Election Reform Study Committee Submits Report to AoA Executive Committee
To: Association of Alumni Executive Committee
From: Election Reform Study Committee:
John Mathias
J.B. Daukas
Veree Hawkins Brown
Ron Schram
Ron Harris
David Spalding
Re: Report on Election Finance Reform Study Project
Date: October 14, 2009
Based upon the extensive input we have received from alumni/ae in response to our inquiries about possible finance reform in Dartmouth elections, we have reached the following conclusions:
Although the clear majority of those responding recognize that the amount of money involved in alumni trustee and AoA Executive Committee campaigning in recent elections raises serious issues worthy of attention, the Dartmouth alumni community is significantly divided over whether anything can or should be done about it through the medium of changed election rules or guidelines. Many alumni favor implementing rules either forbidding campaigning entirely or capping the amount of money allowed to be spent by any candidate. Others feel that it should be entirely up to the candidates and their supporters to determine whether to spend their own money campaigning. Still others feel that, although campaign spending is a problem, there is no practical solution to it.
Although a controlling consensus among politically active alumni to create and enforce election finance reform rules and guidelines “with teeth” appears to be unachievable at this moment in time, the ERSC feels it is important to articulate the following general guiding principles concerning any reformed election process:
(A) Alumni should be given sufficient information about each candidate and his/her positions to enable informed voting decisions.
(B) To the fullest reasonable extent, candidates should be able to communicate their qualifications and positions freely without editorial review.
(C) Elections should not be influenced by the amount of money spent campaigning, and no candidate should have to raise or spend any substantial amount of money campaigning to have a realistic chance of winning.
(D) Petition candidates should never be disadvantaged by any restrictive election guidelines or rules promulgated by the AoA EC.
Unless a controlling consensus among politically active alumni can be achieved in time for the upcoming election cycle, for the time being only two administrative changes to existing election procedures are recommended:
(1) The election period should be shortened from six weeks to four weeks; and
(2) In the initial ballot mailing to all alumni and on a College sponsored website, consideration should be given to allowing more expansive personal statements from trustee candidates within reasonable limits.
Respectfully submitted,
John Mathias
J.B. Daukas
Veree Hawkins Brown
Ron Schram
Ron Harris
David Spalding
6 Comments:
Regular readers of these pages (numbering in the thousands? or three?) know that I have expressed criticism of the current Executive Committee.
That said, they must be given credit for having political insight and showing wisdom in the report issued by the ERSC. Insight in knowing that there remains a divide among "politically-active alumni" (those who vote) and wisdom in not over-reaching with any reforms. We do not need another governance debate at this time, and the ERSC understands this.
Perhaps with election reform no longer as the top priority, the committee will have time to re-examine the important issue of "parity".
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 10/16/2009 9:58 AM
To the Blog Editor:
This ERSC thread is intended to discuss the election reform report. Could we please have a different new thread, or possibly two:
1. To discuss the College's financial state as presented in President Kim's recent letter. What expenses can be cut? What areas should not be? What of attempting to find new sources of revenue, including more from research and other government grants?
2. To discuss the role of the Board and its oversight. Was too much of the endowment tied up in illiquid assets (requiring the borrowing last spring), and should not this have been an indicator of problems to come? Looking forward, what lessons do we learn from this and what are the implications for Board-level governance?
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 10/16/2009 10:11 AM
Tim:
On your first post, are you sure about the committee's definition of "politically-active alumni"? I think they have a narrower group than "those who vote" in mind. I think they are referring to the two small groups, Dartmouth Undying and the Hanover Institute, that do all the talking.
On the second post, I suggest we keep this all in one place since there are only three of us. I don't want Scott to work too hard.
Meanwhile, I hope everyone is reading dartblog.com.
By
DartBored, at 10/16/2009 8:22 PM
DartBored: You mean this DartBlog, which has been revitalized with many new authors, and more recently by Phil Aubart from the D.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 10/17/2009 8:41 AM
Gado seems to rewrite history in the D:
"Petition candidates have been unable to disprove slanderous statements made against them in previous campaigns, Gado said[.]"
By
Scott, at 10/29/2009 9:41 AM
Involving Alumni in economic matters about Dartmouth is important, because Dartmouth's strong undergraduate tradition encourages Alumni to endorse college activities financially.
By
Abhishek Gangulee, at 12/05/2009 12:55 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home