Dr. Jim Yong Kim Appointed 17th President of Dartmouth College
Here is a link to the press release announcing the appointment of Dr. Jim Yong Kim as the 17th President of Dartmouth College:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/03/02.html
John Mathias '69
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/03/02.html
John Mathias '69
posted by John Mathias at
3/02/2009 02:17:00 PM
48 Comments:
All indications are that this was an absolutely inspired choice. Welcome to the Dartmouth family, Drs. Kim and Lim!
By
Bill Hutchinson, at 3/04/2009 11:16 PM
An article in The Dartmouth discusses reform of the electioneering rules the Association applies in its trustee nomination contests.
By
Scott, at 4/03/2009 9:38 AM
The Hanover Institute still omits the news that its initial suit against the Board was dismissed with prejudice, but it has now stated that it is behind the second lawsuit.
By
Scott, at 4/03/2009 1:36 PM
Jim Adler has it right... you cannot limit how people want to spend their own money, nor limit their speech.
There may be some legitimacy to concerns that only those with money can run successful campaigns. Often this is not money per se, but simply resources like having people available to create web pages, etc. One solution is to give candidates more open unrestricted access to post unvetted information on the AOA VOX website, with no length or other restrictions. Also to give candidates access to the alumni email addresses that the Association should control.
John Mathias has it wrong, in wanting to eliminate "divisiveness". When one peels back the cover, this is code for saying we must not allow people to make controversial statements that make the establishment uncomfortable. "Unity" is great, when all opinions mirror what our leaders want, but as soon as alternate opinions are voiced, i.e. diversity of thought, people want to restrict campaigns. This is reform we do not need!!!
Scott continues to play loose with the facts. The Hanover Institute did not file "its" initial suit against the Board; the lawsuit was a product of the Association after much deliberation by its officers, though we were pleased to have financial support from the Hanover Institute and other alumni.
If Scott is sincere in wanting full disclosure from others, he should do the same himself and report that the first suit was dismissed not because the court ruled it invalid or frivolous or without standing, but because the court was honoring the request of the plaintiff who had brought the suit, after they decided they no longer wanted to proceed.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/05/2009 10:06 AM
The need for reform is obvious, and the way candidates want to spend money or speak can be limited easily. Requiring proof or a pledge that a campaign did not exceed a particular dollar amount will allow a proven cheater to be disqualified within a limited period afterward. This will not prevent any candidate from saying controversial things in a biographical statement or website or other outlet. Adler doesn't seem to be on the right track when he speaks about the First Amendment.
I didn’t say the Hanover Institute filed the first suit, I described the suit as "its initial suit." I am happy to observe the technicality (are we starting now?) and call it "the first suit it funded." The Institute did a lot of the fundraising and its President and Secretary were the only people signing the representation agreement with the law firm, according to The D. It's strange that the Institute would tell the IRS in its 2007 tax return that its two achievements in service of its tax-exempt purpose were to "Publish newsletter to Dartmouth College Alumni [and] Inform Dartmouth College Alumni about important matter relating to Dartmouth College." I don't think alumni received $668,000 worth of newsletters in 2007. But maybe if you see the lawsuit a very spectacular vehicle for informing alumni, you don't need to ensure that it has any legal merit...
My reference to the dismissal wasn’t meant to be contentious. Nevertheless, the first suit was indeed voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
By
Scott, at 4/06/2009 12:06 AM
Scott: Thank you for making clear what is meant by "reform":
"The need for reform is obvious, and the way candidates ... speak can be limited easily."
The current Executive Committee had stated that passing the amendment would allow it to sit down with the Board and calmly discuss parity, or at least increasing the relative number of alumni trustees. Now it appears reform of campaign speech has become their driving priority.
Conclude what you will.
Returning to Jim Kim, I understand and agree that alumni governance issues are not his top priority. That said, his insight and desire for understanding is encouraging, when he says:
"“When it comes to a point when the most loyal alumni in the world are suing the college that they love so dearly, it’s an unfortunate situation,” he said.
As president, Kim said he will work to “get at the root of this conflict,” although he said he does not yet know the causes.
Kim said it was likely “painful for the alumni to file a lawsuit against the school they love so much.”
“We need to do all we can to understand at a very deep level what caused them to do this, and then my job is to try to prevent it from happening again,” he said."
Thank you Mr. Kim for recognizing we are loyal to the institution and that taking action was painful. Few of our opponents have had the intellect or honesty to recognize this, blinded by their own view.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/06/2009 8:09 AM
I don't speak for the EC, but from what I can tell it has announced an intent to improve a process that many agree needs improvement. This does not seem to be their driving priority right now; it is at least second behind passing the amendment. But since voting for the amendment is under way, it seems an appropriate time to announce a new initiative that has some urgency attached to it – any reform will need to be in place before the next nomination takes place.
We should try to avoid calling it "campaign speech." That makes it look like we're putting alumni trustee nominations in the same category as "free speech" in the First Amendment/McCain-Feingold sense.
Do you think it's a bit sneaky for the Hanover Institute to imply on its website that the current suit is the same one it supported several months ago? Do you think the Institute is redirecting the donations that alumni and outside foundations previously gave – believing they would benefit the AoA suit – toward this new suit? It does not seem very honest to again potentially defame the Board by accusing it of "self-dealing," as MacGovern has.
By
Scott, at 4/06/2009 9:46 AM
Tim, Dr. Kim didn't say he thought you were loyal.
The D wrote that he said "it was likely 'painful for the alumni to file a lawsuit against the school they love so much.'" He reasoned that if Dartmouth alums are famously loyal, the pro-lawsuit EC members must be too, since they are Dartmouth alums. That was generous of him, and a wise way to begin the reconciliation.
It was thoughtless of you to try to use it to make a dig at the intellect and honesty of your fellow alumni. It was worse than thoughtless for Frank Gado to claim that Dr. Kim -- who is months away from even being inaugurated -- has not reached out to disaffected alumni.
By
Scott, at 4/06/2009 10:40 AM
Scott: I made no digs at fellow alumni. I only refer to engaged and active opponents. Some of them, "a few", have shown respectful recognition that we on the other side have been sincere in our loyalty and actions, even though they deem us wrong. Most have not. Hence my comment, which needs no apology.
My guess is that you believe Kim's thoughts are overly-generous. What do you think? Were members of the prior AoA executive committee loyal to what they believed in the best interests of Dartmouth? Did it pain Bert Boles, Frank Gado, and my fellow peers to take the course we did? Or were our actions based upon greedy self-interest, making money off of mailings and getting legacy children admitted?
You suggest Kim is wise in seeking to understand. Agreed. What a shame it did not happen earlier.
I hope you realize that you and I and the EC members who automatically get these posts are likely the only people who ever read them.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/06/2009 2:36 PM
Scott said:
"We should try to avoid calling it "campaign speech." That makes it look like we're putting alumni trustee nominations in the same category as "free speech" in the First Amendment/McCain-Feingold sense."
And why not?
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
Apparently he thinks it OK for the Dartmouth Association of Alumni to abridge such freedom from its alumni.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/06/2009 2:47 PM
I did not realize that EC members get these posts automatically! I apologize for weighing you down with these trivial discussions.
Tim, not everyone on your side is as sincere in his loyalty and actions as you. Judging from the energy and zeal that some of your EC compatriots devoted to their disloyal and self-serving actions, their disloyalty seems to have pained them little.
I do not believe Dr. Kim's thoughts are overly-generous. I think they are appropriate.
------------
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
"Apparently he thinks it OK for the Dartmouth Association of Alumni to abridge such freedom from its alumni."
I am going to assume you are joking here...
By
Scott, at 4/06/2009 5:06 PM
And I am afraid that you are not joking.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/06/2009 5:50 PM
Clever response, that.
I shouldn't have to explain this: Private individuals making voluntary agreements generally do not become parts of the U.S. Government or acquire the power to enact laws or abridge freedoms.
When's the last time you -- a private citizen -- were restricted by the First Amendment? Why do you think the AoA is any different? Do you think it's part of the Town of Hanover or something?
By
Scott, at 4/06/2009 6:34 PM
The Board has re-elected Rodgers and Robinson but not Zywicki.
I wonder how the petition trustees explain this. Isn't the electing supposed to be done by the alumni, etc. etc. etc.? Or was their amicus brief a bunch of b.s.?
By
Scott, at 4/06/2009 6:41 PM
I was by turns angered, amused, and concerned about the colossal narcissism displayed by some Dartmouth graduates when I read Todd Zywicki's whiny and turdlike letter to alumni.
By
Scott, at 4/15/2009 3:53 PM
I didn't vote for the guy, but he's right about "unhealthy groupthink".
Please define "turdlike".
By
DartBored, at 4/15/2009 9:07 PM
turdlike, adj. Of or pertaining to an ignorant little lump of feces, esp. canine. Containing truly childish whining about an election defeat; containing erroneous statements of law regarding election rights on the Board of Trustees; closing with a boneheaded claim to "serve" the alumni when your sworn obligation was always to serve Dartmouth. May contain off-topic claims about "free speech," more weird than stupid, which may indicate delusions of persecution previously seen in Pope Center speech.
He's not even right about "groupthink" being the result of term limits. Term limits prevent groupthink by turning over membership. His attempt to redefine term limits as a "threat" of "expulsion" suggests he's ignorant of political science (was Carter "expelled" from the White House?), and it runs fundamentally counter to another of his main themes, which is that he is some kind of representative of alumni who (it is implied) should be judged by his performance.
By
Scott, at 4/16/2009 3:41 PM
DartBored re Groupthink and "not even right":
I just rescanned the Zywicki letter and cannot find one reference to "term limits". It's hard to be right about something one did not even say.
Rather Zywicki spoke about the potential to be pressured into group-think prior to the end of a first, elected term. What he meant of course regarded being relected (or not) to a second term, which was once the perogative of both alumni and the Board, but now only the Board.
Term "limits" is something else entirely, as you surely understand even though others here appear confused.
The remainder of the post between yours and mine merits no comment, even though it apparently passes the bar of censorship.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/16/2009 5:31 PM
I believe you are quibbling, Tim, but I do not see you mounting a strong defense of Zywicki’s letter. I am glad about that.
The Board’s rules place limits on the length of a Trustee’s term of service (four years) and a limit on the number of terms one may serve (two). He refers to those rules and the limits they establish repeatedly. I didn’t put “term limits” in quotes, you did.
“Zywicki spoke about the potential to be pressured into group-think prior to the end of a first, elected [sic] term.”
No duh. His drivel about how the Trustee’s term (its existence, its nature as an effective limit on the period of service, its basis in the rules of the Board) is equivalent to a “threat” of “expulsion” is just that, drivel. No one honestly thinks every Trustee has a right to be reelected, and no one, including Zywicki, expected him to win the election. He lost. He was defeated. He failed. He seems to be a sore loser.
“The remainder of the post between yours and mine merits no comment…”
I wonder why – we seem to agree that Zywicki’s letter merits comment, bizarre and embarrassing as it is; why wouldn’t some perceptive observations on it also merit comment?
By
Scott, at 4/16/2009 7:14 PM
Speaking of group-think, I think the alumni council is meeting soon. That is the body that represents the alumni. The sponsors of this blog run elections. The trustees look out for the College.
Did I mess up on that matching column?
By
DartBored, at 4/16/2009 9:00 PM
I would have told Zywicki that his failure to win enough votes is the reason he lost the election, and that no losing candidate would deserve any more explanation than that (can he honestly say he thought he would win after all the things he did?), but Chairman Haldeman has favored him with a response:
------------------------------------
Statement by Ed Haldeman '70, Chair, Board of Trustees, Dartmouth College
April 17, 2009
To ensure that Dartmouth College's Board of Trustees serves as the most effective possible steward for the College, the Board has a process for evaluating and considering re-election of trustees completing their first term.
At its April meeting, the Board completed that process for seven sitting trustees. Following a thorough and careful review and confidential voting process, the Board re-elected six of those trustees: John J. Donahoe '82, R. Bradford Evans '64, Board Chair Charles E. Haldeman '70, Albert G. Mulley '70, Peter M. Robinson '79 and Thurman J. Rodgers '70. One of the seven, Todd J. Zywicki '88, was not re-elected.
In an April 13th open letter to the Dartmouth community, Mr. Zywicki asked for an explanation of the Board's decision not to re-elect him and raised other questions about the process. While individual trustee evaluations are necessarily confidential, as chair of the Board, I wanted to share with the Dartmouth community some background on the evaluation and re-election process, and address concerns raised by Mr. Zywicki's letter.
The standard for election to the Board of Trustees is the same regardless of whether an individual is being considered for initial election or re-election: whether appointing the individual to Dartmouth's governing board is in the best interests of the College. The only difference in practice is that when considering a trustee for re-election, the Board is able to consider the individual's first-term performance. One important set of criteria for evaluation is the Board's Statement of Trustee Responsibilities.
The evaluation process itself is thorough and consultative. Input is solicited from every member of the Board. Each trustee being reviewed receives from a fellow Board member a personal assessment of the feedback provided by other Board members. Members being considered for re-election also are allowed to address the Board. And then, after thorough review and discussion of the results, the full Board votes on re-election. Each of these steps was followed in Mr. Zywicki's case -- and in the case of all the trustees reappointed.
While I cannot speak for my fellow Board members on how they cast their votes or made their individual decisions, all Board members are held to the same standards irrespective of whether they are "alumni" trustees, "petition" trustees or "charter" trustees. It is worth noting that of the three "petition" trustees considered for re-election this year, two were re-elected by the Board, including Mr. Robinson and Mr. Rodgers.
Mr. Zywicki also raised concerns that the Board's failure to re-elect him and a prior reprimand of him by the Board hampered his ability to exercise his right to free speech. As trustees of an institution of higher education, the Board strongly supports every individual's right to free speech. However, the Board also believes that trustees have fundamental responsibilities and obligations -- including fiduciary duties. The Board reprimanded Mr. Zywicki because it concluded, after careful review, that a speech he delivered on October 27, 2007, at the John William Pope Center for Higher Education in Raleigh, North Carolina, was inconsistent with his duties as a member of the Dartmouth Board. (See the Board's Dec. 18, 2007 statement on this matter.)
Service on the Board of Dartmouth College is a special privilege. Trustees take seriously that privilege and the responsibilities that come with it. And our overriding goal always remains doing what is in the best interests of the College.
Ed Haldeman '70
By
Scott, at 4/17/2009 4:42 PM
Another Opinion
VERBUM ULTIMUM:
Wrongful Termination
By THE DARTMOUTH EDITORIAL BOARD
Published on Friday, April 17, 2009
Link HereWe were dismayed to learn of the Board of Trustees’ decision not to reelect Trustee Todd Zywicki ‘88 for a second term (“Board votes not to reelect Zywicki ‘88,” April 7). Even in the wake of Zywicki’s open letter to the Dartmouth community on Tuesday (“Zywicki ‘88 criticizes Board in open letter,” April 15), the Board has yet to provide the Dartmouth community with a sufficient explanation for the removal.
Since 1990, when the power to reelect alumni trustees was transferred from alumni to the Board itself, reappointment to the Board for a second term has generally been routine; Zywicki is the first trustee in recent history to be denied reelection.
Unless Zywicki, a petition trustee elected by alumni to the Board in 2005, committed an as yet undisclosed but egregious act, we believe that he deserves to retain the seat that the College’s alumni elected him to fill.
Zywicki said in his letter that comments he made during an address at the John William Pope Center in October 2007 “might have been” one of the reasons behind the Board’s decision. In the address, Zywicki made a series of controversial and inflammatory statements, including calling former College President James Freedman “truly evil.”
While we certainly believe that Zywicki’s comments at the Pope Center were in violation of the conduct expected of our trustees, we do not view them as grounds for unilateral removal. Neither did the Board, it seems, in January 2008, when it voted to publicly reprimand Zywicki for his conduct, charging that he “had exercised poor judgment and had violated his responsibilities as a trustee of Dartmouth College” (“Board votes to reprimand Zywicki,” Jan. 7, 2008).
There appears to be no precedent for the removal of a trustee, and according to College spokesman Roland Adams, the Board does not have bylaws. It therefore seems likely that it is well within the Board’s power to expel, mid-term, a trustee who is guilty of extreme misconduct. Why the Board waited as long as it did to remove Zywicki, if that removal is in response to the Pope Center comments, therefore remains a mystery.Assuming that no egregious act remains undisclosed (and there has been no indication that this is the case), Zywicki’s removal disregards the will of the alumni who put him on the Board, and contradicts the democratic manner in which alumni elect trustees.Dissenting opinions are essential to the operation of any governing body. While Zywicki may have behaved unprofessionally, the public reprimand issued by the Board was sufficient punishment. It is one thing to reprimand a trustee for making statements against the College in a public forum, but to remove dissenting opinions from the boardroom is to undermine the will of the alumni who voted in support of those very views.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/17/2009 9:15 PM
The firing of Z will keep alumni on their toes.
By
DartBored, at 4/17/2009 10:17 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/18/2009 8:05 AM
Say What?
Roland Adams writing in the College press release after the infamous Sept 07 Board meeting:
"The Board also voted to appoint a vice chair; expand the Executive Committee to include the chairs of all standing committees, in addition to the chair and vice chair; and adopt Board bylaws."
Reference link here.Roland Adams as reported by this week's D:
"There appears to be no precedent for the removal of a trustee, and according to College spokesman Roland Adams, the Board does not have bylaws."
Reference link here.Stay on your toes alumni, or toe the line. It is up to you.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/18/2009 8:10 AM
Tim, the editorial in the D must be read in light of the fact that the editors didn't do a lot of research or understand what's going on; they just read Zywicki's letter and assumed he was being honest. You know very well that alumni don't elect trustees.
The Board did not "wait" to remove Zywicki, and it did not "remove" Zywicki at all. Every elected trustee is automatically "removed" at the end of his four-year term, like the U.S. President. That's what a term is: a precommitment, with no action needed by the Board. Zywicki got the chance to run for reelection and lost. He lost the vote; he failed to win a majority of votes. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter, and you didn't see him complaining about it afterward.
So the board voted in 2007 to adopt bylaws at some indefinite time in the future, and hasn’t gotten around to it yet. Maybe they would have had the time if they hadn’t been fighting off baseless lawsuits.
By
Scott, at 4/18/2009 2:22 PM
"You know very well that alumni don't elect trustees."
Apparently not any more.
Why would the D editors assume Zywicki was being dishonest? Scott's implication that Zywicki was lying is off the wall, as Mr. Meacham continues to pick the nit regarding elections by alumni and elections by the Board.
Was he really suggesting trustees should "run" and campaign among fellow trustees to retain their seats in a second term?
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/18/2009 2:55 PM
I’d be happy to stop “picking the nit” if you’d acknowledge reality: the board still elects all the elected trustees by majority vote. And the world is round and the IRS isn’t unconstitutional and the government isn’t reading your brain waves through your fillings. Chairman Haldeman's letter is easy to read and spells it out clearly. The real question is why you keep insisting that an alternate reality is the real one. If alumni really had a right to elect trustees, then why have they had nothing to do with the reelection process since 1990, among other signs that your belief is mistaken?
"Why would the D editors assume Zywicki was being dishonest?" They wouldn't. We expect honesty from trustees.
Zywicki’s letter misled alumni in a variety of ways not limited to his erroneous statements about alumni "elections." He didn't mention the failed alumni suit following the 1990 change; he claimed incorrectly not to have violated his fiduciary duties; he failed to mention his violation of his duty of loyalty and his violation of the board's code of conduct and trustee oath; he whined about “rules adopted by the Board majority” as if to imply that he didn’t participate in the vote, or that the vote somehow isn’t binding on him (he seems to like democracy except when he’s on the losing end of a vote); he complained about alumni trustees’ “permanent minority status” as if such trustees haven’t always been a permanent minority on the board as a whole, which is what the alumni agreed to in 1891.
I hope you agree that Zywicki was deluding himself when he characterized the standard four-year term rule as creating the "prospect of removal at the end of their elected term" or as a “threat’ of “expulsion.” See the Jimmy Carter example. It was also misleading of him to thank alumni “[f]or permitting me to serve you as Trustee,” since he was supposed to be serving Dartmouth. If he ever served his own interests or those of anyone else (including alumni) at the expense of Dartmouth while acting as a trustee, he was in breach of his legal duties. His amicus brief in the lawsuit against the board came pretty close to that, as did his recorded Pope Center speech, and probably other similar speeches that didn’t get recorded. His support of an anti-administration secret society might fit in this category too, as would his alleged support for “Save Dartmouth,” which he later disavowed.
His strange ideas about free speech are simply unrelated to the topic; they are off the wall. I don’t think it was dishonest of him to raise them, I think it was bizarre.
By
Scott, at 4/18/2009 3:56 PM
If one believes that alumni interests are in alignment with those of the College, then there is no conflict in serving both. Why would alumni interests differ?
If one believes that some administrative interests are "of the moment" and not in the long-term interests of the institution, then there is a conflict when administrators are involved in governance decisions. I can posit several reasons... employment, power... why these interests might differ.
Note I specifically refer to governance decisions and not operational management ones; they are different.
Alumni have not been involved in second term elections since 1990 because alumni leaders at the time agreed to cede this process totally into the hands of the Board.
Also, the world is not round, there are many federal laws that contradict the Constitution, and the technology does exist to wiretap brain waves, with or without a FISA warrant. The only challenge for the latter is tapping into the mindless.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/18/2009 5:08 PM
Only Board members are legally required to act in Dartmouth’s interest, and the only interest Board members are permitted to support is Dartmouth’s. These are legal duties, not personal beliefs.
Dartmouth and the alumni are two different entities whose interests are different by definition. It doesn't matter if they share some characteristics or goals any more than it matters that Teamsters and the UAW both support organized labor. Nobody who is legally obligated to put the interests of the UAW ahead of his own could get off saying he would do his best to serve the Teamsters.
Zywicki shouldn’t have said he was serving alumni when his one obligation was to serve Dartmouth. He had only one container and he seems to have filled it with the wrong thing. That’s a fault in its own right, whether or not you could find some Board decisions that have beneficial consequences for outside groups. In my opinion, the concept of "serving" alumni is one of the most harmful consequences of the sham idea that some Trustees are elected by alumni as the "representatives" of a "constituency."
The clearest example of alumni interests differing from those of the Board is in the lawsuit that followed the Board’s decision to change its rules for nomination and election of Trustees. Alumni who filed the lawsuit were obviously in direct conflict with the Board: their success could only come with the Board’s defeat, and they sacrificed a lot to defeat the Board. The Board, on the other hand, wanted to survive; to preserve its rights; and to avoid a court-ordered amendment of its internal rules.
After the Board changed its second-term nomination rules in 1990, the AoA could have left its own (then-nonconforming) nomination rules as they were, or it could have amended its constitution to correspond to the Board’s change. It chose the latter. Some disgruntled alumni sued the Board over this and lost, thus proving (as if proof of the status quo were needed) that the rules of the Board are made by . . . the Board.
By
Scott, at 4/19/2009 8:13 PM
T.J. Rodgers's letter to the editor is oddly inaccurate for someone who should be familiar with the Board of Trustees. I can't figure out why he is so content to mislead alumni and stretch the truth.
For example, he says that the tradition of electing petition trustees goes back to 1891. I am unaware of any petition trustee prior to Steele in 1980.
He says that the Board "formally granted" seats to alumni "in return for financing the College." I am unaware of any such grant, formal or informal. The deliberate absence of Charter amendments effecting such a grant suggests that such a grant would be illegal and does not exist.
He says that alumni seats comprised "one-half of Dartmouth’s Board." But the 1891 Resolution used the word "five," not "half," and five seats in 1891 amounted to only 5/12 of the Board. That specific number has been replaced with other specific numbers on two occasions, neither one of which amounted to as much as half of the board.
He suggests that treating the petition trustees "as if we were attacking the College" was incorrect. The petition trustees did attack the College, and in a formal manner. They filed legal papers in support of a lawsuit against their own Board. The lawsuit sought to undermine or destroy the Board's Charter authority to make rules governing its operations.
He says that the "petition trustees had successfully overcome the penny-ante counterattacks, such as denying us the ability to mail our petitions to alumni," as if they were already trustees when they tried to use Dartmouth's email list. They were not; they were only individual alumni running for a nomination, and they had no more expectation of gaining access to private information than any other alumnus.
He says "the Majority Board members simply declared the right to double their number from eight to 16 without adding an equivalent number of alumni trustees," as if the entire Board did not hold a majority vote in which he was allowed to participate. There is no organization or entity known as "the Majority Board." The whole Board held a proper vote and made a legitimate decision to amend its bylaws. Rodgers does not seem to have any trouble with the Board's 1891 vote to amend its bylaws to create Alumni Trustee seats, and that Board had a much smaller proportion of alumni on it.
He says "an Association of Alumni poll of 4,000 alumni" produced results of "92 percent to eight percent" for "parity," as if the poll were not worthless and the very concept of "parity" not a public-relations invention of late 2006.
He says "the Majority threw its weight and College funds into a campaign to remove the Association leaders" as if he had some evidence that Dartmouth had provided any funds to the Dartmouth Undying organization. He does not.
He says "the Majority rewrote the 50 year-old Trustee Oath into an oath of loyalty." This is the first I've heard of this, and he gives no specifics. Because Rodgers's other statements are so misleading, I can't believe this occurred as he describes it.
He says the Trustee Oath "was designed, in part, to limit trustees’ ability to express dissenting viewpoints without the direct threat of being ejected from the Board." I doubt this is accurate as well. No one has been ejected from the Board, and I believe the Oath has never contained a direct threat of ejection. Rodgers seems to have little respect for our credulity.
He says "the Majority installed a formal review process that judged trustees against the new oath on a line-by-line basis" as if that were both true and wrongful. I doubt he is being accurate here, since I assume from Haldeman's letter that the pre-election review is not new. I also do not see why he would disparage this kind of accountability. If the Board does not have the process Rodgers describes, he should propose that it adopt such a process in order to hold Trustees accountable to their promises and duties.
He refers to Zywicki on "the day of his trial," as if some kind – any kind – of trial had taken place. Given Rodgers's past confusion of the government and private corporations (the First Amendment), it would not be surprising to learn that he thinks Dartmouth is an arm of the State of New Hampshire. He would be unqualified to serve if he were really the victim of such a severe misconception.
He refers to "the votes of the alumni who elected Todd" as if Zywicki was not elected by the Board of Trustees. The Charter doesn't say that Trustees are elected by alumni; the Board's rules don't say it; the 1891 Resolution or the Association's contemporary meeting minutes don't say it; the Board today and College press releases don't say it; the 2007 Governance Report doesn't say it; Haldeman's recent letter doesn't say it; no court has said it; New Hampshire caselaw doesn't suggest that such a thing would be legal; and common sense doesn't suggest that the state would permit such a thing without an amendment to the Charter. What did the Board do when it had a chance to amend the Charter to formally grant alumni a right to elect Trustees? It turned down the amendment. The Board remains prohibited from letting anyone else elect its members.
He says "Todd was told in a hallway that he had been ejected." But Todd was not "ejected." He was removed from office with all the other Trustees whose four-year terms were up. Then he failed to win reelection. There is a big, important difference that appears to escape Rodgers.
He refers to "a political lynching" as if this corporate decision were "political" in the civic sense; as if Zywicki's election loss were a public mob action or some kind of unfair and irrational expression of bigotry; and as if Zywicki's abject failure as a Trustee – his gross disservice to Dartmouth College – were not the cause of the Board's proper and democratic vote not to elect him again following the end of his term of service.
Rodgers's wrote his letter so misleadingly in order to unfairly inflame the passions of the reader against an organization that deserves its support. Rodgers used to have my respect as an independent thinker. Now he just seems to be passing on "spin" that he obviously doesn't understand. I don't know what his goal is, but his misleading statements certainly don't do anything to help Dartmouth. I have no respect left for T.J. Rodgers.
By
Scott, at 4/22/2009 11:26 AM
“The Board acts to limit freedom of speech all the time,” Frank Gado ‘58, a former member of the Association executive committee who supported its 2007 lawsuit, said in an interview with The Dartmouth.Three questions:
1) I wonder why the D (or the Valley News for that matter) doesn't identify Gado as a present officer of the Hanover Institute, which funded both lawsuits, That seems more relevant than his past leadership in the AoA.
2) I wonder why the D (or the Valley News for that matter) finds his opinion relevant at all, given his tendency to exaggerate and mislead and obvious bias.
3) I wonder why Frank would make this particular statement, since it's so plainly incorrect.
By
Scott, at 4/23/2009 9:48 AM
I wonder why the Dartmouth political machine keeps getting caught up in its underwear. What a joke!
By
DartBored, at 4/23/2009 9:59 AM
This controversy is stupid and shouldn't have happened, but how is it anyone's fault but Zywicki's? If he had had a normal human's sense of shame and not complained about losing, I doubt anything would have come of it. The first headline in the D after the board meeting didn't even mention Zywicki's failure to win reelection, as I recall.
By
Scott, at 4/23/2009 12:50 PM
OK. Let's assume it all Z's fault just for the sake of argument.
Let's also assume that all Dartmouth controversies are "stupid and shouldn't have happened".
Let's also assume that alumni have no rights.
Given that alumni will never stop caring about the College and expressing their opinions, has the College and its trustees adopted the right strategy?
That was my simple point.
By
DartBored, at 4/23/2009 8:27 PM
What strategy are you talking about, Dartbored? We could better second-guess the decisions of the Board of Trustees if we knew what decisions we are talking about.
Tim wrote in the D today that Zywicki's suggestion of standing committees, adopted by the board, "is a long-term legacy that will long survive after a single out-of-context remark is relegated to the dustbin of history." I disagree with both the express and the implicit contentions of that statement. First, Zywicki will be remembered as the only Trustee in 200 years to sin so egregiously against his alma mater as to deserve a formal reprimand by the board; and second, it was not a single remark and it was not taken out of context. His whole speech was published widely in audio and text formats and extensive quotations. He made what I believe are similar remarks on other occasions that were not recorded. Many points in his speech -- not just the Freedman remark -- appear to violate his Trustee Oath, the published Board rules, and possibly his legal duties of fiduciary responsibility and loyalty.
By
Scott, at 4/24/2009 8:54 AM
I learn from a Dartmouth Undying email that the Hanover Institute has sent out two messages to alumni encouraging them to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment.
According to The Dartmouth, the Hanover Institute previously wrote a statement supporting the amendment. Because I am an alum and I feel like it, I am going to consider that statement a contract with me and every other alum that may never be amended.
In a secret meeting behind closed doors, the packed cronies on the unelected, undemocratic, self-selecting board of the Hanover Institute have now breached their contract by fiat.
This act of thuggery cannot stand. The alumni, whom the Institute claims to serve, deserve some accountability. If the Institute doesn't reply to an email about this, we should sue.
By
Scott, at 4/24/2009 11:38 AM
A reminder re Scott Meacham... only two weeks ago, he wrote:
"I did not realize that EC members get these posts automatically! I apologize for weighing you down with these trivial discussions."Either he forgot, or the apology was not really sincere, or both.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 4/24/2009 3:17 PM
Tim, did you read the comment you're quoting?
I apologized for weighing down EC members with trivial discussions. I certainly didn't say I wouldn't continue those discussions. And the Zywicki discussion is not trivial, in my opinion.
Agree or Disagree:
I believe that Tim Dreisbach's loyalty to the Hanover Institute does not make him any less sincere when he makes the baseless claims that AoA campaign rules involve "free speech" or that Zywicki's actions amount to "a single out-of-context remark."It's just a statement of opinion, not fact. If you disagree with the underlying premise, then just vote to "disagree."
Seriously: do you know how we should go about casting our votes in Hanover Institute board elections, and particularly how we can support petition candidates? I hope we can vote by proxy.
By
Scott, at 4/27/2009 10:03 AM
To cast Todd Zywicki’s failure to get reelected as an issue of freedom of speech, especially when others who hold similar views were invited to serve again, is intellectually incomprehensible.--Trustee Michael Chu in The Dartmouth.
By
Scott, at 5/01/2009 9:31 AM
Several months ago there was a discussion in the Valley News and elsewhere about whether the approval voting system favored petition candidates. Joseph Asch and others defended the system, saying that it did not.
Now the Hanover Institute says the approval system does favor petition candidates in comparison to the "one person, one vote" system, and it is using this belief as a reason to urge alumni to vote against the amendment.
I guess consistency must fall by the wayside when the purpose of your organization seems to be to sow disagreement.
By
Scott, at 5/02/2009 12:23 PM
Trustee Chu also said:
"the entire Board can agree that Todd Zywicki served out of affection for Dartmouth. We should acknowledge this and turn our attention to what has always been more important than any individual: the future of Dartmouth, and its promise to reshape liberal arts education."
Le's take Chu's advice and turn to the liberal arts promise. People on the univeristy side of the college-vs-university debate usually position their opponents as being anti-research. That is flat out wrong. Zywicki, Gado, Asch, yours truly, and many others with concerns about the "university" are not opposed to and in fact embrace the concept of research, alternately labeled scholarship. Our concern is with the large research university that becomes so balkanized into narrow areas, determined on the basis of grant monies, that a broader liberal arts education is lost.
This is not entirely the case at Dartmouth. But there needs to be constant vigilance against all the pressures that cause a drift in this direction.
A simple example I like to use. I would prefer to see, over a university graduate researcher who discovers the cure for AIDS or Alzheimers, a Dartmouth graduate who, based upon a broader liberal education, makes the policy decision as to how research dollars are allocated and directed across multiple diseases. This to me is the more difficult challenge, with greater leverage for the underlying education and ultimately a larger impact.
This post is prompted having watched the very articulate Secy of Health and Human Services and her Director of the Center for Disease Control (Sibelius and Besser) on Fox with Chris Wallace. Wallace is an excellent interviewer with targeted questions, often with a "gotcha" trap. Sibelius and Besser ran circles around him... making their points well without any stumble.
Very impressive. Sibelius was an undergraduate of Trinity; Besser of Williams. Two "small colleges" that some Dartmouth alums and faculty do not feel compare to the Ivy elite. I realize this is only anecdotal, but it makes a point. Alumni of those two colleges have two graduates they can be proud of.
So with a new president at Dartmouth, Dartmouth College, and trustees wanting to focus on reshaping a liberal arts education, do we have a uniform vision as to what that means?
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5/03/2009 6:45 PM
I know this is Rodgers's business not mine, but civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silvergate has mentioned several times (here and here) that Rodgers is a client of his.
I am not familiar enough with Rodgers to know whether he goes around accusing institutions other than Dartmouth of infringing people's liberties, so I can't guess as to whether he hired Silvergate to help him deal with the Board of Trustees.
The fact that Silvergate is running as a "petition" candidate for a board at Harvard adds additional layers of meaning to his writings about Dartmouth.
By
Scott, at 5/06/2009 12:27 PM
The annual meeting of the association of alumni was held earlier today. It has been reported that the unopposed slate of incumbent officers was re-elected and the constitutional amendment passed.
It was also reported that the re-elected president, representing alumni, commented that alumni may not be the appropriate people to lead the governance of the College, because in a democracy only those being governed should do the governing.
Does this mean that employees and not shareholders are the proper authority for corporate governance? While shareholders conduct elections to seat corporate boards, companies are not democracies.
Similarly, I do not recall anyone who ever claimed that Dartmouth was a democracy. This is different than the Association, which should be governed by democratic principles. Dartmouth is governed by trustees and only trustees.
The debate has been over the role of a democratic Association in choosing members of a non-democratic private institution, and whether or not that role is beneficial. Among all constituencies that might lobby for involvement in governance, alumni are arguably those with the least conflict of interest and thus most able to put the interests of the College first.
We look forward to the report of the meeting, and hearing the plans of the Executive Committee to move ahead with alumni trustee elections AND increasing the number of alumni trustees back to parity. Hopefully any plans to reform elections because money and power influence trustee elections will also address the role of the alumni relations office in controlling Association communications.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5/09/2009 5:27 PM
Tim - You refer to "the role of the alumni relations office in controlling Association communications".
Their plan from the beginning has been to get alumni out of the governance business. Ceremonial involvement is all the we are allowed.
I take it you weren't invited to the victory party.
By
DartBored, at 5/09/2009 9:29 PM
DartBored:
You are right. The Association itself was incapable of announcing its own results:
"HANOVER, NH--The Dartmouth College Office of Alumni Relations today announced the election of a new Association of Alumni Executive Committee and the passage of an amendment to the association's constitution."
Time to move on and devote energy elsewhere. The Empire will govern itself.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5/09/2009 10:28 PM
Dartmouth might once again embrace the neo-classical ideals espoused by President John Kemeny.
By
Abhishek Gangulee, at 6/19/2009 12:37 AM
This man is an effective leader and a wise financial advisor, so his contributions to 'this small college' should be profitable.
By
Abhishek Gangulee, at 7/28/2009 11:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home