Proposed Constitutional Amendment on Election Reform
Here is a link to the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the Association of Alumni regarding simplification of trustee elections along with the explanatory letter to all alumni from Alumni Council President J.B. Daukas and myself. (Note: Comments relevant to this post begin under the previous thread.)
November 10, 2008
Dear Dartmouth Alumnus/a:
The number of members of the Board of Trustees nominated through alumni elections and the manner in which elections are conducted are matters of great importance to all concerned. Working together over the past several months, the combined leadership of the Association of Alumni and the Alumni Council has developed a proposed amendment to the constitution of the Association of Alumni. We sincerely believe the amendment will both (1) simplify, clarify, and strengthen the election process; and (2) help to advance our continuing discussions with the Board of Trustees about the prospect of increasing the number of alumni-nominated trustees.
The amendment we are proposing will:
- simplify voting by adopting a one person/one vote procedure
- preserve unchanged the ability of petitioners to run in alumni trustee elections
- assure that the winner receives a majority of the total votes cast
With this amendment, the Alumni Council will first nominate either one or two candidates for each vacancy. Assuming, based on consistent recent history, that at least one petition candidate will thereafter also be nominated, we expect that this procedure will promote head to head elections. Alumni will cast only one vote for each vacancy according to the familiar, well-understood one person/one vote procedure. If there are three or more candidates for any one vacancy and no one receives an absolute majority of the votes cast, there will be a runoff election between the top two vote getters, thereby assuring that the winner will receive a majority of the votes cast. Visit www.alumni.dartmouth.edu/aoa/proposedamendment to view a full copy of the amendment.
In recent trustee elections, only 28 percent of alumni have voted. We believe that by simplifying and clarifying election procedures so that everyone understands them, we can achieve a broader participation in these vitally important elections.
Your Alumni Council representatives will be happy to respond to any questions or comments you may have about this proposal.
Find your representatives at www.alumni.dartmouth.edu/councilrep.
The Council will discuss the amendment at its December 4, 2008, biannual meeting.
It is our goal to promote an atmosphere of collegiality and mutual respect among all of us who want to see Dartmouth endure and prosper. We believe that our proposed amendment will advance this worthy objective. The amendment will appear on the Association of Alumni ballot in the spring of 2009.
We would be grateful for your consideration and support.
Sincerely,
John H. Mathias Jr. '69
President
Dartmouth Association of Alumni
John B. Daukas Jr. '84
President
Dartmouth Alumni Council
posted by John Mathias at
11/27/2008 03:48:00 PM
31 Comments:
Why the allowance for two nominated candidates, if petition candidates are expected as the norm? There is no way for the nominating committee to know in advance when there will be no petition candidates. Why not keep it simple and just have one nominated candidate?
In the case of multiple (more than 2) candidates, have the complexities of (non-instant) runoff elections really been thought through? Will they lead to the election of the most-desirable candidate?
In multi-seat elections, how will the nominating committee candidates, and petitioners, decide which seats to run for?
Surely the recommenders have thought these issues out. Their thinking will be instructive to those trying to formulate a position, yea or nay, on the proposal.
The ultimate questions: Will this proposal improve the quality of candidates, provide for visibility of important issues, and insure a fair election? How so.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/01/2008 5:16 PM
Tim:
These are all fair questions well put.
It's anticipated that there will be only one Alumni Council nominated candidate for each open position for the foreseeable future. In the unlikely event that petition candidates become the exception rather than the norm in future years, the Alumni Council will have the flexibility to nominate two candidates so that there will be head to head elections rather than what might otherwise appear to become an appointment process.
Yes, the complexities of (expensive and time consuming) run off elections have been thought through, roundly debated, and resolved in favor of having them rather than instant runoffs, which have substantial complexities and confusing aspects of their own.
In multi-seat elections, the Alumni Council will first nominate designated candidates for each specific open position. Petitioners will have to decide for themselves which specific open seat to run for.
One person/one vote head to head elections are the easiest, most understandable known form of election. There is no reason why they would not provide for the highest visibility of issues and serve as the fairest way for alums to choose among competing candidates and platforms. By eliminating the "churn and burn" aspects of the current system, where the Alumni Council must nominate 3 candidates and alums must cast up to three approval votes, we definitely do expect to improve the quality of candidates.
John Mathias '69
By
John Mathias, at 12/01/2008 9:58 PM
John: Thank you for the initial posting, and your recent response. Perhaps these threads can return to being a respected place for constructive discussions among fellow alumni.
Long-time readers will know that I have personally favored the approval voting system, and treating all candidates equally, to the point of requiring all candidates, both from the Council and by petition, to be named on the same day. In effect, a parlimentary system of multiple parties organized ad hoc around the issues of the day. That also requires easy dissemination of information (read AoA and College-supported without editorial diktat) and presumes an electorate that seeks to be informed. I posit that while they may wait until the last minute, Dartmouth alumni fit that description.
My idealistic beliefs aside, it seems that most people overwhelmingly prefer "head-to-head" for the clarity of result. Either they do not understand the price, or are willing to pay it, being the perpetuation of a two-party system, which in my opinion will only continue divisive debate between an established incumbency (generally "pro-administration") and an outside opposition (hopefully loyal but not happy with the status quo, i.e. "pro-reform"). If that is the system people prefer, so be it... just do not complain when those in opposition coalesce for necessity around those with the resources needed to compete with the pro-establishment group, that implicitly has Administrative support at its disposal.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/03/2008 7:51 AM
Tim:
Do you think a two-party system is much more likely to form under head-to-head races? I think approval voting also created a two-party system: the HI Party and another party that emerged as DU.
If a two-party system comes to exist, does it matter? Many compare alumni nomination to representative government. Our government is a two-party system and seems to work. The electorate seems more likely to be informed when fewer candidates are running as well. If faction is a danger, I'm not sure ad-hoc parties are preferable to parties that are more efficient, serious, permanent, and effective at informing us. So I don't see the "price" to be paid as a viable objection to the amendment. Nor am I convinced any group"implicitly has Administrative support at its disposal." The DU site explicitly seeks donations and does not imply Administration support. (It's also worth noting that the "established incumbency" of alumni trustees is one-half "outside opposition.")
If a two-party system is harmful, would the harm outweigh the benefits of the amendment? Those benefits include head-to-head races as well as AoA-run elections.
By
Scott, at 12/03/2008 8:33 AM
Scott: The two party system that we alumni have obviously did not evolve due to head-to-head races, but arguably head-to-head races help perpetuate that status, being advantageous to both those groups. This does not mean it is best for all alumni. You note our national two-party system has worked... perhaps.
I'm with the Founding Fathers being suspicious of parties in general, but recognize the need for some form of organizing common interests. That said, one needs to be cautious when it comes to the power of "serious, efficient, permanent" parties.
The DU party did not recently emerge; rather it is a continuation of the established alumni "leadership", whose loyalist message was that all who favored the legal action were therefore disloyal to Dartmouth. I respectfully disagree.
From the "inside" personal experience of serving on the Executive Committee, I can assure you that the pro-administrative group has explicit, not just implicit, support from the Administration, and that this takes priority over equal support for both factions of alumni views. Of course this should not be surprising.
AoA communications to their members are certainly vetted by the Administration for dissemination, or not, based upon content. Again, this is understandable. That does not make it proper. The answer, it seems to me, is to have a truly independent Association, including financial independence.
I can assure you that such independence is frightening to the administration, though in my opinion it would result in a less-patriarchial more-mutually-respectful partnership between alumni and the administration.
You note that one-half of the elected alumni trustees represent the loyal opposition (4 of 8). Of course. The possibility that it might grow to more than half is the reason the established side wants election "reform".
Even if we have a two-party system among the electorate, it is important that the supporting mechanisms be neutral. Both Democrats and Republican officials have public support for communicating with their constituents. Providing administrative support to only one view forces the opposition to find support elsewhere. One might even argue this arrangement is beneficial to the establishment, as it allows criticism of their opponents to focus on outside support providers more than on the issues (as you yourself have done vis-a-vis the HI). Further, one-sided Administrative support creates a dependency that pressures even loyalists to always toe the party line.
Idealistic me... I see no reason for alumni to compromise away from whatever they deem the best election rules, in order to own/control/run elections. Setting rules for internal elections (and we are talking about alumni elections for trustee nominees, yes) is an inalienable right for the members of any self-organizing association.
Judging alumni to be incapable of being able to do so without coersion is incredibly disrepectful; the Board did not merely denote concerns to be addressed, but imperatives to be followed. The point "this is a proposal the Board will accept" may be practical, but should be resisted in principle unless the proposal can stand upon its own merits.
My apologies for the length of this posting.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/03/2008 10:22 AM
Tim, it's my interpretation that the Board has set a few conditions on its acceptance of alumni nominees. (No one is coercing the AoA into doing anything, and no one is being disrespectful of alumni.) The alternative to incorporating these conditions into AoA elections is to have the College run the voting and incorporate the conditions itself.
Because the conditions are simple and make sense, the amendment that embodies them stands on its own merits. It's just a question of which institution you'd like to see running the elections. There are some good arguments to be made in favor of College control, but I disagree with them.
By
Scott, at 12/03/2008 12:04 PM
Tim, these are my comments on those points of yours that seem off the topic:
Why would one support the lawsuit if he believes that "Setting rules for internal elections (and we are talking about alumni elections for trustee nominees, yes) is an inalienable right for the members of any self-organizing association"? The lawsuit claimed that the Board had, by an oral contract, alienated its charter right to elect all of its elected trustees, or at least its right to set its own rules for nominations. How do you distinguish the Board from the AoA, and why would rights be more alienable in a government-chartered corporation than in an unincorporated association?
I don't think DU's message "was that all who favored the legal action were therefore disloyal to Dartmouth."
Such a message is arguably correct, however. It's hard to say the phrase "the loyal opposition" is accurate in describing anyone who sued the Board. A member of a "loyal opposition," unlike the four petitioners, votes against a proposal he doesn't like and then graciously accepts the vote of the majority.
The reason I pointed out that half of the alumni trustees, or 4/23 of the elected trustees, were nominated by petition was to refine your generalization about the "established incumbency," not to get into the Board's reasons for its reform.
A lot of what you write relates to the independence of the AoA. The possibility of greater independence seems to be worth discussing once this amendment is out of the way. (To take this digression further, however, I would have to question your interest in making "the supporting mechanisms" neutral, since you helped permit the HI Secretary make the AoA a highly partisan organization while he was also serving as AoA Vice President recently.)
By
Scott, at 12/03/2008 12:12 PM
Scott: I will not respond to all your points, as it will be more than the average reader can bear.
But as to coercion, the Board did not "set a few conditions on its acceptance of alumni nominees". Rather it stated that alumni must meet its conditions or it would unilaterally presume to commandeer control of the alumni elections by which alumni choose who their nominees are to be. The proper course would have been to stay out of what is not their business, while reserving the right (which was arguably not contractually delegated away in 1891) to respectfully reject any nominees put forward. They crossed the line.
By your definitions above, you label me and others who felt the lawsuit was a last-resort alternative as disloyal, even though many of us have in fact "graciously accepted" to abide the will of majority. I really do not care if that is your opinion, but if College administrators have the same attitude regarding the "disloyal", they are writing off the almost 10,000 alumni who comprised the losing 40% in the last officer election.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/03/2008 1:18 PM
The two-party system alienates alumni. HI won for a time; now DU is winning. Either way, too many non-affiliated alumni are alienated and this cannot be good for the College in the long-run.
By
DartBored, at 12/03/2008 2:01 PM
DartBored is correct. The alternatives are a one-party system, with no support given to dissenters (arguably what existed before the era of petition candidates), or a no-party system wherein alumni of all opinions are provided a level playing ground to communicate with each other on issues and concerns, questions and answers, proposals and counter-proposals.
The latter, a level playing field of unrestricted communication, seems to make many uncomfortable; they prefer the one-party approach or even the two-party mechanism when it is under their control.
With the repositioning of the Association to its vestigial status, the one hope for alumni governance is the Council, but it will only occur if it ever completes a transition to being a truly and uniformly democratic and representative organization, rather than a club. For this to happen, the Council will need to achieve the same independence I noted previously for the Association. There does not appear to be anyone supportive of this concept.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/03/2008 3:07 PM
Tim:
Could you please explain what appears to be your flip-flop regarding the inalienable rights of organizations to set their own election rules?
Alumni have a choice about whether the AoA will retain control over alumni elections. "Coercion" is the improper use of force or power to compel another to submit to the wishes of the one wielding the force. The Board's conditions are (1) not improper, (2) not dependent on any power the Board holds over the AoA, and (3) not meant to compel the AoA to submit to the Board's wishes. Can you explain what leads you to believe otherwise for all three points? Please also point us to the passage in the Board's report in which it states it will "unilaterally presume to commandeer control of the alumni elections by which alumni choose who their nominees are to be."
Electing people to the Board is the Board's business. Setting the conditions under which it will consider alumni nominees is also the Board's business. Your suggestions about "the proper course" sound a lot like instructions to the Board about how to run its business.
And if the Board really can reject nominees as you say, then the Board's conditions are a courtesy. They are the Board's way of saying "heads up, we plan to reject your nominees unless they are nominated by this process, so you will probably want to adopt the process as long as you want to see your people given a chance."
But talking about that supposed reservation of the right to reject nominees is a bit like talking about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It seems as if you are expecting the Board to (1) operate under the assumption that there is some kind of enforceable contract right of alumni to directly elect (or just nominate, or something) half of the five folks just elected while (2) also assuming that the Board can still reject all nominees, which kind of does away with the election right.
Could you please tell us what the contract says is supposed to happen when the Board does exercise its reserved right to reject a nominee? Does the Board substitute its own, or call for a revote, or leave the seat empty? I am curious as to why none of the lawyers and judges who worked out the contract in 1891 bothered to write the whole thing down. It seems to me that this is a weakness of your argument.
By "will of the majority" I was speaking specifically of the Board's vote to have the new trustees nominated by the Board. The four petition trustees had their say and lost, and they should have graciously accepted defeat.
By
Scott, at 12/03/2008 4:45 PM
Dartbored: DU has never "won" a vote for an alumni trustee nominee, has it? I believe it formed after the Smith vote.
By
Scott, at 12/03/2008 4:48 PM
Scott:
"Electing people to the Board is the Board's business." Yes.
"Setting the conditions [and qualifications] under which it will consider alumni nominees is also the Board's business." Yes.
The line was crossed when an independent association of alumni was told, not asked, to change its process of bringing nominees forward, unrelated to qualifications. This is the improper #1.
The #2 dependency is that the Board and the College control the resources, both money and member information, needed by the Association to execute its internal process. This dependency means alumni have no choice about retaining control.
The "we will administer and control your nominating elections as well as our own trustee seating elections" was clearly meant to compel compliance, #3.
But this is water over the dam. Back to the rule change amendment: Is the proposal good or not?
John Mathias makes a case for it; no one has proposed a case against it, at least here. An open question remains: Is there a better alternative that should be considered before adopting this one?
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/03/2008 6:08 PM
Tim:
Although the Board's business of setting nomination conditions clearly lets it set election methods, and although I enjoy attempting to figure out what position you're taking at any given moment, I thank you for returning us to the amendment:
1. There is no better alternative that should be considered before adopting this one. There are few other ways of wording an amendment to achieve head-to-head races, and we have no reason to think any is materially superior to this one.
2. No "open question remains." Head-to-head races will occur whether or not alumni adopt this amendment. Alternatives are not on the table and there is little point in discussing them.
By
Scott, at 12/04/2008 9:35 AM
Why not consider alternatives and put ones with merit on the table? Isn't that what giving alumni choice is all about?
As one example alternative, have the Council always put forward one and only one nominee. If there is a single petitioner, there is a head-to-head race. If not, save the time and expense of an election and trust the nominating committee to put forward their first and best choice. This is more in keeping with the trustee desire to not increase the number of elections, apparently being unhealthy events, which will occur with runoffs.
If we do not "trust" the nominating committee, then let's have the nominators be elected themselves, and as some have proposed, allow these elected representatives decide on the best nominee without a direct election.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/04/2008 2:00 PM
Alumni do have a choice when it comes to this amendment. They can vote either "yes" or "no." That is how most constitutional amendments are decided.
The early decisions and negotiations involving the particular form the amendment would take and the changes the Council would need to make were conducted by the Executive Committee. We elected the EC to execute such tasks.
Anyone who has a better way of wording the amendment on the table should post the text here.
By
Scott, at 12/04/2008 4:36 PM
The council voted lots of yes's to one no to move the amendment to a vote in the spring. If the council wants a change to be passed, I'd suggest offering an array of options to alumni, rather than one option that could fail, and then leave it to the Board to make their own mandate on how to reform the rules.
The options should include:
1. This one-one method (which, I think, adds complexity and could make for longer more painful election cycles) vs. a ranking and instant run-off system which solves the problem directly.
2. Removing the requirement to get signatures from alums as a pre-condition to being a petition candidate. If signatures were not required, then petitioners would not be forced to campaign before they are officially on the ballot. This will reduce "noise" around the election cycle.
3. If there is a perception that campaigning is too expensive and contentious (the real problem to solve - that is actually not addressed by the resolutions offered) Create real rules against campaigning that strip votes from those who violate the rules.
Jordan Frank 94
By
crojane, at 12/08/2008 10:16 AM
Dartmouth has posted the complaint in the new lawsuit.
It's interesting how the complaint muddles vaguely through a relatively trivial and distracting argument about the Board's head-to-head race requirement (which seems like the Association's business, as debated on this post) and then moves on to a weighty request that the court order the Board to amend the Charter to expand the Board from 23 to 28. Somehow I don't see the court granting specific performance of an oral third-party contract, but maybe the plaintiffs had some other reason to file the suit.
The voluminous quotations, uncited and taken out of context, dry up suspiciously when the complaint gets to the topic of the alleged contract itself. It doesn't even quote from the 1891 resolution.
Since the plaintiffs' claims derive from their membership in the Association, they might be expected to join the Association as a party. It will be interesting to see whether the Association's most beneficial action will be to stay out of the suit, to file an amicus brief, to become a party, or to do something else.
By
Scott, at 12/09/2008 10:11 AM
In an election by some 24,000 voting alumni, they rejected the prior legal action by a margin of 6-4.
In an earlier survey sent to some 50,000 alumni, the 5,000 respondees supported parity by a margin of 9-1.
Parity yea; lawsuit nay.
An alternate approach is for the Association's executives to initiate a spring election of 5 new alumni trustee nominees and present these to the Board, in demonstration that alumni have collective wisdom in choosing trustees, and as leverage in the supposedly-ongoing discussion about re-establishing parity. The Board would then have three choices... to acknowledge parity, to accept the nominees without acknowledging parity, or to reject the alumni's choices.
Of course this requires initiating the process now.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/09/2008 10:41 AM
I can see why we 'd want some demonstration that alumni still possess wisdom in nominating trustees, but trying to nominate five superfluous alumni trustees would only make us look silly. The Board is capped at 26 people, with the three empty seats reserved for charter trustees. The timing, numbers, and procedures for alumni nominations seem clear. So the Board could justify its rejection of the extras on grounds that have nothing to do with the "parity" question, if it even responded at all.
"In an earlier survey sent to some 50,000 alumni, the 5,000 respondees supported parity by a margin of 9-1."
(1) No, they didn't, and you can't derive a valid generalization about alumni opinion from that unscientific and highly-biased poll. That poll has been discussed and discounted many times. It did not involve any reputable public opinion research firm and doesn't even seem to have been written, funded, or mailed by the Association or an arm's-length contractor.
I've wondered why the last EC could manage to run a poll on "parity" but never put the lawsuit to a vote, and I assume it worried that alumni would vote against the suit (a fear that eventually proved accurate).
(2) What's "parity" got to do with the amendment of the constitution to create some kind of head-to-head race? How would the poll the Hanover Institute sent out obligate the current EC to do anything? Didn't the "parity" slate say over and over again that the election really was about "parity"?
By
Scott, at 12/09/2008 12:42 PM
Scott: Please get your thinking cap on straight. Re your (2) comment, my last post was not about the proposed amendment, but in response to your prior post where you you you brought up lawsuits.
Further, your "no they didn't" comment is full of factual errors. The "parity" survey was indeed from the Association, written by one of its EC members (I know, it was me), voted upon by the full EC, and funded by contributions, every $ coming from Dartmouth alumni. Approx. $19,000 from individuals (I saw and depositied their checks), the remainder from the much-maligned Mr. Gado.
90% of the respondees stated they wanted to maintain the balance between alumni and charter trustees. You may argue that I was not the equivalent of a scientific pollster, but that does not invalidate the point above.
The EC had less than 30 days to get the trustees to defer their decision or file an injunctive request... there was no time for a second survey, as you very well know. Give it a rest, please. Then again, you always always always want the last word.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/09/2008 2:00 PM
Tim:
(1) Please help me understand the "parity" survey. It was mailed out by a "mailing house" selected and hired by Frank Gado prior to ratification of the project by the EC, I think. He worked out the "finances" directly and declined to reveal the organization's identity, according to my recollection of the minutes. He has never admitted that it was the Institute, as far as I know, and we have never learned whether he benefitted by taking a tax deduction on the money he handed over, if it really was his to start with. Your EC charged a member with finding competitive bids as a way of justifying the cost retroactively, and I'm not aware that the minutes show her doing so.
All this by way of giving another reason the survey was biased. This is in addition to the misleading wording and the fact that only 5,000 people responded. You certainly were "not the equivalent of a scientific pollster." The survey results are invalid as evidence of anything important and cannot honestly be used to support any relevant conclusion regarding alumni opinion.
"[T]here was no time for a second survey, as you very well know." But your EC was in office for a year, plenty of time to take a vote on even an ongoing suit, especially since planning seems to have begun before your term started. Just because you start a suit doesn't mean you have to continue it once you learn it lacks a mandate. It's not saying much to point out that the old EC had every reason to refrain from obtaining members' approval for the lawsuit.
(2) I'm afraid I don't understand what your comment about the survey adds to the discussion of the new lawsuit, either. I am the one who should be saying "give it a rest, please."
By
Scott, at 12/09/2008 3:22 PM
Tim, I regret taking the bait in your 10:41 post and would like to retract the above post as uselessly distracting from the valuable discussions here. Your raising of the discredited survey was provocative but, more importantly, was way off-topic.
The useful discussions here seem to include (1) the merits of the amendment, (2) whether some alternative amendment is possible or desirable and, if so, what it might be, and (3) whether the AoA should do anything regarding the lawsuit in which it is given a fairly large role without being a party.
Regarding the amendments to section 7 of the constitution, I wonder whether it would be better to leave out the phrase "three or more candidates appear on the ballot for any open trustee position and".
The resulting sentence would be:
In the event that no candidate receives more than 50% of the total votes cast, then a runoff election shall be promptly held between the two candidates receiving the most votes.
I mention this because the possibility that no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote exists in any contest between two or more candidates. Or does the amendment account for a tie in a way I have overlooked?
By
Scott, at 12/11/2008 10:37 AM
A suggested amendment to simplify and equalize the alumni trustee nomination process:
The following text amends the current AoA constitution. This was proposed two years ago to the AGTF. It is even more relevant today. It makes it easier for individuals to run for trustee, and allows different nominating groups from different organizations equally to put forth candidates, but needing to solicit signature support from their members and other alumni. The Alumni Council can commit to put forth candidates; so can any other group. In the unlikely event that neither the Council nor any group puts forward a candidate by petition, there is no election and the trustees themselves fill the vacancy.
Importantly, identical rules apply equally to all candidates, and to all those putting forth candidates. It is also a great simplification, removing almost 350 words from both the existing constitution and from the EC/Council proposal.
My suggestion of this to both Council and outside reform leaders has met with rejection, as its leveling of the playing field represents a “depowering” for both political parties. This is an additional reason to trust the proposal’s merits, and to doubt its chances.
ARTICLE V.
NOMINATION OF ALUMNI TRUSTEES
1. Alumni trustees shall serve for a term of five years from the first Monday following Commencement, except that vacancies occurring within such term shall be filled for the balance of the term only.
2. Alumni trustees shall normally serve for no more than two consecutive full terms of four years each and shall in no event serve more than ten years. The Board of Trustees may, without further alumni action, reelect for a second term a trustee originally nominated by the alumni and in exceptional circumstances extend such trustee’s service one year or more beyond eight years.
3. A vacancy shall exist in an alumni trustee seat on the Board of Trustees on the expiration of the final term of service of an alumni trustee nominated by the alumni. Upon notification from the Board of Trustees that a vacancy will arise on the Monday after the next following Commencement in a trustee seat for which alumni nominate, the secretary of the Association shall arrange for the prompt notification of the alumni, by publication in the Alumni Magazine or other form of written notice approved by the balloting committee of the Association, of the petition procedure set forth in paragraph 4 below.
4. Within two (2) months after the mailing of such notice, any two hundred (200) members qualified to vote may, pursuant to procedures set forth in nomination guidelines of the Association, file with the secretary of the Association a petition over their own signatures selecting an eligible member of the Association as a candidate for nomination as alumni trustee.
5. Said secretary shall as soon as practicable after expiry of the period for petition send to each alumnus eligible to vote an official ballot and related materials containing the names of all candidates nominated by petition as aforesaid, and such other information as shall be required by the nomination guidelines and the balloting committee. The polls shall close on the April 7th before Commencement unless another date is specified by the balloting committee of this Association.
6. Each eligible voter may cast votes for one or more candidates on the ballot, and the candidate receiving the most total votes pursuant to the balloting process shall be the nominee of the alumni for the office of trustee.
7. Should two or more vacancies exist in alumni trusteeships at the same time, the process for filling one vacancy shall be followed except that (i) a single balloting contest involving all candidates shall be held to nominate for all such vacancies, and (ii) the nominees of the alumni shall be the two or more persons (being the number of vacancies to be filled) who receive the highest number of total votes among all the candidates on the ballot.
8. If vacancies occur in the office of alumni trustee otherwise than by the expiration of a stated term, the Association shall be forthwith informed, and are empowered to make nomination for the vacancy or vacancies for the unexpired term or terms at any regular meeting of the Association or any special meeting thereof called by a majority of the executive committee of the Association.
9. All ballots shall be preserved by the secretary and delivered by the secretary to the executive committee for such disposition as they shall see fit to make. The secretary shall in no case communicate the state of the ballot to any person before its announcement to the trustees, and shall refer to the balloting committee all matters respecting votes of doubtful validity.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/12/2008 5:39 PM
Sorry: "four years"
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/12/2008 6:12 PM
What do we think about whether it would satisfy the Board's requirements?
By
Scott, at 12/13/2008 8:57 AM
It will not. Scott knows this.
It was drafted before the Board's unilateral (or we'll take your ball and go home) "requirements" were stated; it should be considered on its governance merits and nothing else.
Don't worry. This will not happen. Who is John Galt?
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/13/2008 11:53 AM
An old proposal that is not expected to meet the current minimum standards for any amendment would seem to be off-topic. The only point I see to the post is an expression of one person's opinion regarding the Board's decision. That is not helpful.
Could we pull some valuable ideas from the proposal and put them into a proposed amendment that would actually meet the Board's requirements? Otherwise, I'm not sure why anyone should spend time reading it.
By
Scott, at 12/14/2008 12:09 PM
Scott: The entire point of these discussion threads is to serve as a forum for alumni to express their opinions.
My proposal was expressed because it was one person's opinion of a way to improve the election process, not to express an "off-topic opinion regarding the Board's decision". You were the one who raised the Board and a perceived need for their approval.
If you feel there are some valuable ideas in my suggested amendment, feel free to pull them out and put them into a revision. I am sure that I should not spend my time creating a revision that alters (and in my opinion weakens) my proposal, simply to meet "minimum standards" for Association elections of trustee nominees set by any other group than the Association itself. I will not.
You are welcome to do such pulling and putting, and as usual to have the last word, in the hope that some few may spend time reading your result. Given your premises, I will regard such reading a further waste of time and will not.
Thus: Goodnite and Goodbye.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/14/2008 10:36 PM
Tim, I'm trying to say that I don't understand why you'd put up a proposal that you know won't succeed. My guesses were that you are expressing your anger at the Board or that you hope it will influence the amendments that are already on the table.
Again, our two choices in the spring will be yes or no on the proposed amendments. In my opinion, this discussion has yet generated any good reasons not to vote for the amendments. The existence of pie-in-the-sky alternatives, I think, is not a good reason to defeat the amendment.
Considering the way the last EC failed to poll members on something as important as a lawsuit against the Board, I count myself lucky to be asked by this EC to approve the amendments at all. Alternatives to the amendments already worked out by the AoA and the AC will not be on the ballot, and that's the way it should be.
By
Scott, at 12/15/2008 10:32 AM
Scott, I don't understand your statement, "In my opinion, this discussion has [not] yet generated any good reasons not to vote for the amendments."
It seems to me, having waded through the lengthy debate above, that both you and Tim are in agreement that there is no reason to vote _for_ the amendments, as not voting or voting against the amendments will produce approximately the same result as voting for them - as apparently the Board will simply write their own rules if they AoA doesn't approve ones that they like - and not voting takes less effort.
As Board intervention would have the further advantage of removing what appears to me to be a completely superfluous set of elections - Why bother electing alumni trustees at all when the Board can not only randomly change its own makeup and/or decide not to seat alumni trustee candidates, but also dictates to the alumni the process for choosing alumni trustees? - I can only see upsides to ignoring my ballot.
Well, that and I'm a fan of approval voting who can't understand how it can possibly be too confusing a system for Dartmouth elections. (Seems to work fine at Princeton; don't know what that says about Dartmouth grads.)
Alex Broadhead DC *95 (PU '90)
By
wumpus, at 4/02/2009 6:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home