaganda effort in place is the work of extremists. The anonymous and secretly-funded ads in the Times and the Journal were produced by an organization that seems to have Alex Mooney as a key member, according to the D. The propaganda found in emails, letters, a survey, and a full-page ad in the Alumni Magazine has been funded by the majority of the AoA EC or the Hanover Institute. These communications not only present a single (less-reasonable) side of the story, they also do so in misleading terms. This propaganda appears to have convinced even you to believe the untruth that alumni have a legal right to elect half the elected trustees.

Dartmouth has not been hijacked, although its Board has been riven by the embarrassing election of people who like to rephrase their disgust at Dartmouth as a positive interest in changing its direction. It is the Association of Alumni that has been hijacked by extremists, including at least one person who failed to disclose his duty of loyalty to the Hanover Institute -- a nonprofit corporation that, he now claims, has been the source of funds backing the plaintiff's lawsuit against the Board.

If you don't know a thing about the candidates, maybe you should. Alex Mooney is also in the AoA EC majority, actually supports the lawsuit, and helped propose the idiotic and mind-bogglingly disloyal anti-Dartmouth legislation that even the legislature did not find worth adopting. Marian Chambers wrote "I, for one, have cut off all contributions to Dartmouth until it puts in place and abides by a fair, competitive, and transparent Trustee election process which included at least one-half alumni. Who do you think is giving that $39 million you just trumpeted in the mailing I received today? It is time to wake up and smell the coffee.” Frank Gado calls fellow alumni "bags of scum" and refers to himself as some kind of freedom-fighter using the rhetoric of war and the pseudonym "Tom Paine." He still has not disclosed which organization in possession of an alumni mailing list he paid to mail out the propaganda "survey" several months ago, but it sounds a bit like the Hanover Institute. Either these people believe that plaintiff's lawsuits can create phantom rights or they will stoop to vicious lows to register their dislike of the Board of Trustees.

By Scott, at 3/24/2008 9:56 AM
Scott,

A couple of points.

0) Yes, pseudonymous posts are allowed, which you seem to have already discovered (unless you are the only Scott in the world, or at least the only Scott in the Association, posting under a first-name only is almost the same as posting under a pseudonym).

1) You state that "The Board has unilaterally resolved on three occasions to let alumni nominate a specific number of trustees for election." This is not correct; the 1891 resolution was the result of an agreement between the Board and the Association (not unilateral). You're right that the other two expansions were unilateral, but neither violated the apparent intent of the 1891 agreement, and so neither was controversial.

2. The question of whether the 1891 agreement is binding or not is the question that is before the court; as I've pointed out before, if it were as clear-cut as you imply, the case would have been thrown out. Instead, the court's decision on the dismissal seems (to me) to go fairly strongly towards the interpretation that the agreement is, in fact, binding.

3. You also state that it is an "untruth that alumni have a legal right to elect half the elected trustees." Again, this is the question before the court. We will only find out if it is a truth or an untruth if the case is allowed to proceed to completion; if the case is withdrawn, then the Alumni Association will have ceded any legal right that it may have garnered in the 1891 agreement, but there won't be any resolution as to whether that agreement was legally binding or not.

I enjoy the irony of your spewing such blatant and misleading propaganda in a post decrying the use of propaganda; do you?

By David Gale, at 3/24/2008 11:07 AM
1) David, the 1891 resolution, like all resolutions of the Board, is "unilateral." It appears in the minutes of the Board. Nobody else is allowed to make resolutions using the name of the Board. What you seem to be trying to say is that the resolution refers to some parts of a contract. Many unilateral Board resolutions do this. That does not make them joint or bilateral resolutions put forth by multiple groups. You will note that the alumni meeting that followed the Board resolution included the resolution in its minutes. It was a quotation of the Board's statement.

2) There are several questions that will be before the court. One of them will be whether a contract exists. If the court finds, after reviewing the facts, that a contract exists, another question will be whether it is enforceable. If so, another question will be whether it was breached. If so, another question will be whether the breach justifies a permanent injunction.

3) You admit that the question of the existence of a legal right to elect half the elected trustees is before the court. Therefore it cannot be true to say that such a right exists, as some of the EC majority have misleadingly claimed. I admit that such a claim is not automatically "untrue" just because it has never been proven and probably never will be, although the result for you and your ilk will be the same. The claim is untrue for other reasons, however, including common sense -- as you know, it would take a Charter amendment to give alumni this right. The Board turned down such an amendment in 1891 and continues to reaffirm its exclusive ownership of the right to elect trustees.

My opinionated use of "untrue" would have been more politic if rephrased as "misleading" instead. Other than that, what's propaganda? Can you find anything as boneheaded as some of the stuff coming from the petition candidates, stuff that is actually liable to mislead voters?

By Scott, at 3/25/2008 2:30 PM
I am the Dean of Mathematical and Physical Sciences at a major research university. I graduated AB in 69 and Ph.D. in 74 from a university in Hanover, NH that calls itself Dartmouth College. I am sick and tired of the hogwash from alumni about the sacred role of 'undergraduate education.' Here is a typical well-meaning example from an earlier post: "The arguments for an undergraduate-focused college are really against the dangers inherent in a research university where people get caught up in the chasing of grants and publishing of papers, to the detriment of the educational experience."

The real question here is; Do you want excellence? My answer is a loud YES. Excellence means attracting and keeping excellent faculty at the College for excellent careers of 20 to 40 years duration. More than any other group, faculty are the college.

Higher education is extremely competitive. All the rhetoric against grants and publications makes it easier for do-nothings (they will claim they are wonderful teachers) to stay at Dartmouth and harder for the Deans to keep the best faculty from being lured away.

I think words matter. If you want Dartmouth to be excellent, you must embrace and reward all the scholarly activities of the faculty (including proposal writing and publications).

Michael Carr - Rutgers University

By Michael Carr, at 4/25/2008 9:57 AM

Friday, February 29, 2008

Final Candidate Listing

97 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous posts

Archives