Is there any common ground here?

Monday, April 19, 2010

As the dust settles on our latest round of elections, there is a temptation for winners and losers alike to draw hasty, sweeping conclusions of one kind or another. My suggestion is that we hold off the inevitable debate on this subject for a little while longer and ask ourselves instead if there is any common ground upon which to build for the future.

Here are a couple of my thoughts and observations. Please feel free to respond to them in comments to this post.

(1) Strongly contested elections in which unrestricted free speech is highly valued and allowed to run its course will almost always involve both positive and negative speech. Candidates for office cannot reasonably expect to be spared the negatives in a free speaking campaign in which not only opposing candidates but also their supporters actively participate. It just doesn’t work that way. For example, I was repeatedly called a “Quisling” in the course of this campaign, which raised my blood pressure more than a notch whenever it happened, but as a candidate running in an election with extremely emotional hot buttons affecting voters all around, it is my job to grin and bear it. Other candidates on both sides of the AoA and trustee elections no doubt experienced similar affronts. Like it or not, modern Dartmouth electoral politics require candidates to have skins thicker than ever before. This will undoubtedly discourage a lot of outstanding and enormously talented alumni/ae from running for office. Shouldn’t we be concerned about this?

(2) Trustee candidates in this past election spent more money campaigning than ever in history. There seems to be no question that trustee candidates need to be able to raise or spend from their own pockets a substantial and rapidly increasing amount of money to have any realistic chance of winning a contested Dartmouth election. If this election cost the winner $100,000, then how much will it cost to win the next election? What does this mean for nominated and petition candidates alike? Must they either be wealthy themselves or have the financial support of organizations like Dartmouth Undying or the Hanover Institute? Must they be willing to divert a huge amount of money which could go to Dartmouth into alumni politics instead and still face the prospect of losing both the election and their money? How can we reasonably expect to persuade the Board of Trustees to increase the number of alumni trustee elections without first acknowledging the presence of this “elephant in the room?”

Unlike other blogs which target Dartmouth with their often negative posts, this blog invites comments, so please fire away!

52 Comments:

This comment has been removed by the author.

By David Gale, at 4/19/2010 3:56 PM
Sorry about the double-posted comment; blogger reported an error when I wrote the first one, and so I believed I needed to write a new one.

By David Gale, at 4/19/2010 3:58 PM
David,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

My sense is that these problems are real and that they will be with us again in the next round of elections, which will be here before you know it. Personally, I think the “money” problems are the most serious. As for the negativity, I have found that after a while it has a numbing effect that actually helps you endure what would otherwise be a very painful experience. Put another way, if you take negative comments or accusations from your fellow alumni/ae too seriously, you can’t possibly make it through a modern Dartmouth alumni/ae election. To me, this is very unfortunate because it deters a lot of outstanding people from running or even becoming peripherally involved.

No one is talking about restricting free speech. To the contrary, Dartmouth elections have always involved a mind boggling amount of free speech all around. This last election was a great example of that. The whole notion that anyone is trying to “silence” anyone else is really silly. All free speakers must come to understand, however, that we must live with the consequences of what we say, especially if we are running in an election, or even if we are seeking a second term on the Board. People do form opinions based upon what they hear from us, and they will exercise their own free speech by voting accordingly.

The easiest course here is to do nothing. The default will be another round of contested elections conducted just like the last one. Money will remain important both to Alumni Council nominated candidates and to petition candidates. All candidates will again require support from either Dartmouth Undying or the Hanover Institute, which in turn will solicit fellow alumni/ae for campaign money which could (and should) go to Dartmouth instead. Elections will continue to involve negative comments and accusations, and losing candidates will continue to walk away stung by the “churn and burn” phenomenon which has affected our elections for the past several years.

Under these circumstances, the task of persuading our Board to increase the number of Alumni Trustee elections grows ever more challenging.

Unless a controlling consensus of politically active alumni/ae can be achieved regarding meaningful election reform, the status quo seems highly likely to remain.

By John Mathias, at 4/25/2010 3:27 PM
John: I know I told some people goodbye, but your comment has drawn me back.

We of the pro-parity crowd have never asked you, or the Board, to increase the number of alumni elections (cf. your penultimate paragraph above). This false premise has its origins in a simliar mischaracterization in the Trustees' very own Governance Committee report. Rather we want to see the balance between alumni and charter trustees to be restored; this has nothing to do with the number or frequency of elections, but only with the number of candidates in any one election cycle. It is merely a matter of re-aligning when Board seats come open, and lengthening the term of AoA officers, to in fact reduce the frequency of Association elections.

The problems with the election campaigning that you and David are addressing above really have nothing to do with the parity/balance issue, and never have.... unless you believe that those problems actually have resulted in unqualfied people being elected. I know some people (apparently including most trustees) believe this, but few really want to say it, knowing it is an insult to alumni voters.

Judging from the underwhelming discussion on this thread, I take it the answer to your opening question is "no", or perhaps "not among anyone who cares, if such people even still exist".

Bye.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5/02/2010 9:54 PM
No worries, Tim. I don't think anyone took you literally you when you said goodbye.

We will be having elections for two alumni trustee positions next year. If these elections are contested, once again they will require candidates to raise and spend a very substantial amount of money to have any realistic chance of winning. That's just the way it is. It has nothing to do with whether you favor nominated or petition candidates or what you think about parity. If the number of elected trustees is increased, there will be more candidates running in contested elections, and the financial situation worsens. That is a matter of great concern for some people, especially including prospective candidates. Don't forget about the "churn and burn" effect either, which often leads losing candidates to walk away from Dartmouth entirely after having had to endure such a financially and emotionally draining experience.

So, there you have it. We can leave things just as they are, which is certainly the direction this will take unless some kind of collective awakening occurs, or we can do something about it, which will not happen without a controlling consensus among politically active alumni/ae. The sentiment for leaving things as they are may actually be rising among those who have enjoyed electoral success the last few go arounds. I take it you feel the same way for other reasons. That does not mean we should not raise the issue for discussion or should ignore it as if it did not exist.

This is not a matter for argument. It is a matter of fact. Unless something can be done about the upwardly spiraling costs of running in a contested alumni trustee election, the chances of persuading the Board to increase their numbers are near zero.

By John Mathias, at 5/03/2010 11:12 AM
John,

I'm interested in your thoughts on the proposals I posted, which should lead to at least a severe reduction in expenses incurred by candidates. In your two comments since mine, you've continued to lament the current situation, but haven't expressed any opinion on what I suggested.

Again, I favor having the college give each candidate a central campaign website (with near-total control over the content; candidates should be free to express their opinions, even if they are negative of the college). These websites should be part of the voxthevote.org site, preferably as their own subdomain--johnmathias.voxthevote.org, davidgale.voxthevote.org, etc. The college should also provide candidates with one or two mailings to alumni (with page limits, to control costs); one requirement would be that all campaign materials direct alumni to the voxthevote.org websites, rather than to third-party campaign sites.

These two steps would eliminate the expenses currently incurred in setting up and maintaining campaign sites and in sending out campaign mailings (not to mention buying or building a mailing list). They would also help alumni make informed decisions, as all campaign information (candidate bios, campaign sites, and the voting page) would be in one central location. There would be little to no additional cost to the college to set up the websites, as the domain is already registered and the servers established; it is primarily a matter of ensuring sufficient server space is available. The mailings would be an expense, but the college can do it cheaper than candidates can. And since all campaign materials are in one place, alumni will be able to make better informed decisions (rather than relying on one candidate's web site).

By David Gale, at 5/03/2010 1:25 PM
David,

Your constructive ideas would certainly have a place in an overall discussion of potential election reforms.

How would you keep candidates and their supporters from taking everything you propose giving them and still pouring money into even more campaigning? Do you favor any kinds of restrictions?

There are many different viewpoints on these issues, as our Election Reform Study Committee found when it asked for alumni/ae input late last year. The bottom line is that no ideas have a chance of changing the status quo without buy in from what I call a "controlling consensus of politically active alumni/ae" who will ensure that acceptable reforms are enforced and do not instead foment political rallying cries.

By John Mathias, at 5/03/2010 3:47 PM
John,

It's simply not possible to prevent those who want to pour money into something like this from doing so; even the FEC, with all of its legal authority, struggles to control campaign financing. The only potential control that the College/the Association could attempt would be to threaten candidates with removal if they violated whatever funding rules you came up with, but then you run into the ugly issue of proving when a candidate knowingly violated the rules (as opposed to an overenthusiastic supporter, or an underhanded ploy by an opponent's supporter). That's a headache that I don't think anyone would want.

Since you can't prevent it, the question becomes one of incentives--why do people pour money into elections, and what can the College and the Association do to reduce those incentives? For the (traditional group of) petitioners, one major incentive to support the Hanover Institute has been the alumni mailing list that the HI has built up, since the College has refused petition candidates access to the official list. If the College changed its rules, that incentive would go away. Same goes for building and hosting websites to "get the message out"--if the College provided it (with no burdensome restrictions on what could be said, etc.), the incentive to go to outside places for websites diminishes.

If the College changes its rules to provide all candidates with the tools necessary for an effective campaign, the incentive to use outside groups like the HI and DU drop drastically. But until that happens, the HI and DU will continue to sell themselves to like-minded alumni.

By David Gale, at 5/04/2010 9:21 AM
David,

Your views about the ineffectiveness and imprudence of restrictions are widely shared to the point where they are almost self evident. In fact, that's why the status quo is what it is and likely shall remain for the foreseeable future.

Without a collective awakening leading to a controlling consensus among politically active alumni/ae, there is not much hope for any kind of meaningful change.

On the other hand, I can imagine acceptable, effective election finance reforms if they had the unqualified support of all concerned. That's what I mean when I ask if there's any common ground here. I am not optimistic.

By John Mathias, at 5/04/2010 7:43 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By 原秋, at 5/07/2010 8:03 PM
John,

I'm not sure what you're envisioning, or whom you mean by "all concerned".

Those who are interested in being candidates today may not be the same as those who are interested in five or ten years, and alumni who don't care to run themselves are more than willing to work for the candidacy of another. So even if you got all potential candidates to sign an agreement prior to being accepted onto the ballot today, you're not going to be able to count on similar cooperation in the future, nor are you going to be able to hold the candidates responsible for the actions of their supporters. (As I've pointed out, the anonymity of the internet would allow someone to pose as a candidate's supporter and violate any campaign rules in order to sabotage that candidate's campaign; breaking through that anonymity in order to ensure that candidates are not sabotaged in this manner would generally require subpoena power, and even that's not a guarantee.)

But I feel I may be misinterpreting your position; would you mind explaining further what sort of reform you believe would be effective, and what the necessary requirements for that effectiveness are?

By David Gale, at 5/15/2010 8:22 AM
David:

This thread begins by saying that campaigning is a problem because it requires that individuals spend too much money. You propose a solution but it is not taken seriously. Why?

Because the real problem is that people are uncomfortable with the discourse that comes from contested elections. Making it easier to have more candidates by eliminating financial concerns takes us in the wrong direction, from that viewpoint. Every step we have seen from the inside, going back to the AGTF days, is to minimize elections, reduce the numbers of candidates, eliminate alumni choice.

If we cannot eliminate elections completely, better to keep the status quo of having opposition candidates all dependent on resources from third-parties that can be discredited.

Next spring will be interesting when alumni finally get what some have fought for... peace, unity, and meaningless elections with only one candidate, as nominated by the establishment.

The "Chinese model" of democracy.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5/20/2010 9:14 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By 啟佐, at 5/25/2010 2:25 AM
David:

At a minimum, this would require the full buy-in and cooperation of both Dartmouth Undying and the Hanover Institute. Without that, there's no chance.

By John Mathias, at 6/09/2010 10:02 AM
John,

Why worry about getting their buy-in, which I doubt you'll get? (Also, any "handshake" based solution would be temporary at best; as soon as either side felt they could get an advantage by stepping "outside", or a third party comes in, whatever agreement you manage to forge will break.) Wouldn't it be better to do what we can to eliminate the benefits of going "outside the system", which would be a more permanent solution?

By David Gale, at 6/10/2010 1:22 PM
Ok, more than a month since the last real comment, nine undeleted spam comments...I think the blog's dead again.

Which is kind of disappointing (though not, I must say, surprising), as the original post made it sound like the current executive council was actually considering making important and necessary changes to the current election process. However, now it appears as if John simply wanted to vent about negative campaigning and see if he could find any support for speech restrictions on campaigns, rather than looking for potential solutions.

Ah, well. I should've known better than to expect anything else.

By David Gale, at 7/12/2010 10:16 AM
Speech restrictions, David? You have to be kidding, right?

There have never been any speech restrictions in Dartmouth alumni politics. Near as I can tell, alums always have felt free to say whatever they want whenever they want. There are consequences to doing so, however, as you do tend to get judged by others based on what you say.

The only speech restrictions I know about are over at Dartblog, where the authors refuse to allow any comments at all on their posts. They are clearly afraid of alumni free speech there--and for good reason!

By John Mathias, at 7/12/2010 10:36 AM
"There have never been any speech restrictions in Dartmouth alumni politics."

Tell that to David Spalding.

John: You might be judged better if you provided a serious response to David's proposal.

I'm sorry to see the Chinese commentary deleted; it reinforced my observation about our new one-party system.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 7/14/2010 11:49 AM
John,

You complain that I mentioned speech restrictions, but ignore the first part of my sentence where I state that you "simply wanted to vent about negative campaigning"? If my statement had been anything other than pure speculation (as indicated by the leading "it appears as if" clause), one could interpret your selective response to indicate acceptance of part of my statement. But that would just be petty.

Seriously, though, you question why I mentioned speech restrictions. While you haven't directly come out in favor of them in this thread (honestly, I can't find anything that you've expressly favored here), I think my interpretation has merit. Let's review:

* In your original post, you wrote: "Strongly contested elections in which unrestricted free speech is highly valued and allowed to run its course will almost always involve both positive and negative speech....Like it or not, modern Dartmouth electoral politics require candidates to have skins thicker than ever before. This will undoubtedly discourage a lot of outstanding and enormously talented alumni/ae from running for office. Shouldn’t we be concerned about this?" If we're to be concerned about the effect of unrestricted free speech, doesn't that imply that we should prefer restrictions?

* Then, in your first comment, you wrote: "Put another way, if you take negative comments or accusations from your fellow alumni/ae too seriously, you can’t possibly make it through a modern Dartmouth alumni/ae election. To me, this is very unfortunate because it deters a lot of outstanding people from running or even becoming peripherally involved." Again, negative campaigning, made possible by the lack of restrictions on speech, has negative consequences. Yes, you immediately went on to say that you're not trying to restrict speech, but you didn't explain what your alternative would be. And then you finish with: "The easiest course here is to do nothing...Elections will continue to involve negative comments and accusations, and losing candidates will continue to walk away stung by the “churn and burn” phenomenon which has affected our elections for the past several years." Again, if negative campaigning has such severe effects, isn't the natural thought that it should be banned?

* Finally, your fourth comment on this thread begins, "Your views about the ineffectiveness and imprudence of restrictions are widely shared to the point where they are almost self evident. In fact, that's why the status quo is what it is and likely shall remain for the foreseeable future." And since we're all agreed that the status quo ought to be changed, the implication is that my "views about the ineffectiveness and imprudence of restrictions" are a hindrance. Which leads to the conclusion that you think speech restrictions might actually be effective and prudent, and should be explored as a possible reform.

Now, I may be misinterpreting you, as I stated back on 5/15, and so I ask again: what sort of reform do you feel would be effective?

By David Gale, at 7/14/2010 10:27 PM
David:

(1) I repeat, the only possible effective reform would come from a collective awakening of politically active alums to form a controlling consensus willing to enact and enforce acceptable reforms without turning them into political rallying cries about restricting free speech, etc. This can only happen with the unqualified cooperation of both Dartmouth Undying and The Hanover Institute. Your proposals would do little more, in my opinion, than feed the beast without reducing in any manner the amount of money that would be spent on alumni/ae elections.

(2) There have never been any restrictions on alumni/ae free speech imposed by the administration or the AoA, and I certainly do not endorse or propose any.

(3) The only restrictions on alumni/ae free speech that I know about are over at Dartblog, where the authors are becoming increasingly hostile and shrill in their negativity towards Dartmouth while refusing to allow any comments at all from alumni/ae who disagree with them. They are clearly afraid of alumni/ae free speech, and their posture deserves to be called out for what it is: anti-free speech.

Both this AoA blog and The Dartmouth daily online version allow unedited comments, and alums clearly feel free to speak up when they disagree with any post. But not at Dartblog, where alumni/ae free speech has been doggedly repressed for a very long time. How about it, David? Do you support the kind of speech restrictions practiced by Dartblog?

By John Mathias, at 7/19/2010 5:23 PM
John,

To your points: 1) again, you dodge around the question of what sort of reform you are envisioning, repeating only that it must be supported by the current power players among the alumni (what happens if a third group appears and gains strength based on its opposition to the existing two parties?). As to my proposals and their effectiveness, here's a challenge for you, our president: Contact the leaders of the DU and the HI and ask what their response would be to college-provided websites and mailings, and whether that would reduce or eliminate their election spending. You may find yourself closer to a consensus than you think, or you may come away with other ideas. Better than sitting here and chatting with Tim, myself, and the spammers (as that seems to be the entirety of the people who check this blog now).

2) I've never said that there are restrictions now (a clearly false statement), just that you seem to be advocating against unrestricted speech. Until you make it clear what you are advocating, I can't really say more.

3) I don't know whether to shake my head or laugh. You're upset that Dartblog doesn't allow comments? Many, many, many blogs don't allow comments. There is no "blog standard" that requires administrators to allow comments, and complaining that one blog among many doesn't allow them simply because you disagree with the blog's contents is laughable. Do I support a blog administrator's ability to decide how he runs his own personal blog? You bet I do.

Of course, this is entirely beside the point. Dartblog is not created, run, sanctioned, owned, or paid for by the College or any of its affiliates.

Incidentally, I note that several of my posts on this thread have been deleted, including my very first post where I outlined my proposal; I do not believe this was done maliciously, but it does highlight one of the challenges of allowing comments--it's very easy to accidentally remove valid content when trying to remove spam.

By David Gale, at 7/20/2010 10:44 AM
David: You write: Dartblog is not created, run, sanctioned, owned, or paid for by the College or any of its affiliates.

That's exactly right. Both the AoA blog and The Dartmouth online are College supported media and allow for alumni/ae free speech without restrictions. Dartblog does not tolerate any such thing.

You can laugh and shake your head all you want, but that does not make for a reasoned defense of the deplorable conduct of Dartblog's alumni authors. They are clearly afraid of free speech responses by alumni/ae to their various inflammatory posts. Their authors can dish it out, but they just can't take it. Your own support for this kind of censorship is revealing, as you apparently believe that alumni/ae free speech restrictions about Dartmouth are just fine as long as they are imposed by someone other than the College.

For the last time, David, the election reforms which I envision are any kind of armistice between The Hanover Institute and Dartmouth Undying which would involve both of them committing to refrain from spending anything on alumni/ae elections either directly or indirectly. I am not at all sanguine about the idea of giving either of them financial or administrative support from the College. In fact, I think that would be a really bad idea. In my view, alumni/ae should be giving to rather than getting from Dartmouth. I know you and others disagree with this very basic premise, but that's what makes us different.

By John Mathias, at 7/20/2010 11:38 AM
John,

I'm here to try to strengthen Dartmouth's alumni, not to attack or defend Dartblog. As I said, there are many blogs and many valid reasons for not allowing comments; when I was on the EC, we even discussed (at length--you can check the March 4th 2008 meeting minutes for the details) disallowing anonymous comments on this blog, though we never considered blocking all comments entirely. But blogs are cheap to create; if you don't like what one says, you can create your own, and let people decide which they prefer. My stance on allowing comments or not would apply just as equally to any other private blog (incidentally, why aren't you upset with the guys over at Powerline? They've expiremented a couple of times with allowing comments, but always ended up turning them off again...)

But, again, Dartblog's anti-comments stance is almost entirely unrelated to the question of Alumni election reform. I really don't see any point in quibbling over it. You want to debate the merits of Dartblog's comments policy? Create a new thread to discuss it--you control this blog, remember? I'll tell you now, though, I don't plan on commenting on such a thread, as I believe it'd just be pointless.

Now that that's out of the way, let's return to the point of this thread. You ask for an armistice between the HI and DU. What do you propose to offer either (or both) of them in return for disarming? How do you propose that their preferred candidates market themselves to alumni, without using funds from the HI or the DU? How should alumni who wish to run as petition candidates go about collecting the necessary 500 signatures without drawing upon the HI or the DU's resources? What is your planned response if a third group alumni rises up using donated funds once the HI and DU have stopped?

As to your parting ad hominem attack--what makes you say that I disagree with the premise of alumni giving back to the college? I was honored to serve for a year in the Association's EC (no, I was not paid for it, nor did I expect to be), and worked hard to ensure that alumni could continue to give to the college by electing half of the board of Trustees, in addition to financial giving, as had been the case for almost 120 years prior to that. And, of course, do you think it appropriate to throw negative aspersions like that one in a thread complaining about negative campaigning?

By David Gale, at 7/20/2010 1:55 PM
David:

I agree with you that our discussion on this thread has just about run its course to the point where you and I are now somewhat endlessly repeating ourselves.

Personally, I would be satisfied with a Dartmouth Undying/Hanover Institute armistice as a significant first step towards election reform. Without it, there can't be any real financial reform anyway. As I have repeated several times, it looks to me like the status quo will remain for at least the next election cycle. I do not favor asking the College for additional financial or administrative support for future elections, so I respectfully disagree with your ideas, all of which involve getting with no corresponding giving.

You initiated our free speech dialogue with the assertion that I have raised the topic of election reform as an insincere front for a hidden agenda of trying to find support for speech restrictions in alumni/ae elections. This sounded to me a lot like the now discredited political rallying cries of petition trustee candidates over the past several years. It provoked me into raising the Dartblog issue, and yes, the same does apply to Powerline, except the authors there have a national audience, only occasionally refer to Dartmouth, and are not nearly as inflammatory and insulting as the Dartblog authors.

I am going to take you up on your excellent suggestion of starting a new thread on the Dartblog speech restriction issue.

By John Mathias, at 7/20/2010 2:43 PM
John,

Again, if you are convinced that the way forward is through a two-party armistice, then by all means, initiate discussions with the leaders of the HI and the DU. That sort of reform can only happen through meetings with them, not hashing back and forth with someone who isn't affiliated with either group (and who no longer holds office in the AoA).

Good luck selling your proposal to both groups; I personally have doubts about both your proposal's acceptability and its efficacy, but you are the one in office.

-D.

By David Gale, at 7/20/2010 3:05 PM
"Discredited political rallying cries of the petition trustees" regarding restrictions on speech"?

Seems to me the College removal of the "speech has consequences" veiled threat and other stipulations is a verification they needed to loosen up, and did.

Similarly for concerns over administrative bloat and overly-aggressive policies of spending and investment allocation... Apparently President Kim's taking on these real problems somehow disproves their existence?

John rewrites history and fact with his "now discredited" description.

As to attacking DartBlog, what is purpose of our Association's president? Less alumni divisiveness?

Finally, he suggests the AoA cannot give candidates more ability to communicate (in less fettered ways) thru the AoA website (and forces them to depend on outside sources for support) because he does not want to ask the College for more money. How does it cost them MORE to continue to support the AoA site, or to make email addresses available to candidate members of the Association? It does not, so this is an excuse. And even if it did, how about some bolder thinking of operating the Association with other funds (try a campaign drive) so that it becomes even less financially dependent on the College than it is today. Arguably this would not siphon any material monies from those donated to the College.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 7/21/2010 9:01 AM
Before people begin with the tired argument that if the Association were to raise funds independently, it would siphon money from College donations. This is no different that Friends of Football and other groups that raise money for directed purposes. The College once said it would restrict the formation of new Friends groups, but has come to see the error of its thinking, and now understands they actually result in more total dollars. Indeed they now have new employees dedicated to helping the Friends groups raise these separate funds. Surely creating a strong ALUMNI-DIRECTED association of alumni is a valuable thing, and no matter how its leaders are chosen, this cannot happen in truth with a total dependence for funding on the College, who retains ultimate control of its use even after it is allocated to the Association.

The only conclusion I reach is that both the administration and the incumbent AoA officers really like the status quo of an organization that must depend on College resources, and a situation whereby those of differing opinions must depend on a single outside party.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 7/21/2010 9:18 AM
John's comment that some of us want to get from Dartmouth rather than give to her is repugnant. He needs to spend some time getting to know his opponents better. And I speak for many I have come to know, not just myself... petition trustees, petition trustee candiates, members of the prior "outside" AoA committee, etc.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 7/21/2010 9:26 AM
There is nothing "repugnant" about the characterization. I thought alumni said they filed the lawsuit to get from Dartmouth the right to elect half of the elected trustees.

By Scott, at 7/21/2010 10:52 AM
That is incorrect.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 7/22/2010 8:12 AM
Well, to "maintain" the right, or whatever spin you want to add. The point is that they thought Dartmouth owed them something under a contract. They were not finding ways to give to Dartmouth.

By Scott, at 7/22/2010 9:29 AM
That is also arguably incorrect.

Remember I am one of the "they" so I have some knowledge of what I speak. Scott is not and thus does not.

Please return this thread to John's question and comments on David's answer/proposal.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 7/22/2010 9:41 PM
Tim should return this thread to John's question and comments on David's answer/proposal and stop accusing fellow alumni of repugnance.

Here's my proposal: drop the petition process. As I understand it, it was not introduced until the 1990s. So it's certainly not a part of the 1891 agreement...

By Scott, at 7/23/2010 9:19 AM
Two amusing things about this blog:

1) The complete and utter silence about the prominent deletion of legitimate, non-abusive comments (such as my first post in this thread, which started the discussion), while at the same time putting up a full entry whinging about how one particular Dartmouth-themed blog doesn't allow comments at all.

2) Although this thread was created by the president of the AoA, ostensibly looking for common ground between the HI and DU, he quietly refuses to approach the leaders of those two groups in his capacity as president to see if they are open to any sort of "peace process".

Ok, so the first is slightly amusing in an ironic sort of way, while the second is just sad. Sorry about that.

But, seriously--John, please contact both the DU and the HI to see what their reactions are to your "mutual disarmament" proposal and my "college-provided campaign site" proposal, and consider posting the results here as a new thread--I'd love to see some forward movement on this issue.

By David Gale, at 8/02/2010 7:05 AM
David:

First, I have no idea what happened to your original comment. It looked to me like you removed it (comment removed by author?). I certainly did not. If you still have it, please repeat it, as no one here intended to delete it.

Second, please know that I have already reached out to the leadership of both DU and HI repeatedly in connection with the work done by our Election Reform Study Committee on campaign finance reform. Whereas DU was forthcoming with its responses to our inquiries, HI refused to respond to any of our several efforts to talk to them (him). That's just their (his) style, apparently.

By John Mathias, at 8/02/2010 8:17 AM
John,

If you look at Google's cache (hadn't thought to check that before this), you'll see that my original post existed on July 19th, preceding the current "This post has been removed by the author." comment. I noticed that my comment had been removed on July 20th, so someone with administrator privileges removed it on the 19th or early on the 20th. (Also, comparing to the cached version, it appears I was incorrect in my 7/20 posting when I believed that "several" of my comments had been removed; the only one that appears to have disappeared is, in fact, the first one.)

I'll go ahead and repost it below.

By David Gale, at 8/02/2010 9:55 AM
This comment was originally posted at 3:30PM on 4/19/2010, but has since been removed by an administrator for unknown reasons.

John,

I'll start by saying that I've more or less given up on alumni politics, as the trustees have decided to sideline alumni sentiment and the Council and the Association leadership have quietly agreed to allow us to be sidelined. Since my involvement, or lack thereof, has no chance of impacting the system at all--at least, until I earn enough that I can buy a charter trustee seat by making a six- or seven- figure donation to the college--I see little to no point in being involved, especially given the vitriol I faced when I was active.

That said, I'd like to respond to these two thoughts, as they go largely to the heart of the issues in alumni Trustee elections.

Your first implies that we should be concerned that we're losing good candidates because campaigns have "unrestricted free speech", and that we should be concerned about this. My response is simple: how can anyone expect to restrict free speech in this age, where the internet allows anyone to instantly set up a soapbox for free, often with no tracking and source verification? If candidates were not allowed to speak for themselves, others would create campaigns for them, and these campaigns would not be controlled by the candidate--so even if the candidate deplores negative campaigning, his/her supporters (or detractors posing as supporters in order to cast them in a negative light) could run extremely vitriolic campaigns--all while the candidate himself claims (rightly or not) to be innocent of the negativity. Clearly the opposite of what your stated goal is. A far better model would be to give the candidates a central location where they can set up official campaign sites, saying whatever they want (eliminating the need for supporter-created websites), and letting the voters decide for themselves if they like the candidate's views based on that information. Will this eliminate negative campaigning? No, of course not. But it'll come much closer to holding the candidate directly responsible than allowing them to hide behind proxies.

The second point is one that Tim Dreisbach and I tried to address during our time in office, but our proposals were never acted upon. Again, they largely boil down to having the College provide a central, unrestricted place for campaign websites, as well as allowing a set number of mailings to the alumni body, using the College's mailing lists. This would eliminate the need for candidates to fund these out of their own pockets (the latter being one of the largest expenses, I believe). I'm not sure what else candidates spend money on, but, again, if the College were to provide equal resources to all of the candidates, those other expenses could be eliminated as well. This would allow young alumni, or those who have followed less lucrative career paths, to campaign on an equal footing with those who have seven or eight figure net worths, without the need for funding from groups like Dartmouth Undying and the Hanover Institute.

Sorry for the long comment, but this is an important issue, and I appreciate your opening these questions up for discussion.

-David Gale '00

By David Gale, at 8/02/2010 9:58 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8/03/2010 1:33 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8/03/2010 1:36 PM
More "complete fabrications"?

President Mathias wrote above:
"I have already reached out to the leadership of both DU and HI repeatedly in connection with the work done by our Election Reform Study Committee on campaign finance reform. Whereas DU was forthcoming with its responses to our inquiries, HI refused to respond to any of our several efforts to talk to them (him)."

Being curious about this, I inquired and received the following this morning from John MacGovern:

"Dear Tim,

For the record, John Mathias has never written or called me or anyone on the board of the Hanover Institute, ever."

I also heard from Frank Gado, someone well-known to be another lead participant in the HI (indeed, a relationship some have used in attempting his discredit). Frank also states that he has received no outreach, ever, written or verbal, from President Mathias, and believes he would have known if such a communication had been proffered to Mr. MacGovern.

These are not simply two different interpretations. Either two of my acquaintances are lying to me, or our alumni president is dissembling to his constituents.

If at some time there has been a "hey DU and HI, what do you think about this" public statement by Mr. Mathias, I do not consider that sincere direct outreach, as implied in his charge that a dialog was offered and rejected.

David: The incumbents are in control. The current system of one party in charge and one discredited opponent works to their advantage. Why would they want any change? Alumni will love the "free speech" that comes along with uncontested elections. John keeps repeating his mantra that "we welcome free speech here". Experiment... suggest the start of a new discussion thread on any topic that might be uncomfortable for the incumbents, and see if they initiate it, as was done when you and I served as the moderators here. How about "Is our elected association president representing alumni with straight-forward communications... yes or no?" That seems a legitimate topic, as it concerns an officer, not an individual.

PS: New athletic director announced today. Bet no one gives the "nothing but negatives" Joe Asch credit for praising the search committee and the result.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8/03/2010 1:38 PM
Mr. Dreisbach:

As you may recall, I was Chair of the Election Reform Study Committee (“ERSC”), which I established as AoA President in the hope of achieving some kind of campaign finance reform last year. At my direction, we reached out specially to approximately 50 alumni/ae, including John MacGovern, as well as to all alumni/ae generally in a broader communication. We also held an open forum in Hanover to which we invited all interested persons.

At my request, the following email was sent to John MacGovern by ERSC member David Spalding on Friday, August 14, 2009:

Dear John,

Janine Avner, president of the Alumni Council sent an e-mail to all alumni yesterday to introduce the Election Reform Study Committee (ERSC) established by the Association of Alumni and to seek alumni input in its efforts. The committee members are:

John Mathias ’69, chair of the committee and president of the Association of Alumni
Veree Hawkins Brown ’93, first vice president of the Association of Alumni
JB Daukas ’84, chair of the Alumni Liaison Committee of the Alumni Council
Ron Harris ’71, executive committee member of the Association of Alumni
Ron Schram ’64, executive committee member of the Association of Alumni
David Spalding ’76, secretary/treasurer of the Association of Alumni

Yesterday’s e-mail laid out a four part process for this study:

Step 1: History
They will compile all available data and information relevant to campaign spending on past elections.

Step 2: Listening
They will solicit and compile input from all interested persons regarding Issues 1, 2, and 3.

Step 3: Analysis
They will identify any problems with existing Guidelines in light of information compiled through Steps 1 and 2.

Step 4: Recommendations
They will make recommendations to the AoA EC regarding any changes to the existing Guidelines they believe appropriate following Steps 1, 2, and 3.
As part of step 2,the Committee would like to hear your thoughts on campaigning in Alumni Trustee Nomination and Association of Alumni elections. Specifically, they would like to discuss the following four questions with you:

5. What has your involvement been in an alumni election at Dartmouth?
6. Should the outcome of Alumni Trustee and/or AoA EC elections be influenced by the amount of money spent campaigning?
7. Should candidates in Alumni Trustee and/or AoA EC elections have to raise or spend a substantial amount of money campaigning to have any realistic chance of winning?
8. If the answers to Issues 2 and/or 3 are negative, then what recommendations, if any, would you have for changes in the alumni-nominated trustee elections or other Association campaign rules?

Please let me know if you are willing to participate in this discussion. If you are, we will arrange to have one of the Committee members contact you.

Thank you,

David Spalding ‘76
Secretary/Treasurer
Association of Alumni

Two weeks later, at my direction a virtually identical follow up email was sent to Mr. MacGovern on August 27, 2009, this one ending with the entreaty:

The work of this committee is important. We sought input from approximately 50 alumni representing a wide variety of perspectives. We would value your participation. Please let me know if you are willing to be involved in this discussion. If you are, we will arrange to have one of the Committee members contact you.

Mr. MacGovern declined to respond to either of these two requests. By contrast, Joe Asch did respond. Joe also attended our open forum, after which the two of us met over coffee for more than an hour.

By John Mathias, at 8/03/2010 4:56 PM
I call on John Mathias to produce the evidence that he tried to contact the Hanover Institute for a conference of reconciliation.

I here confirm Tim Dreisbach's report that I have never received any such communication, despite my office as Secretary of the HI.

One must wonder what method of communication Mathias employs. Mental telepathy, perhaps? We learn more every day that Chicago is a very special place in American politics, so it may be that they have idiosyncratic means of negotiating.

Mathias's means of negotiating have already been evinced in his suppositious efforts on behalf of parity. See http://www.hanoverinstitute.org/lawsuit_11072009.htm Click on Exhibit Y

Mathias objects to application of the noun "quisling" to his conduct of office, yet the record shows it underscores a most appropriate analogy. His latest posting here indicates that he would eclipse that implicit simile with another: Ananias.

Mathias wants to appear an honest broker, working to bridge deep divisions, but in fact, he is anything but that. Not only was he backed by the ironically self-named Dartmouth Undying but he also has worked hand-in-glove with David Spalding to thwart democratic procedures. (Indeed, at his inauguration, he restated his position that "Dartmouth is not a democracy." Of course, we never claimed it was, but we have worked for democratic procedures in those processes that are declared to be democratic.) I would have a hard time coming up with someone who would be a more dishonest broker, as his asseverations contrary to fact amply demonstrate.

By Tom Paine, at 8/03/2010 5:13 PM
"I have already reached out to the leadership of both DU and HI repeatedly in connection with the work done by our Election Reform Study Committee on campaign finance reform."

OR

At my request to David Spalding, John MacGovern was included among fifty specifically-identified people invited by the ERSC to provide input to the committee (along with all other alumni). There was no need to reach out in a personal way.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8/03/2010 5:47 PM
Since Frank bought up the topic of credibility:

"Frank wants it again to be clear that there is no sponsor of the lawsuit"(EC Minutes Jan. 24, 2008)

OR

"Frank noted that he does not know who is paying the legal fees" (Oct. 2, 2007).

And now that Frank's back, I hope he will say whether he claimed a tax deduction on his $30,000 donation to the HI, the one he tried to have repaid out of the Association bank account.

By Scott, at 8/03/2010 8:02 PM
Scott: Reread the minutes... Out of his own pocket, Frank covered much of the cost of a membership survey done by the Association, not the HI. The Association never reimbursed him for donations to another entity, nor did he attempt to have it do so.

Frank/Tom P.: This blogging exercise, no matter the principles needing defending, is a bad habit, non-productive and, as we have discussed in private, unhealthy. I QUIT!

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8/03/2010 9:16 PM
Mr. Gado:

First, I hold out no hope of a "reconciliation" between the Hanover Institute and anyone with whom it disagrees. My ERSC communications with Mr. MacGovern (and Dartmouth Undying) were limited to the prospect of campaign finance reform, as are my posts and comments here.

Secondly, you may want to start considering the possibility that Mr. MacGovern does not tell you everything about what he knows and does.

Lastly, I've never met you, and all I know about you comes from what you write. I have been told, however, that you are actually a fine gentleman as long as you do not have a pen in your hand.

By John Mathias, at 8/04/2010 8:40 AM
Maybe I am confused, as Tim writes. I thought Frank transferred $30,000 of his own money to the nonprofit HI so that it could conduct the "survey" on behalf of the AoA. Then on this website he asked alumni to donate to the AoA so that it could reimburse him. I think the AoA EC voted to write him checks for about $13,000 in this effort.

By counting the HI payment as a charitable contribution, someone in this situation who was in, say, the 10% tax bracket could save $1,300 in taxes, if I'm not mistaken. A more successful fundraiser could save $3,000. Maybe I am mistaken, and maybe he didn't take it off his taxes, which is why I'm asking. I don't think anyone would want dual membership in the HI and EC to confer this kind of benefit.

By Scott, at 8/05/2010 3:46 PM
I long ago learned that there was no point in staying the mouth of rabid attack dog Scott Meacham with facts. Totally irresponsible, wholly ignorant, he has incessantly sought to blacken my name and reputation. Back when I mistakenly thought he was only misinformed, I sought to answer his calumniations, but in time I realized that it was a bootless expenditure of time.

Having now, at long last, reached the point where I despair of making any effective contribution towards Dartmouth's betterment through principled dissent, and having learned the lesson that my attempts to shelter truth from the torrents of lies and propaganda pouring forth from an institution that should have an overriding interest in truth is like standing under Niagara Falls with a $2.00 umbrella and trying to keep a match lit.

Perhaps quixotically--no, strike the "perhaps"--I'll make an exception to my resolve not to dignify Meacham's constant scurrility and respond to his suppositions that are, as always, unfounded and malicious.

Part I
Meacham quoting from the EC minutes (which, it should be noted, were written by David Spalding):

"Frank wants it again to be clear that there is no sponsor of the lawsuit"(EC Minutes Jan. 24, 2008)

If I recall correctly, my statement was in response to repeated claims by Spalding (and by Wright) that the majority on the EC was acting as the "agent" or "pawn" of persons or organizations outside of Dartmouth or of the Hanover Institute. Wright, in print even named ACTA as being "behind" the suit--a ludicrous charge also emanating from Spalding. The truth is that the EC majority acted of its own initiative and responsibility. There were no "sponsors." We NEVER solicited or received direction from outside of our group. UNDER OATH, I so stated in a deposition sought by Dartmouth College. If I lied, I believe I am subject to the charge of perjury.

At the moment, family matters have me under financial pressure, but I vow, if that blackguard Meacham has that least bit of honor to state as fact what he now slyly only suggests as inference, I will pursue, at the first opportune moment, legal remedy for his libelous defamation.

By Tom Paine, at 8/05/2010 6:43 PM
Part II
Continuing to quote in order to impugn my credibility:

"Frank noted that he does not know who is paying the legal fees" (Oct. 2, 2007).

I did not know then, and in fact I do not know now. The question, as repeatedly put to me, referred to who was supplying the money, who was contributing to the legal defense. In order to protect the AoA from any influence or pressure in regard to the suit from any contributor, I made it clear that I wanted a wall between me--as well as the EC and the EC majority who had voted for the suit--and that information.

Meacham and the propaganda machine have treated my knowledge that the HI had signed the engagement papers with Sullivan and Cromwell, thereby assuming financial responsibility for legal fees, as proof that I lied. That is vile nonsense.

The action of the EC majority to retain counsel, with the possibility of filing suit in sight, long preceded the signing of papers with Sullivan and Cromwell. As I told counsel at the start of our relationship, we had not determined how the money to cover their fees would be raised, though we recognized that alumni support would have to be solicited in some manner. Given that the College would not release its mailing list to the AoA for that purpose (or any other--so long as there was a majority acting in independence of the College administration's will), I requested the cooperation of the HI (which had an extensive, though incomplete, mailing list). Until practically the eve of the signing of papers with Sullivan and Cromwell, we had not determined whether we would set up an independent legal defense fund for contributions or ask that contributions be made to the HI, which would then issue the checks. The latter was the route we chose, because it was simpler and because of the speed of implementation.

obligations.

By Tom Paine, at 8/05/2010 6:56 PM
Part III
The HI never hid the fact that it was raising funds for the case. At a meeting of the Alumni Council, at which I had agreed to appear to answer any questions, John Engelman (I believe)stood up and waved a copy of the fund-raising letter sent by the HI (one of fifty-odd thousand)to "prove" I was lying in trying to hide the truth. (Remarkable! I was trying to hide what was advertised to more than 50,000 alumni!) Then Bill Montgomery read from another letter, in which Fred Fransen was soliciting contributions for the lawsuit, to be transmitted to the HI. I told the meeting that this was the first I knew of Fransen's involvement. (Although he had approached me earlier to say that he would be willing to offer assistance, I had told him then that I wanted to keep a wall between the conduct of the lawsuit and all donors. We did not subsequently discuss the matter until the Mathias EC took office.)

From October, when the suit was filed, through the next six weeks, I, like others in the EC majority, was asked who was "paying" for the lawsuit. The question was always in the context of dark presumptions that alien groups were trying to "take over" Dartmouth. As I have repeatedly and truthfully stated, I did NOT know who was "paying"--i.e., supplying the money--for the legal fees. The fact that the HI was collecting the money and signing the checks was too obvious to require "disclosure."

(One has to wonder why, in light of my frequent laying out of the facts, the misstatements of fact by the administration have never been acknowledged. Wright (and others echoing his line) issued wildly inaccurate statements as to how much the lawsuit was costing the legal defense fund, thereby suggesting that such large sums could not have come from the alumni. Why doesn't Mathias, who is now in possession of the records, come out with the actual sums paid to Sullivan and Cromwell--a fraction of the million or, then, two million dollars that was being claimed by our opponents? And a statement of how much the College, in its usual spendthrift ways, paid to defend against what its lawyer, Bob Donin, kept saying was "without merit"? It might be illuminating as well.)

To conclude his dredging of his toilet-bowl mind, Meacham states:

"And now that Frank's back, I hope he will say whether he claimed a tax deduction on his $30,000 donation to the HI, the one he tried to have repaid out of the Association bank account."

This is at least the third time he has used this smear. My personal tax returns are none of that creep's business, but, finally, I will reply to his ordure:
I NEVER INTENDED OR THOUGHT ABOUT TAKING A $30,000 DEDUCTION, OR ANY FRACTION THEREOF, ON MY TAX RETURN; I HAVE NOT DONE SO SINCE; I WILL NOT DO SO IN THE FUTURE.

Basta! I would like, at some point in the near future, to respond to Mr. Mathias's open letter to me, but I have a contract to fulfill with Cambridge University Press to write about early American poetry, and the deadline is fast on me. As CUP, unlike the board of trustees of Dartmouth College, respects its contracts, I, again unlike the Dartmouth College (strike that; University) Board of Trustees, will endeavor to respect my obligations.

By Tom Paine, at 8/05/2010 7:00 PM
PS To remove any questions raised by the last sheet of Meacham's toilet paper:

I did not write a check to the HI for $30,000 to cover the cost of the survey. I paid the money directly, with a personal check, to the printing/mailing house.

Evidently, Meacham is more practiced in the loop-de-loo arts of avoiding taxes than this outspoken scholar.

By Tom Paine, at 8/05/2010 7:12 PM
Thank you, Frank!

The only reason I asked the question (it's a "question," by the way, not a "smear") more than once is because you declined to answer it more than once.

In the EC minutes, when you referred to a mailing house whose identity you refused to disclose, I assumed you were referring to the Hanover Institute. You were still misleading alumni about the Institute's involvement and your involvement as an HI officer at that point, so it was a reasonable assumption.

I do think that your involvement in the Hanover Institute and your financial interest (you could arguably still be "owed" about $18,000 by the AoA) might have colored your impressions of this whole regrettable episode (the lawsuits, I mean). It is possible that you are not an unbiased observer.

---

I am surprised that you find two sentences from the EC minutes -- which you had an opportunity to object to and correct -- to be offensive.

I am not sure how my quotation of those two sentences could become an effort to harm your reputation. If they really are harmful, then wouldn't it be your own actions, as described in the minutes, that are doing damage to your reputation?

The reason alumni kept asking you to tell the truth about the initiation, direction, and funding of the lawsuit is that you were hiding all of that information. It took us a long time to learn, for example, that the only representatives of alumni to sign the engagement letter were both HI officers. When you were deposed in the second lawsuit, we learned that you were in a secret group within the EC called The Caucus that included or met with John MacGovern.

It turns out that you and/or the HI, apparently acting on your own behalf, filed at least one motion after the withdrawal of the lawsuit. That didn't come out until the deposition testimony was published, either.

It was not "common knowledge" that the Hanover Institute was writing the checks to the attorneys. If it had been, then you would have had no reason to state that you did not know who was writing the checks to the attorneys.

The Hanover Institute was obviously the sponsor of the lawsuit. I don't think it's even worth disputing.

And would a reasonable person in in a secretive and controversial situation like this really assume that "common knowledge" would take care of his reputation? Everybody knows that corporate and association officers with conflicts of interest should disclose them and refrain from participating in decisions where it might appear that they are acting improperly.

I would like to argue with the "principled dissenter" and "legal contract" myths, but I don't think they are consequential any longer, thank goodness. Maybe this entire discussion falls into this category.

By Scott, at 8/06/2010 5:02 PM

Monday, April 19, 2010

Is there any common ground here?

52 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous posts

Archives