Election Reform Amendment Passes!
Here are the results of the election regarding the proposed constitutional amendment mandating one person-one vote head to head Alumni Trustee elections in the future: http://www.alumni.dartmouth.edu/news.aspx?id=493
In short, the amendment passed by a margin of 82% to 18%.
Your Executive Committee (re-elected unopposed) is very gratified with this result and thanks everyone who helped in the process.
John Mathias
In short, the amendment passed by a margin of 82% to 18%.
Your Executive Committee (re-elected unopposed) is very gratified with this result and thanks everyone who helped in the process.
John Mathias
posted by John Mathias at
5/09/2009 06:05:00 PM
13 Comments:
I think it's good that the Amendment passed, because, in general, too much controversy over alumni representation is not good. All we need is 1-2 elected voices.
By
Abhishek Gangulee, at 5/24/2009 4:39 PM
In the exhibits attached to Dartmouth's motion for summary judgment against the lawsuit, we learn that the group we called the "Gang of Six" had its own name for itself: the Caucus. (Exhibit B, 65-76; Exhibit Z.)
Sometimes the Caucus included David Gale, sometimes not. The group included John MacGovern on at least one conference call, and (presumably in the spirit of "independence" and "openness") the attorneys saw to it that MacGovern received drafts of the legal papers for review before they were filed in court.
Before the EC voted to publish a pro-lawsuit advertisement in the DAM early in 2008, MacGovern obtained a draft and emailed it to the Association's lawyer. (Exhibit X.)
The name of the email attachment containing the text of the ad? "Malchow draft v4.doc."
Classic.
By
Scott, at 7/20/2009 9:08 PM
Scott: Welcome back. I have no comments on the present lawsuit by several individual alumni. I do find it interesting that when the College's PR arm publishes the legal exhibits on their web site, they only post half of Mr. Gado's deposition, the portion when questioned by College counsel. They deleted the portion when he was questioned by the plaintiff attorney. Is the goal to fully inform alumni, or to prosecute one side of the case?
By the way, there is a long tradition of groups of like mind confering in preparation for meetings with those of differing opinions. The term for such... a caucus. As I recall, I believe the "Gang of Six" term was first coined by yours truly, in the face of the many politically-motivated attacks against our persons, before your "we" of the opposition chimed in.
Anyone here besides you, me and Abhishek? I only stop by every month or two.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8/01/2009 7:57 AM
Scott: Thanks for bringing all the filings to our attention. Most interesting is the conduct of our Association's lead representative.
I see in John Mathias' affidavit, he states that as a lawyer he is well-versed in the implications of "with prejudice" dismissals, and that he knowingly requested the court to do so, so that no alumni (presumably including not mere individuals, but even legitimate future officers of the Association) could legally re-raise the issue of parity.
Yet in the minutes of the Association's executive committee (as noted in the MacGovern deposition filing), it is revealed that the committee meeting authorizing all necessary actions be taken to withdraw the suit lasted only 8 minutes and no mention is made of any discussion authorizing a further request for a with-prejudice ruling.
Subsequent PR announcements by both the Association and by the College conveniently failed to disclose anything regarding with prejudice.
And over a year later, we still await word on the campaign promise to readdress parity and the number of alumni-chosen trustees without a lawsuit.
John: I respect your loyalty and support for our College. How about some update on your work in support of her alumni in this governance regard?
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8/01/2009 8:36 AM
Tim - I'm still here waiting to see what Jim Kim does.
By
DartBored, at 8/02/2009 9:45 PM
Tim, welcome back. Instead of trying to explain why the secret Caucus gave itself that name, could you defend the legitimacy of what seems to have been a sort of shadow government within the EC? Is there any aspect to the Caucus that you believe was open, transparent, or accountable to alumni?
(I am familiar with no honest caucus that keeps its existence secret or includes members of outside lobbying groups.)
I still wonder why you worked to keep the Caucus a secret from alumni, why you delayed and attempted to prevent the release of information about the Hanover Institute’s involvement, and why you claimed that the Institute had no influence over the EC or the lawsuit.
Or do you dispute John MacGovern's statement that he received drafts of the pleadings for review before they were filed?
---
The College appears to have posted the exhibits that it filed with the court. Some exhibits comprise excerpts from deposition testimony of Frank Gado and John MacGovern. If you want to see additional portions of those depositions, please post it and provide us with a link.
It would be silly to imply that the EC had the authority to file a particular lawsuit but then lacked the authority to request its prejudicial dismissal.
The implication that Mathias had the suit dismissed so that no alumni could legally re-raise the issue of parity is Tim's and is not contained in the affidavit that Tim cites.
By
Scott, at 8/10/2009 9:12 PM
My implication?
"I am a senior litigation partner... practicing law for 37 years and have a full understanding of what it means to dismiss a lawsuit with prejudice. Our newly elected slate of executive committee members wanted to take whatever action was necessary to prevent the lawsuit we were dismissing [the one regarding parity] on behalf of the AoA from being instigated again by other alumni..."
Notwithstanding the above, the EC apparently missed discussing the important "with prejudice" addition during their brief meeting which authorized our president to withdraw the suit. There is no record this was in fact the desire of the executive committee, or an authority that they granted. Even if they agreed, it was an over-reach of power to so tie the hands of future alumni representatives.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8/11/2009 8:00 AM
Tim, you're putting words in his mouth. A "lawsuit" is not the same thing as an "issue." There is a difference between preventing the re-filing of a particular lawsuit (by the same people under different names, as the motion argues) and making it "so that no alumni . . . could legally re-raise the issue of parity."
Again, how would a legal liaison possess the authority to file a particular lawsuit but lack the authority to have it dismissed with prejudice?
The legal liaison knew all the risks inherent in filing a lawsuit when he filed it, including the risk that it would be dismissed in a way that could affect future suits.
"Over-reach of power"? That's a strong statement coming from a member of the Caucus. Do you plan on ignoring all questions about the conduct of the EC while you were a part of it?
(I keep wanting to write "Cabal," but the name you chose is "Caucus" -- and I'm curious: doesn't it make you chuckle to learn that Bert Boles, who gave a speech on legal ethics to an Opus Dei conference, seems to have had his legal assistant setting up your Caucus meetings? I hope he invited Tom Hanks...).
By
Scott, at 8/11/2009 6:22 PM
"how would a legal liaison possess the authority to file a particular lawsuit but lack the authority to have it dismissed with prejudice?"
Duh... the executive committee votes to grant the one authority but not the other?
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8/14/2009 9:47 PM
Tim asked, "Duh... the executive committee votes to grant the one authority but not the other?"
Answer:
"the Executive Committee hereby designates the President . . . as its Liaison for Legal Affairs, and delegates to him full power and authority (1) to oversee and direct the work of Williams & Connolly and Hatem & Donovan; (2) to take any and all actions necessary to obtain the prompt dismissal of the lawsuit"
June 10, 2008 minutes.
By
Scott, at 8/16/2009 1:38 PM
Scott: It could have been requested of the court that the suit be dismissed without asking for prejudice... that was not necessary and thus in my opinion not authorized. It seems like it was not even discussed by the EC. Then again, I may be wrong, if anyone has evidence to the contrary.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8/16/2009 2:17 PM
The court issued its order; it's over. No doubt the EC could have requested dismissal without prejudice, or it could have refrained from withdrawing the suit at all, or it could have refrained from filing the suit at all. Filing the suit was exponentially more "unnecessary" and so much further from the voters' mandate that the nature of the dismissal – which the EC authorized -- is hardly worth discussing.
And I don't recall the old EC's "authorization" mentioning holding secret meetings with John MacGovern or abandoning the campaign "promise" of some EC members to act with transparency and openness. Let's leave the "with prejudice" issue to the birthers where it belongs.
By
Scott, at 8/16/2009 4:44 PM
Tim, on second thought, don't bother answering (or carefully avoiding) any of my questions. I already regret engaging you in a discussion, since doing so runs the risk of giving you credibility that your actions on the EC show you don't deserve.
By
Scott, at 8/18/2009 7:33 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home