Dartmouth Association of Alumni

Dartmouth Leading Effort to Combat Binge Drinking

2011-05-23T08:17:00.002-04:00

Over 20 colleges and universities have now joined a Dartmouth task force to combat campus binge drinking. The effort is organized by the National College Health Improvement Project (NCHIP), a joint undertaking between Dartmouth College and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

Below is a press release providing additional information. NCHIP's website may be found at: http://www.nchip.org/.

U.S. Colleges and Universities Join Forces
toAddress High-Risk Drinking

Colleges and universities from across the country are joining forces to address high-risk drinking on American campuses. This unprecedented group initiative—the Learning Collaborative on High-Risk Drinking—will use comprehensive evaluation and measurement techniques to identify and implement the most effective ways to confront this persistent problem and lessen the harm it causes.

“Close to 40 percent of college students in the United States engage in binge drinking, and that number has remained virtually unchanged for decades,” said Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim, a leader in the effort. “By collaborating on this issue, comparing our experiences, and learning from each other’s best practices, we believe we are much more likely to make meaningful and lasting progress than if each school attempts to tackle this critical issue on its own.”

Fourteen institutions have joined the Collaborative to date. They are: Boston University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Frostburg State University, Northwestern University, Ohio University, Princeton University, Purdue University, Sewanee: The University of the South, Stanford University, Stony Brook University, University of Wyoming,and Wesleyan University. The Collaborative will be accepting additional schools through May 20.

“Binge drinking is a serious public health challenge, leading to injury and in some cases, death, for hundreds of thousands of college students each year,” said U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “HHS agencies have tackled this issue over the years, strengthening the evidence base and identifying interventions that work to reduce binge drinking. The Learning Collaborative on High-Risk Drinking is a promising initiative that will implement evidence-based practices at college campuses around the nation. We look forward to partnering with college leadership on this effort.”

The Learning Collaborative methodology was developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in Cambridge, Mass., and is aimed at spreading and adapting knowledge to different settings in order to address a given problem or health concern. This model has already been used successfully hundreds of times in medicine and public health. Using this system, participants are able to implement changes quickly and determine which methods are most effective in their institutions. These experiences then inform the process and progress of the group as a whole.

A centerpiece of the methodology is its focus on measurement.Various measures will be developed to track the progress of the effort, in consultation with experts from across the country. Data will be shared and compared among participant institutions with the goal of both lowering the rate of binge drinking and reducing the incidence of the harm associated with this behavior.

Dedicated teams from each schoolin the Collaborative—composed of students and administrators—will convene for the first of a series of face-to-face meetings every six months beginning in June. In between those meetings, teams will share outcomes and implementation methods to assess which programs work, where they work, and why, focusing principally on the evidence-based interventions developed in recent years that have been shown to be effective. There will be three Collaborative learning sessions, in June 2011, January 2012, and July 2012, after which the group expects to publish its findings.

“An issue as complex as binge drinking is ideal to take on through this collaborative process,” said Lloyd Provost, an IHI senior fellow and an expert advisor to the Collaborative. “The key to a successful collaborative is to effectively combine the subject matter experts’ knowledge with the local contextual knowledge of teams on college campuses.”

Close to 2,000 college students in the United States die each year from alcohol-related injuries, including motor vehicle accidents,and an estimated 600,000 students are injured while under the influence, according to research from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. In addition, research has consistently shown that binge drinking often leads to sexual abuse and unsafe sex as well as academic problems.

“High-risk drinking by college students is not an issue unique to any one college or university, and the harms associated with alcohol misuse could be viewed as a shared concern,” said Dr. Jason Kilmer, a research assistant professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences and assistant director of health and wellness at the University of Washington, who is also an expert advisor to the Collaborative. “This Learning Collaborative represents a tremendous opportunity to share the responsibility for identifying possible strategies to reduce these alcohol-related harms.”

Cornell University President David J. Skorton said, “Every college or university president knows the terrible dread of having a student die of an alcohol-related cause. And every president’s first thought when a tragedy occurs is that there must be something the college or university could do to prevent these deaths. We all have methods of prevention that work some of the time. By pooling our ideas we have a better chance of finding solutions that improve our success rates. I am glad Cornell will be part of this effort.”

The Learning Collaborative on High-Risk Drinking is the inaugural effort of the National College Health Improvement Project (NCHIP), a joint undertaking between Dartmouth College and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (TDI). NCHIP aims to bring population health improvement methods to bear on problems affecting student health and plans to organize future collaboratives on other health issues.

NH Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit

2011-04-15T11:17:00.002-04:00

On April 12, 2011, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Brooks v. Trustees of Dartmouth College. The opinion is available through the following link: http://now.dartmouth.edu/2011/04/supreme-court-of-new-hampshire-decision-affirms-dartmouth-governance-reforms/ In Brooks, seven alumni challenged the Board's September 2007 decision to add additional charter trustee seats to the Board. The NH Supreme Court noted that Brooks was the second lawsuit filed about this issue. The first lawsuit was dismissed after the June 2008 Association of Alumni election, which the Court described as follows: "In June 2008, the alumni elected a new executive committee for the Association. In the campaign preceding the election, two slates of candidates ran against one another, the 'Unity Slate' and the 'Parity Slate.' The Parity Slate of candidates pledged to continue the lawsuit against the Trustees; the Unity Slate pledged to dismiss it. The Unity Slate won the election, and consistent with its campaign promises, adopted resolutions to dismiss the Association’s lawsuit against the Trustees." The Court ruled, among other things, that dismissal of the first lawsuit by the Association of Alumni barred subsequent suits by other alumni.

2011 Trustee and AOA Election Results

2011-04-14T01:03:00.002-04:00

Dartmouth College alumni have elected two new alumni-nominated trustees to the Board of Trustees and a new Association of Alumni Executive Committee. There were 10,572 ballots cast. Approximately 15.5 percent of the Dartmouth alumni body participated. Trustee Election Results The Dartmouth College Board of Trustees has elected Gail Koziara Boudreaux ’82 and Bill Burgess ’81 as new members of the board following a nomination vote by Dartmouth's alumni. They both will join the board on June 12, following Commencement ceremonies. Boudreaux, who ran for Vacancy #1, received 9,140 alumni votes. Burgess, who ran for Vacancy #2, received 9,016 alumni votes. Association of Alumni Election Results The following alumni were elected to the Association of Alumni (AoA) Executive Committee. Their vote totals are in parentheses. President:John (J.B.) Daukas '84 (10,432) First Vice President:Gary L. Love '76 (9,696) Second Vice President:Peter A. Bleyler '61 (9,656) Secretary-Treasurer:Lynne Hamel Gaudet '81 (9,759) Executive Committee Members:Gersh Abraham '58, '59Th (9,594)Mark Alperin '80 (9,614) Belinda H.Y. Chiu '98 (9,619) Jeff Crowe '78 (9,685) Ann Fritz Hackett '76 (9,671) Kiyoe Hashimoto '95 (9,640) Kate Strayer-Benton '05 (9,590) The vote count for the 2011 Dartmouth trustee/Association of Alumni election was administered by TrueBallot Inc., (TBI), an independent election administration company that ensures the security, accuracy, and impartiality of association and other types of elections. TBI was contracted by the Association of Alumni and Dartmouth College to manage all balloting, ballot counting, and personal email reminders. Balloting began March 9, 2011, and closed at 5 pm ET on April 6, 2011, for receipt of online and mailed ballots. For more information about the 2011 Dartmouth trustee/Association of Alumni election, please visit the Vox the Vote Web site.

Association of Alumni Nominating Committee Announces 2011 Election Candidates

2010-12-08T12:33:00.005-05:00

The Association of Alumni Nominating Committee has announced the following slate of nominated candidates for the upcoming 2011 election:

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS

President: John (J.B.) Daukas '84

First Vice President: Gary L. Love '76

Second Vice President: Pete Bleyler '61

Secretary-Treasurer: Lynne Hamel Gaudet '81

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Gersh Abraham '58, '59 Th

Mark Alperin '80

Belinda Chiu '98

Jeff Crowe '78

Ann Fritz Hackett '76

Kiyoe Hashimoto '95

Kate Strayer-Benton '05

Voting takes place from March 5 through April 6, 2011. Election results will be announced at the Association annual meeting in Hanover on Saturday, April 9, 2011. Further information on the nomination and petition process can be found on the Vox the Vote website.

Alumni Council Nominates Two Trustee Candidates

2010-12-06T13:09:00.002-05:00

The Alumni Council has nominated one candidate for each of the two open Alumni Trustee seats on the board. The nominees are Gail Koziara Boudreaux '82 and Bill Burgess '81.

You can see their bios as well as complete information about the voting timeline and petition process at the Vox the Vote website.

A Letter to Dartmouth Alumni--Especially Readers of Dartblog

2010-11-07T21:41:00.005-05:00

This excellent letter from Trustees T. J. Rodgers '70 and Peter Robinson '79 deserves careful attention. Click HERE to read it.

Dartblog Strikes Back!

2010-08-29T20:50:00.009-04:00

Exercising the right to alumni/ae free speech that this blog welcomes but which his blog strictly prohibits, Dartblog's author takes issue with criticism directed at him by yours truly as follows:

John Mathias,

Rather than spending your time reading the College's press releases, you might learn something from talking to faculty and students in Hanover. All is not well there.

As to my writing program, I would be happy to send you the evaluations authored in the name of all of the professors of the Art History, Religion and Math departments. They do not refer to the nine-year DEP program as "crackpot"; au contraire, it was effective, innovative and popular.

Why don't you take some time to put forward even a single substantive criticism of Dartblog's content - rather than just voicing generalized personal smears. If Dartblog were so inaccurate, it would not have the readership that it commands.

Finally, if you want to counter Dartblog, set up a "Not-Dartblog" blog and let's see how many readers you get. This is the meaning of free speech and I am not restraining you from doing so in any way at all. Just the opposite: I am sure your views would be entertaining to many people; sadly they don't measure up to what we are looking for on Dartblog.

In the meantime, keep reading, and please tell as many people as you can how awful Dartblog is. People want to hear your opinion.

Joe Asch '79
8/26/2010 12:53 AM

There you have it. His views deserve airing here, but mine ("sadly") do not measure up to what they are looking for on Dartblog. I might be offended if I were not in such good company with the entire remaining alumni/ae body, none of whose views he will permit as comments to his almost daily inflammatory anti-administration posts.

Mr. Asch can dish it out, but he just can't take it.

For those who may be interested in more information on the demise of his "Dartmouth Editing Program" (DEP), by which Mr. Asch proposed that Dartmouth hire high school teachers to tutor English writing skills to Dartmouth minority students, click here to see how The Dartmouth reported on it in May of 2007. You will see that Carol Folt, then Dean of the Faculty, stated as follows: "The faculty determines the curriculum at Dartmouth, and their recommendations for supporting writing at Dartmouth did not include continuing the DEP." You will also see that Mr. Asch had a heated confrontation with the student leadership of both the Afro American Society and the Native Americans at Dartmouth, who took issue with what they saw as his crassly political motives. He then did to them what he has consistently done to others who have disagreed with him over the years: He publicly accused the Afro Amercan Society President of lying the week before his graduation. Nice.

By this thread, I am taking Mr. Asch up on his suggestion that I provide a "Not-Dartblog" option to anyone who would like to speak freely in comment upon any Dartblog posts or to be critical of me. I particularly welcome the usual suspects, whom I encourage to speak out as often as they like. Free speech is a good thing, and our fellow alums are very good at making their own judgments based upon what they hear.

John Mathias

Why Does Dartblog Restrict Free Speech by Alumni/ae?

2010-07-20T14:51:00.007-04:00

The daily postings by the Dartblog authors are becoming increasingly inflammatory and hostile towards the administration of President Kim. In some respects, they are shockingly controversial. Yet the Dartblog authors doggedly refuse to allow alumni/ae comments expressing any disagreement whatsoever with the content of their posts. It looks to me like they are clearly afraid of alumni/ae free speech.

Both this AoA blog and The Dartmouth daily online edition allow alumni/ae to speak freely and to make unedited, unrestricted comments often in violent disagreement with the content of our posts. But not at Dartblog, where the opposite is true: No alumni/ae disagreement allowed!

Petition trustee candidates have in the past successfully run their campaigns on now discredited platforms deploring non-existent "speech codes" at Dartmouth and otherwise purporting to be champions of alumni/ae free speech. Where are they now on this blatant repression of alumni/ae speech and opinion, where an employee of a sitting trustee operates a blog which unfairly slams one aspect or another of the College on an almost daily basis?

So how about it, Dartblog authors? Why not start allowing alumni/ae to comment on your controversial posts?

Is there any common ground here?

2010-04-19T14:25:00.001-04:00

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!

2010 Election Results Announced

2010-04-10T14:26:00.007-04:00

There were 20,790 ballots cast, a new trustee nomination voting record. Approximately 32 percent of the Dartmouth alumni body participated.

Trustee Election Results

The Dartmouth College Board of Trustees has elected Morton Kondracke '60 and John Replogle '88 as new members of the board following a nomination vote by Dartmouth's alumni. They both will join the board on June 13, following Commencement ceremonies.

Kondracke, who ran unopposed for Vacancy #1, received 17,762 alumni votes. Replogle, who ran for Vacancy #2, received 14,176 alumni votes. Petition candidate Joseph Asch '79, who opposed Replogle for Vacancy #2, received 5,823 alumni votes.

Association of Alumni Election Results

Vote totals are shown below. (N) designates candidates nominated by the AoA Nominating Committee. (P) represents petition candidates.

President:

John H. Mathias Jr. '69 (N) -14,701
J. Michael Murphy '61 (P) - 5,254

First Vice President:

Veree Hawkins Brown '93 (N) - 14,522
Alpha Bond '52 (P) - 5,336

Second Vice President:

Douglas Keare '56, '57Th, '57Tu (N) - 14,679
Diane E. Ellis '08 (P) - 5,232

Secretary-Treasurer:

Lynne Hamel Gaudet '81 (N) - 14,825
Emily Esfahani Smith '09 (P) - 5,084

The winning Executive Committee members are:

Mark Alperin '80 (N)- 14,514
Marian Zischke Baldauf '84 (N) - 14,425
John Engelman '68 (N) - 14,490
Ronald Harris '71 (N) - 14,259
Kaitlin Jaxheimer '05 (N) - 14,279
Otho Kerr III '79 (N) - 14,279
Ronald Schram '64 (N) - 14,423

Other Executive Committee candidate vote totals are:

James Baehr '05 (P) -5,342
Bradford Borden '54 (P) - 5,110
James E. Guth '77 (P) - 5,384
Alan R. Orschel '61 (P) - 5,193
Richard Paris '71 (P) - 5,269
Stuart L. Richards '63 (P) - 5,378
Noah R. Riner '06 (P) - 5,191

Dartmouth Election Forum

2010-03-03T19:00:00.005-05:00

The biographies and personal statements of all candidates for Alumni Trustee and Association of Alumni Executive Committee positions can be found by clicking here or by going to www.voxthevote.org.

Candidates, voters, and other interested persons are invited to use Comments to this post as a forum for expression of views concerning this important election.

Voting begins on March 10, 2010.

View the Association of Alumni Nominated Candidates web site HERE.

View the Petition Nominated Candidates web site HERE.

New Hampshire Superior Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against College

2010-01-20T17:03:00.003-05:00

Here is a link to the Court's order and opinion granting summary judgment to the College in Brooks v. Dartmouth.

Petition Slate Files for Candidacy in AoA Election

2010-01-13T17:51:00.003-05:00

The following slate of petition candidates will run in the upcoming AoA election:

President: J. Michael Murphy '61

1st Vice President: Alpha Bond '52

2nd Vice President: Diane E. Ellis '08

Secretary-Treasurer: Emily Esfahani Smith '09

Executive Committee Members:

James Baehr '05
Bradford Borden '54
James Guth '77
Alan R. Orschel '61
Richard Paris '71
Stuart L. Richards '63
Noah R. Riner '06

All media voting will take place from March 10 through April 7, 2010.

Association of Alumni Announces Slate of Nominated Candidates

2009-12-21T15:50:00.004-05:00

Here is the slate of officer and Executive Committee candidates nominated by the Association of Alumni for 2010-11:

President: John H. Mathias Jr. '69

First Vice President: Veree Hawkins Brown '93

Second Vice President: Douglas Keare '56, '57Th, '57Tu

Secretary-Treasurer: Lynne Hamel Gaudet '81

Executive Committee Members:

Mark Alperin '80
Marian Zischke Baldauf '84
John Engelman '68
Ronald Harris '71
Kaitlin Jaxheimer '05
Otho Kerr, III '79
Ronald Schram '64

January 11, 2010 is the deadline for petition candidates to file for inclusion on the Association of Alumni ballot

Association of Alumni Announces 2010 Voting Period Timeline

2009-11-09T18:43:00.002-05:00

The Dartmouth Association of Alumni will hold its annual election for association officers and Executive Committee members from March 10 through April 7, 2010. Alumni will be asked to elect a president, first vice president, second vice president, and secretary-treasurer, as well as seven Executive Committee members. Alumni can vote by paper ballot or online.

The results of the election will be announced at the association annual meeting in Hanover, NH, on Saturday, April 10, 2010.

The Executive Committee will announce its nominated slate of candidates by December 21, 2009. Petition candidates have until January 11 to submit a petition with 50 Dartmouth alumni signatures for inclusion on the Association of Alumni ballot.

The deadline to submit signed petitions to place amendments to the association constitution on the ballot is December 10. For more information, please review the election guidelines or contact Lynne Gaudet at (603) 646-3929.

Here is the Voting Period Timeline:

December 10, 2009: Deadline to submit petitions to the Association of Alumni Executive Committee for association constitution amendments

December 21, 2009: Association of Alumni announces slate of nominated candidates and proposed association constitution amendments

January 11, 2010: Deadline for petition candidates to file for inclusion on the Association of Alumni ballot

March 10, 2010: All-media voting opens

April 7, 2010: All-media voting closes at 5 pm, Eastern Daylight Time

April 10, 2010: Association of Alumni annual meeting in Hanover; election results are announced

AoA EC Approves ERSC Report and Amends Nomination and Balloting Guidelines Accordingly

2009-10-29T19:29:00.003-04:00

The Association of Alumni Executive Committee has approved the final report of its Election Reform Study Committee (ERSC), changing only originally recommended general guiding principle (D) to make it applicable to all candidates and revising alumni trustee balloting guidelines to conform both with the report's two recommended changes and with the recent constitutional amendment.

The revised alumni trustee nomination and balloting guidelines are posted at http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/default.aspx?id=1758 with links to three exhibit pieces.

Election Reform Study Committee Submits Report to AoA Executive Committee

2009-10-15T14:38:00.002-04:00

Here is the report submitted by the Election Reform Study Committee to the full AoA Executive Committee. No action will be taken on this report until the next meeting of the AoA EC, which has been set for October 22.

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

Dartmouth Ranked #1 at Undergraduate Teaching

2009-08-24T19:00:00.004-04:00

The 2010 US News and World Report rankings are out with Dartmouth at an overall #11. However, this year they added a feature on the top 20 "national universities" that have the best undergraduate teaching. Dartmouth ranked first, followed by Princeton, Yale and Stanford.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-ut-rank

Since Dartmouth's core mission is undergraduate teaching, this reflects quite well on our faculty and administration.

Here is the entire list:

Best Colleges: Undergraduate Teaching at National Universities
Best Undergraduate Teaching

Dartmouth College
Hanover, NH
Rank 1
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ
Rank 2
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Rank 3
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
Rank 4
University of Maryland--Baltimore County
Baltimore, MD
Rank 4
Brown University
Providence, RI
Rank 6
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, VA
Rank 6
Duke University
Durham, NC
Rank 8
Miami University--Oxford
Oxford, OH
Rank 8
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN
Rank 8
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH
Rank 11
Howard University
Washington, DC
Rank 11
Rice University
Houston, TX
Rank 11
University of California--Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
Rank 11
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL
Rank 11
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor, MI
Rank 11
University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC
Rank 11
University of St. Thomas
St. Paul, MN
Rank 11
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, NC
Rank 11

John Mathias

Election Reform Open Forum to be held on September 12

2009-08-21T07:57:00.006-04:00

As announced in the previous post, our Election Reform Study Committee (ERSC) is in the process of gathering information and feedback pertaining to potential campaign reform in elections of alumni-nominated trustees and AoA EC members. We have already received many alumni responses via email and as the result of our personal outreach efforts. In an additional effort to promote discussion, the ERSC will hold an open forum in Hanover on Saturday, September 12th at 11 AM in 105 Dartmouth Hall. We invite all interested persons to join us at this forum and to provide input on this very important topic.

John Mathias

Election Reform Study Committee formed to examine campaign spending issues.

2009-08-13T09:58:00.009-04:00

The Association of Alumni Executive Committee (AoA EC) has formed an Election Reform Study Committee (ERSC) to examine potential campaign reform in elections of alumni-nominated trustees and AoA EC members.

The ERSC will address the following issues:

Issue 1: Should the outcome of alumni trustee and/or AoA EC elections be influenced by the amount of money spent campaigning?

Issue 2: 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?

Issue 3: If the answers to Issues 1 and/or 2 are negative, then should any changes be made to the AoA and/or AoA EC Election Guidelines?

The ERSC will engage in the following four-step process:

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

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

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

Step 4: Recommendations We will make recommendations to the AoA EC regarding any changes to the existing Guidelines we believe appropriate following Steps 1, 2, and 3.

The current Guidelines for alumni nominated trustee elections are here: http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/default.aspx?id=259

The current Guidelines for AoA EC elections are here: http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/media/AlumniAssoc/aoarevguidelinesv1nov08.pdf

The members of the ERSC are: John Mathias, Veree Hawkins Brown, Ron Schram, J.B. Daukas, Ron Harris, and David Spalding.

The ERSC will be affirmatively reaching out to alumni as well as conducting an open session in Hanover on a date to be announced shortly. We invite input from all interested persons on this important project.

John Mathias

Election Reform Amendment Passes!

2009-05-09T18:05:00.002-04:00

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

Dr. Jim Yong Kim Appointed 17th President of Dartmouth College

2009-03-02T14:17:00.002-05:00

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

Challenging Times

2009-01-23T17:15:00.003-05:00

The e-mail below went out yesterday from Provost Barry Scherr and Executive VP for Finance and Administration Adam Keller. Your AoA Executive Committee renews its call for all alumni/ae to unite behind the College and its administration as they work their way through these very challenging times. Let's help in every way we can.

January 22, 2009

Dear Members of the Dartmouth Community,

Our intent in writing to you today is to update you on the economic situation of the College, as well as the status of our process to reduce expenses while we protect our highest priorities.

Just last week, President Jim Wright reminded us while "the state of the College is strong," we are engaged in the challenge of significantly curtailing expenses to compensate for a decline in endowment income due to the worldwide economic crisis. In a Jan. 12 letter accompanying President Wright's 10-year report, he outlined our priorities: "We are taking pains to protect the strength of our faculty and the overall educational experience of students, to maintain a full financial aid program that preserves access to Dartmouth regardless of a student's financial means, and to minimize the negative impact on our administration and professional staff."

When we last wrote to you in November, our first-quarter decline through September was 6 percent. We now estimate that the investment return on the Dartmouth endowment will show a loss of 18 percent (excluding a current valuation of the private equity portfolio) since the start of our fiscal year in July through December 2008. The market value of the Dartmouth endowment was $3 billion (down by $700 million) at the end of that time period. We continue to fund approximately 35 percent of the College-only operating budget through endowment distributions, and we do not have additional revenue sources that can replace this level of support. Our three professional schools are affected too, with varying degrees of dependence on distributions from the endowment to support their operating budgets.

We anticipate that some of our endowment investments will continue to show losses and that many of our generous donors will be unable to give at the same levels for some time to come. For more detail on the performance of the Dartmouth endowment, please read the interview with David Russ, our chief investment officer, posted at our new Budget Communications website (http://budget.dartmouth.edu).

President Wright has charged us with leading a process to identify budget reductions of $40 million from a $460 million College-only budget. On an institution-wide basis, including our three professional schools, we expect to reduce more than $60 million from a $700 million budget. We have involved the entire Dartmouth community in a process to carefully identify areas where we can cut expenses while protecting our highest priorities.

We have acted on a number of suggestions for savings submitted by the Dartmouth community (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~finance/communications/finance_budget/submissions/index.html). Employees suggested that we offer a retirement incentive program, and that we ask employees to consider reducing hours in areas where we may decide to reduce levels of service. We recognize that this is not always feasible for a department or for an employee.

By the deadline last week, more than 70 employees had chosen to participate in the new retirement incentive program. Although we will regret the loss of these long-time employees and their institutional knowledge, these retirements will help us meet our budgetary goals, to the extent that some of these open positions will not be filled, or will become available to internal candidates.

Some employees have spoken with their managers about their own desire for a reduction in hours. The College will help employees who do reduce hours to adjust to the increased health insurance costs associated with that change.

The retirement incentive and reduction-in-hours programs, as well as the freeze on external hiring, are all designed to minimize the potential layoffs needed to reduce compensation expenses. However, despite our best efforts, we have come to the conclusion that, unfortunately, some staff layoffs are inevitable. We recognize that job loss, and, in some cases, a reduction in hours, will cause economic hardship. We are developing a benefits program for the employees who will be directly affected, to try to ease the difficulty many will face through this transition. We also recognize that as a major employer in this region, we have a responsibility to consider the impact our plans may have on surrounding communities.

As we prepare our plans for budget reductions, we continue to work closely with the College Budget Committee, which includes our vice presidents, as well as the Faculty Committee on Priorities, and the Student Budget Advisory Committee. We are now engaged in analyzing the impacts of proposed reductions made by division and department heads. We are tallying the savings from retirements and deferred building plans. We also are evaluating the size of our salary pool and whether or not we will be able to increase compensation.

In response to community suggestions, we plan to select six to eight "cross-departmental initiatives" that might present opportunities for even more efficient operations. We intend to name ad hoc groups composed of people working in these areas to develop comprehensive plans that can be evaluated and reviewed for cost-savings.

We want to keep you informed through this difficult process, and we welcome additional suggestions. Please check the College Budget website (http://budget.dartmouth.edu) for updates and feel free to use our anonymous form (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~finance/suggestions/cost-savings-form.html) to submit cost-saving ideas.

Dartmouth is operating from a position of relative strength in our academic and financial position as we approach tough decisions now. These are decisions that cannot be put off, and we intend to move forward to announce many of them in February. However, it is important that we be deliberate and strategic as we proceed to make these difficult choices. Our Board of Trustees will be briefed on the steps we plan to take and will be asked to approve a preliminary FY 2010 budget at its Feb. 6-7 meeting.

We understand that not only is this a challenging time for the College, it is also a time when some of you face difficult personal economic decisions. In order to respond to those most in need, we have expanded the employee hardship loan program (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hrs/benefits/loans/index.html). The Employee Assistance Program (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~eap/) also is available for counseling.

Thank you for your professionalism and your ongoing support while we work together as a community to preserve Dartmouth's academic excellence for future generations.

Sincerely,
Barry Scherr, Provost
Adam Keller, Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration

2009 Voting

2009-01-09T17:25:00.003-05:00

It seems like the last AoA Executive Committee election just finished, and here it is time to do it all over again. The following is the slate of officers proposed for election this year by the AoA Nominations Committee:

President:
John Mathias Jr. '69

First Vice President:
Veree Hawkins Brown '93

Second Vice President:
Douglas Keare '56, '57Th, '57Tu

Secretary-Treasurer:
David Spalding '76

Executive Committee:

Marian Zischke Baldauf '84
Cheryl Bascomb '82
John Engelman '68
Ronald Harris '71
Kaitlin Jaxheimer '05
Otho Kerr, III '79
Ronald Schram '64

Voting will take place from March 25 through May 6, 2009, and election results will be announced at the association annual meeting in Hanover on Saturday, May 9. For more information about the election visit www.voxthevote.org.

Appearing also on the ballot will be the proposed election reform Amendment to the AoA constitution simplifying and clarifying procedures for Alumni Trustee elections. Click here to view a full copy of the amendment.

One person/one vote head to head elections are the fairest, best understood procedures ever devised. By adopting them in place of the widely misunderstood "approval voting" procedures required by the current constitution, in which voters may cast as many votes as there are candidates running, and in which 3 or more candidates must be nominated in every election, we believe there will be no more arguments about election outcomes based upon contentions of "gaming the system." Furthermore, the pernicious "churn and burn" effect caused by requiring the nomination of two or more fine candidates who are doomed to lose will be eliminated. By requiring the ultimate winner to get a majority of the total votes cast and allowing for a run off election if necessary between the top two vote getters in races involving 3 or more candidates, we also believe the representative authority of the winner will be considerably strengthened.

Better yet, the proposed amendment will address concerns voiced by the Board of Trustees about election reform, and it will give your AoA Executive Committee and Alumni Council leadership a substantial boost in our ongoing discussions with the Board about increasing the number of elected Alumni Trustees. On the other hand, if the amendment fails to get the 2/3 vote required for its adoption, this will be a significant setback for us in this effort.

Your AoA Executive Committee urges you to vote for this important amendment.

John Mathias (for the AoA Executive Committee)

New Year's Experiment

2008-12-31T14:01:00.001-05:00

These are difficult times for a lot of people, and Dartmouth is no exception. The painful effects of college budget reductions will soon be felt by many in Hanover. The political mythology of “administrative bloat” is about to be demolished by the harsh reality of cuts into muscle. No one can be happy about this.

Here is my experiment: For a New Year’s resolution, let’s try to put aside our differences and join together in supporting Dartmouth’s administration as it addresses the substantial economic challenges it must overcome in the coming months. Let’s offer moral support to those who will be affected by a symbolic show of alumni unity in appreciating their sacrifices.

I’ll start by offering a hand of friendship to Tim Dreisbach, whose tireless devotion to Dartmouth alumni affairs deserves respectful recognition. Tim, I rarely agree with your expressions of opinion, but I admire you and would greatly enjoy the privilege of counting you as a friend.

Happy New Year to all!

John Mathias

Proposed Constitutional Amendment on Election Reform

2008-11-27T15:48:00.000-05:00

Here is a link to the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the Association of Alumni regarding simplification of trustee elections along with the explanatory letter to all alumni from Alumni Council President J.B. Daukas and myself. (Note: Comments relevant to this post begin under the previous thread.)

November 10, 2008

Dear Dartmouth Alumnus/a:

The number of members of the Board of Trustees nominated through alumni elections and the manner in which elections are conducted are matters of great importance to all concerned. Working together over the past several months, the combined leadership of the Association of Alumni and the Alumni Council has developed a proposed amendment to the constitution of the Association of Alumni. We sincerely believe the amendment will both (1) simplify, clarify, and strengthen the election process; and (2) help to advance our continuing discussions with the Board of Trustees about the prospect of increasing the number of alumni-nominated trustees.

The amendment we are proposing will:

simplify voting by adopting a one person/one vote procedure
preserve unchanged the ability of petitioners to run in alumni trustee elections
assure that the winner receives a majority of the total votes cast

With this amendment, the Alumni Council will first nominate either one or two candidates for each vacancy. Assuming, based on consistent recent history, that at least one petition candidate will thereafter also be nominated, we expect that this procedure will promote head to head elections. Alumni will cast only one vote for each vacancy according to the familiar, well-understood one person/one vote procedure. If there are three or more candidates for any one vacancy and no one receives an absolute majority of the votes cast, there will be a runoff election between the top two vote getters, thereby assuring that the winner will receive a majority of the votes cast. Visit www.alumni.dartmouth.edu/aoa/proposedamendment to view a full copy of the amendment.

In recent trustee elections, only 28 percent of alumni have voted. We believe that by simplifying and clarifying election procedures so that everyone understands them, we can achieve a broader participation in these vitally important elections.

Your Alumni Council representatives will be happy to respond to any questions or comments you may have about this proposal.

Find your representatives at www.alumni.dartmouth.edu/councilrep.

The Council will discuss the amendment at its December 4, 2008, biannual meeting.

It is our goal to promote an atmosphere of collegiality and mutual respect among all of us who want to see Dartmouth endure and prosper. We believe that our proposed amendment will advance this worthy objective. The amendment will appear on the Association of Alumni ballot in the spring of 2009.

We would be grateful for your consideration and support.

Sincerely,

John H. Mathias Jr. '69
President
Dartmouth Association of Alumni

John B. Daukas Jr. '84
President
Dartmouth Alumni Council

Dismissal of the Lawsuit Against the College

2008-06-27T12:19:00.002-04:00

This morning the Court approved our voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit brought by the Association of Alumni against the College.

John Mathias

Election Results

2008-06-11T12:09:00.002-04:00

Here are the election results:

President:
John H. Mathias Jr. '69 (N) (14,919)
J. Michael Murphy '61 (P) (9,705)

First Vice President:
Cheryl A. Bascomb '82 (N) (14,908)
Bert Boles '80 (P) (9,704)

Second Vice President:
Douglas H. Keare '56, '57Th, '57Tu (N) (14,909)
Paul Mirengoff '71 (P) (9,659)

Secretary-Treasurer:
David P. Spalding '76 (N) (14,502)
F. Marian Chambers '76 (P) (9,913)

Executive Committee Members
Marian Zischke Baldauf '84 (N) (14,504)
Veree Hawkins Brown '93 (N) (14,286)
John S. Engelman '68, Hanover (N) (14,414)
Ronald G. Harris '71 (N) (14,183)
Kaitlin Jaxheimer '05 (N) (14,221)
Otho E. Kerr, III '79 (N) (14,361)
Ronald B. Schram '64 (N) (14,560)

Other Executive Committee candidates:
Frank Gado '58 (P) (9,474)
Zach Hafer '99 (P) (9,486)
Alexander X. Mooney '93 (9,453)
Richard Roberts '83 (9,452)
Marjory Grant Ross '81 (9,397)
John Steel '54 (9,829)
Charles J. Urstadt '49, '51Tu (9,568)

On behalf of the newly elected Executive Committee, we extend our congratulations to the Michael Murphy slate on their well run and hard fought campaign. We would also like to extend thanks to all departing Executive Committee members, including Bill Hutchinson, Kate Aiken, Bert Boles, Tim Dreisbach, Kathryn Flitner Wallop, Frank Gado, David Gale, Marjory Grant Ross, and Alex Mooney for their dedicated service to the Association.

John Mathias

Alumni Engagement-- To What End?

2008-06-10T07:35:00.003-04:00

With today's Annual Meeting, your faithful moderator will end his tenure as a member of the Association's executive committee. It is a good time to step back from my involvement on these pages as well.

Our goal here has been to provide a forum where Dartmouth alumni can productively discuss topics of mutual interest. We have not succeeded, as I am sure readers will agree. That is not a reason to stop trying.

With that in mind, I publish below a opinion by Joe Asch '79. It was submitted to The Dartmouth, and ultimately appeared in The Dartmouth Review. It should engender some interesting, and hopefully productive, discussion.

One editorial comment: There is mention of a concern for Dartmouth trending to the problems of a research university. Mr. Asch has written several prior opinion pieces on the positives of research for students and faculty alike. Like myself, he distinguishes between "research", being the scholarship in expanding our collective knowledge, and "RESEARCH", being the chasing of grants by paid graduates who as TAs also provide faculty relief from teaching. We believe that the first form of research complements the teaching of undergraduates and their education in a vital way and do not oppose it.

******************************

By Joseph Asch Sunday, June 8, 2008

Little effort has been made to tie Dartmouth’s alumni revolution to larger trends in higher education, but an attentive reader does not have to look far to find shared ideas.

Numerous recent books by university presidents and deans have echoed the Dartmouth petition trustees’ central criticisms of the College: that institutions of higher learning are drifting away from their commitment to undergraduate education in favor of research and administration. Undergraduate students are the losers.

Frank Newman, director of Brown University’s Futures Project and a former president of the University of Rhode Island, sounds a note familiar to Dartmouth readers when he writes that “colleges have been focusing their energies on a form of competition based not on improving graduates’ skills and knowledge but on institutional prestige and revenues.” He states: “It is time to elevate the status of teaching to that of research.”

Harry Lewis, Harvard’s former Dean of the College, gave his book on colleges the self-explanatory sub-title: “How a Great University Forgot Education.” And books by Harvard’s former President Derek Bok (“Our Underachieving Colleges”) and Yale’s former Law School Dean Tony Kronman (“Education’s End”) both explicitly opine that universities have moved away from their core responsibilities to undergraduates in favor of research.

Finally, Richard Hersh, formerly president of Trinity College, has compiled a collection of articles entitled “Declining by Degrees: Higher Education at Risk” in which his essayists argue that the overall effectiveness of higher education has diminished due to a loss of focus on undergrads.

As a first point, one might observe that none of the above commentators could possibly be described as “ultra-conservative” or members of a “radical minority cabal,” to repeat the words used to describe Dartmouth’s petition movement in columns in the Dartmouth by Shaun Stewart ‘10 and Peter Fahey ‘68. Yet these mainstream academics have come to the same conclusions about what ails higher education as Dartmouth’s petition trustees (not to mention the thousands of alumni who voted them onto the Board).

Obviously these scholars do not have a “clear ideological agenda”—to quote from a recent, accusatory mass-mailing to alumni by Dartmouth’s non-petition trustees. Opponents of Dartmouth’s petition trustees repeat this tired charge ad nauseam, but where is their evidence? Might the petition trustees actually be correct?

The independent Lumina Foundation‘s recent report on “The Growing Imbalance: Recent Trends in U.S. Postsecondary Education Finance” describes in detail the continuing disproportionate growth of colleges’ “non-instruction related costs” (translation: bloated bureaucracies), though in fairness, it says that private institutions have done better in this area than state schools. Once again, the conclusions in this detailed report could not be described as “right wing”—even though the arguments in this study, too, are consistent with Dartmouth’s petitioners’ positions.

Regrettably, the concerns expressed in these books and reports have not led to a movement for change at other institutions. Unmerited self-congratulation seems to be the order of the day in academia, even in the face of decades-old complaints from business recruiters and other observers that students are graduating without a complete set of intellectual and practical skills.

So who will instigate reform in the future?

On a visit to Dartmouth in October, Harvard’s Harry Lewis pointed to alumni as the only possible driver of innovation. Alumni, he said, were a college’s sole, disinterested link to society. Like other commentators, he remarked that leaders throughout higher education were watching Dartmouth’s trustee and governance controversies to see if the College would be the first school to change its strategy and tack away from our rudderless sister institutions.

Of course, the reasons that Dartmouth could take the lead lie with our passionately loyal alumni and our unique, open system of governance. No other institution has historically allowed alumni to vote directly for such a high percentage of the Board. And no other prestigious college has tried to keep a focus on undergrads for so long.

On June 10, the results of the Association of Alumni elections will be announced. On that day, we’ll find out if the Administration’s supporters will succeed in pushing Dartmouth down toward the mass of average institutions, or whether the College will lead the fight to restore higher education’s focus on undergrads.

The whole of academia is watching. Personally, I’m betting on the wisdom of our alums to see beyond the name-calling. I expect that they’ll vote to maintain parity by continuing to cast their ballots for the candidates in the vanguard of thinking about higher education.

Association Issues Election Campaign Corrections

2008-05-01T16:56:00.001-04:00

At a meeting earlier today, the Association's executive committee voted to issue the following press release:

Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College Issues Election Campaign Corrections

Hanover NH, May 1, 2008:

The annual election of the Association’s leadership has begun. While the Executive Committee of the Association remains firmly committed to open campaigning and unrestricted speech by all candidates and their supporters, several incorrect, false, and misleading statements have been made about the actions of the Executive Committee itself and its members. We feel an obligation to set the record straight on those allegations.

One slate of candidates, Dartmouth Parity, has implied in their campaigning that the Association polled alumni on the question of whether or not to pursue legal action in defense of maintaining parity on the Board of Trustees. This is incorrect. The Association did conduct an alumni-wide survey in which alumni responded that they were in favor of maintaining parity, by a margin of over 9-1. This information was provided as input to the Trustees. After the trustees announced their decision to eliminate parity, the timeframe for filing an injunction did not permit a second survey.

One organization of campaign supporters, Dartmouth Undying, has stated that all those in the Association executive committee majority who voted for the lawsuit also “asked the N.H. legislature to enact a law to give the state control over the Dartmouth College charter.” This is a falsehood; only one of six spoke in support of this bill, and several others were openly opposed to the measure. The committee’s documented deliberations reveal a desire by the majority for non-involvement. A minority request to take a stand of condemnation was defeated. Dartmouth Undying has endorsed candidates opposed to the pro-parity petition candidates, and in turn some of these opponents are listed as supporters of Dartmouth Undying.

Dartmouth Undying has also published a statement that the same six members of the executive committee "still refuse to disclose who is footing the bill" for the lawsuit. This is also untrue. Funds for attorney fees have been contributed by the Hanover Institute, a fact that was made public by these individuals after obtaining permission from the donor. The law firm has made clear that it takes direction only from our designated liaison, and that individual can act only on the approval of the Association’s executive committee.

One member of the Executive Committee, the president, recently sent an email to all alumni using Association letterhead, criticizing a letter from six of his fellow members. Because they had also used Association letterhead, he falsely claimed their letter “purported to be from the Association” without there having been a formal vote. There was no such representation in the letter, which was explicitly signed by the six senders. President Hutchinson’s letter was also sent without formal review or approval. A recent letter by twelve Dartmouth Trustees, on College letterhead, follows the same practice.

President Hutchinson went on to state that the Executive Committee made “one and only one” attempt to meet with the Board regarding the governance study. In fact there were many attempts to interact with the Board. Our formal letter of May 30 received no response. Written inputs from individual committee members received no response other than a courtesy acknowledgement of receipt. Chairman Haldeman met in-person only with president Hutchinson, having been informed that our president did not represent the opinions of the committee majority. One teleconference did occur during the last week in August, involving two trustees, but the committee was informed that the governance recommendations were essentially complete; there was no sit-down working session to consider alternatives. Shortly after the trustee decision was announced, several executive committee members made personal overtures to various Board members suggesting legal action would be held in abeyance, if the Board would postpone implementation of their plan during a mediation process. These overtures were rejected.

We hope the above provides clarification specific to the actions of the executive committee. On behalf of the entire Association, we encourage all alumni to participate in these elections, with an informed and thoughtful mind. A high turnout percentage will demonstrate the engagement of Dartmouth alumni in the College they love. A majority mandate, one way or the other, will be a major step towards a constructive future.

Former Lecturer Threatens Lawsuit

2008-04-28T15:07:00.003-04:00

Note: This post is not directly related to the Association, but regards a situation which may be of interest to alumni. Also, the Executive Committee has not discussed this issue, and so does not currently have an official position on it.

A former lecturer, Priya Venkatesan ‘90, (not a professor, contrary to the headline) has threatened to sue the College, potentially naming several of her former students as co-defendants, for harassment and discrimination. She is also apparently looking to write a "tell-all" book in which she will name the students involved.

Voting Begins Monday

2008-04-24T11:28:00.003-04:00

The voting period for the 2008 Association Executive Committee elections begins this coming Monday, April 28th, and will continue through Thursday, June 5th. Votes may be cast electronically or by paper; the paper ballot will have precedence if both options are used. There will also be a final chance for alumni to vote at the Annual Meeting on June 10th.

There is one constitutional amendment which will be voted on, which requires a two-thirds majority for adoption.

All alumni are encouraged to peruse the candidate statements, which are available on the voxthevote.org website, before deciding how to vote.

Candidate Bios and Statements

2008-03-24T13:21:00.002-04:00

The biographies and statements provided by each of the candidates for this year's Association Executive Committee have been posted at voxthevote.org. Alumni are encouraged to read through them.

Voting will be from April 28th to June 5th.

The Search for a New President

2008-03-13T10:34:00.003-04:00

The search for a new president is gearing up. Students have already begun to voice their thoughts on the process, as seen in a recent opinion by the Dartmouth editorial board, copied here. Alumni may wish to comment on this or share their own views.

****************************************

Verbum Ultimum: An Effective Search Committee
By THE DARTMOUTH EDITORIAL BOARD, Published on Friday, March 07, 2008

After its quarterly meeting last weekend, The Dartmouth Board of Trustees’ announced that trustee Al Mulley ‘70 will lead the search committee for Dartmouth’s 17th president. The search falls at a time of highly publicized conflict about the College, after four years of turmoil surrounding alumni governance, which has now reached a fever pitch. At the same time, Dartmouth finds itself in a period of sleepy stagnancy. The College is plagued by administrative bloat, a shortage of faculty in the most popular departments, and the neglect of student interests and concerns in light of the explosive — and expensive — battle for control and popular support between the College’s supporters and alumni critical of the College.

What Dartmouth needs is a breath of fresh air — a president who can appeal to, and rise above, the competing alumni factions while invigorating a tired system with new ideas and a fresh take on a staid institution. Just as Dartmouth’s students should expect to be challenged, so should its administration and practices. The only way to bring in a driven and innovative leader is to structure the search committee with an emphasis on true, ideological diversity among its members.

The upcoming search for Dartmouth’s president will likely be the most contentious and exposed search process in the College’s history; no matter what, it will be criticized. With that in mind, those selecting the committee members should give up now on any notion of bland political appointments.

The committee must represent a broad range of interests; this should not be a group of sycophantic yes-men who all contently agree on the future of the school. A petition trustee should be on the Board. So should a pro-Wright administrator. The selection of students should not be reduced to a checklist of token campus figureheads who fill a politically correct quota but add little to the broader discussion of what’s best for the entire Dartmouth community. Professors should represent a mix of young and old, College veterans and newcomers.

We need a group of spirited students, faculty, administrators and alumni who are dedicated to and knowledgeable about the College, but who bring varying visions of its future to the table and readily engage in debate.

Wright’s charge was student life; Freedman’s, academics. What will the ultimate task and qualities of our next president be? Only a heterogeneous committee that has painstakingly wrangled over what is most important to every facet of Dartmouth life and the Dartmouth community can begin to tackle the task of selecting the administration’s focus and leadership for the next 10 years.

************************************

The last sentence is especially interesting, as the need for diverse opinions in "selecting the administration's focus... for the next 10 years" applies to the full Board as much as to the search committee. The trustee governance study concurred. Our disagreement is over which path results in more diversity... appointments made by a group of two dozen who chose their own successors, or elections open by petition to anyone wanting to run and having 70,000 graduates as voters.

Trustees to Discuss Undergraduate Education

2008-03-12T09:00:00.001-04:00

The Trustee Alumni Relations Committee of the Board of Trustees has announced that they will be spending the summer looking at the "health of undergraduate education at Dartmouth" and at questions relating to the college's "core mission and aspirations", and will be soliciting at least some input from alumni in interactive meetings in April and May. Since most alumni will not be able to attend these meetings, I encourage alumni to either post their comments and questions here for discussion, or to send them either directly to the Trustees; feedback sent to the Association Executive Committee will be forwarded to the appropriate trustees, as, I expect, will any comments and questions sent to the Alumni Relations office at Dartmouth.

I encourage all alumni to participate in these discussions.

Below is an e-mail that was sent to the president of the Association, and then disseminated to the rest of the executive committee, announcing this initiative.

Dear Bill,

On behalf of the Trustee Alumni Relations Committee I want to thank you for your group's input on the top topics on the minds of Dartmouth Alumni. We heard from multiple Alumni organizations and received a lot of valuable perspectives. The discussions themselves were informative and enjoyable.

While several topics were mentioned as important issues on the minds of alumni, two topics were clearly at the top of the list by a wide margin:

1) Health of undergraduate education at Dartmouth today (eg includes issues of emphasis on teaching, role of research, class size, enrollment, interdisciplinary cooperation, etc)
2) Have Dartmouth's core mission and aspirations changed?

We had a good discussion among our committee last weekend in Hanover and have agreed to proceed in the following manner:

1) As you know Dartmouth will be commencing a search process for our next President. Over the next couple of months a search committee will be formed, and while this search process is still in the very early planning stages, it is likely to involve significant outreach to multiple Dartmouth stakeholders, including alumni. The topic of Dartmouth's mission is likely to be important part of this dialogue with alumni, and thus we believe that this process is the best way to engage with alumni on the topic of Dartmouth's mission.
2) The Trustee Alumni Relations Committee decided to embrace the topic of "health of undergraduate education at Dartmouth" as our primary focus for the next year. We envision three broad phases of this process.
a. First, during April and May Dean of Faculty Carol Folt will meet with Alumni Groups in New York (April 2), Washington (April 23), Boston (April 30), Los Angeles (May 28), and San Francisco (May 29) to directly address the topic of undergraduate education of Dartmouth. These will be interactive sessions and should be a good opportunity for alumni to get the basic facts on this topic and directly put their questions to Carol.
b. Second, over the summer the Trustee Alumni Relations Committee will publish a report to all alumni that addresses the topic of health of undergraduate education at Dartmouth. This report will synthesize the facts/data/analysis on this topic, lay out the College's goals in this area, as well as summarize the key questions raised by Alumni at the sessions this spring. The goal is to get a common set of facts and perspectives in the hands of all alumni.
c. Third, this will provide a foundation for further dialogue on this topic over the next academic year. We envision encouraging a series of articles, podcasts, and other alumni roundtable discussions about undergraduate education. Ideally different alumni organizations can embrace this topic into their ongoing processes --- for instance a Dartmouth Club could orient one of their regular meetings on undergraduate education, or the ALC and Alumni Council can engage Class Representatives on this topic, etc. The ultimate goal is that by the spring of the next academic year, all alumni are better versed on this topic and have had an opportunity to have their perspectives heard.

Obviously you can feel free to pass this email on to your colleagues.

David Spalding will be following up with each of you to answer any questions you may have about our action plan and solicit any feedback.

Thanks
John Donahoe
Christine Bucklin
Brad Evans
Ed Haldeman
Peter Robinson

Members of Trustee Alumni Relations Committee

Comment Policy Change

2008-03-06T10:25:00.002-05:00

The executive committee has decided, in the interest of furthering useful debate and encouraging civility, to change the comment policy on this blog to no longer allow anonymous postings. Alumni are encouraged, but not required, to post under their own name.

A simple perusal through most of the comments on this blog will reveal the difficulty inherent in having anonymous comments, and the inability to easily refer to earlier comments; posts often refer to "Anonymous 9:45" in an attempt to identify the direction of the response, but this is obviously only a rough solution. It is also difficult, if not impossible, to identify how many different "voices" are participating in a conversation when they all are posted as "Anonymous". We have also, regrettably, seen instances where someone has posted a comment pretending to be someone else in an attempt to sow confusion and discord.

As we move into this next election period, it is our hope that this blog will continue to be a useful forum for alumni to debate the issues that they feel are relevant; hopefully, some of the candidates themselves will be able to join in the discussions. The move to preventing anonymous posters is intended to help foster a healthy environment for that debate to happen.

Final Candidate Listing

2008-02-29T21:15:00.005-05:00

Here is the final list of candidates for office on next year's Executive Committee:

President - John H. Mathias Jr. '69; J. Michael Murphy '61
First Vice President - Cheryl A. Bascomb '82 (current member, AoA EC); Martin Boles '80 (current member, AoA EC)
Second Vice President - Douglas H. Keare '56, '57Th, '57Tu; Paul Mirengoff '71
Secretary/Treasurer - F. Marion Chambers '76; David P. Spalding '76 (current Sec/Tres, AoA EC)
Executive Committee Members:
Marian Zischke Baldauf '84
Veree Hawkins Brown '93
John S. Engelman '68
Frank Gado '58 (current 2nd VP, AoA EC)
Zack Hafer '99
Ronald G. Harris '71
Kaitlin Jaxheimer '05
Otho E. Kerr, III '79
Alexander Mooney '93 (current member, AoA EC)
Richard Roberts '83
Marjory Grant Ross '81 (current member, AoA EC)
Ronald B. Schram '64
John Steel '54
Charles Urstadt '49

Additionally, the Executive Committee has proposed the following amendment to our constitution:

Article IV, section 1 of the constitution of the Dartmouth Association of Alumni shall be amended in its entirety to read: 'The executive committee of the Association will consist of eleven officers: the president, the first vice-president, the second vice-president, the secretary-treasurer, and seven additional members. Candidates for all offices will be nominated by a committee on nominations appointed by the president; other candidates may be nominated by petition from the membership. Ballots in the election may be cast by mail or electronic transmission.'

This is the only amendment which will appear on the ballot. It requires approval by a two-thirds majority of alumni who cast a vote in order to be adopted.

Update:
I just realized that I forgot to include the dates of the election. Voting will begin on April 28th, and end on June 5th; the annual meeting (which will include a last-minute opportunity to vote will be on June 10th.

Lawsuit Funding

2008-02-28T15:47:00.002-05:00

On the previous thread, Anomymous 2/26/08 10:20 a.m. asked that either David Spalding or I reveal what Tim Dreisbach made known in our AOA EC meeting of 1/24/08 regarding the identity of who is funding the Association's lawsuit against the Trustees. The minutes of the 1/24/08 meeting were approved just this afternoon. The following is an excerpt from those minutes:

"Frank wants it again to be clear that there is no sponsor of the lawsuit. Frank said we all know who is raising money for this, but there’s no need to continue discussing this.
Tim learned one of the people writing the checks. He stated that people have been using the fact that we have not been open about this, for whatever reason, to undermine our efforts. He introduced the following message from John MacGovern, president of the Hanover Institute:

'(1) The Hanover Institute is publicly raising money for the lawsuit.
(2) The money so raised by the Institute has been sent to the law firm.
(3) There may be others doing the same.
Cheers,
John MacGovern'

Tim asked the committee’s help with how to get this information out in the right context.... Tim made it very clear that this disclosure should not be taken as any indication that the Hanover Institute is guiding the lawsuit. Bill asked about the Donors Trust. Tim knows nothing about them. Frank was approached by Fred Franzen, of Donors Trust, a year ago at an ACTA meeting telling him Donors Trust was at his disposal. Frank told Fred it was premature at that time, and he has not spoken to him since Frank stated that someone, not related to the Hanover Institute, got Donors Trust working on raising funds for this after the trustees’ decision. He has been told that Donors Trust has not given any funds to the Hanover Institute. He has asked Williams & Connolly to ensure that any funds from Donors Trust are handled properly. Frank wanted to ensure that if Donors Trust is raising money for the lawsuit that it is being used for those purposes. Bill asked if donors are in direct contact with Williams & Connolly. Frank said no, it’s only the conduits raising money that are in contact with Williams & Connolly. Williams & Connolly has received funds from the Hanover Institute. As far as Frank knows, no other group is raising money for the lawsuit or writing checks to Williams & Connolly. Frank has received inquiries from alumni about how to contribute to the lawsuit and he has referred them to the group publicly raising funds."

Election Update

2008-02-14T13:54:00.002-05:00

The Nominating Committee of the Association has officially nominated the following candidates for office on next year's Executive Committee:

President - John H. Mathias Jr. '69
First Vice President - Cheryl A. Bascomb '82 (current member, AoA EC)
Second Vice President - Frank Gado '58 (current 2nd VP, AoA EC); Douglas H. Keare '56, '57Th, '57Tu
Secretary/Treasurer - David P. Spalding '76 (current Sec/Tres, AoA EC)
Executive Committee Members:
Marian Zischke Baldauf '84
Martin Boles '80 (current member, AoA EC)
Veree Hawkins Brown '93
John S. Engelman '68
Ronald G. Harris '71
Kaitlin Jaxheimer '05
Otho E. Kerr, III '79
Alexander Mooney '93 (current member, AoA EC)
Marjory Grant Ross '81 (current member, AoA EC)
Ronald B. Schram '64

Candidates wishing to run by petition have until February 29th to collect the requisite 50 signatures and turn them in to Mr. Spalding at the Dartmouth Alumni Relations office.

Additionally, the Executive Committee has voted to propose the following amendment to our constitution:

No other amendments were proposed by petition, so this is the only amendment which will appear on the ballot. It requires approval by a two-thirds majority of alumni who cast a vote for adoption.

Dartmouth and Financial Aid

2008-01-24T17:21:00.000-05:00

Posted at the Request and with the Opening Commentary of Eve Wallace:

Would it be possible for someone to start a new thread about the wonderful announcement Dartmouth made yesterday regarding financial aid?

I think this would be a very appropriate subject for discussion. Personally, I think it is a marvelous move for the college, and shows that they are confident in their financial future. The costs will be great but what they will get in return will be invaluable.

Dartmouth and Beta

2008-01-15T11:32:00.000-05:00

Alumni who receive the Daily Dartmouth are no doubt aware that the Beta Theta Pi fraternity, which was "permanently derecognized" in 1996, is in the process of reclaiming its frat-row house from the Alpha Xi Delta sorority, to whom it had been sublet by Beta alumni, and being re-recognized by the college.

This process has set off a storm of discussion (see also here, and most of the letters here) among current students, and seems the sort of thing alumni might be interested in discussing as well, if we can stop focusing solely on the lawsuit against the Trustees. To that end, I am opening up a new post, and ask that comments remain on-topic; there are plenty of other threads for discussing the lawsuit, the upcoming elections, etc.

2008 Voting Period

2008-01-04T09:28:00.000-05:00

This was posted to the Association web site on December 20th; it also ought to be noted here.

The Dartmouth Association of Alumni will hold its annual election for association officers and executive committee members from April 28 through June 10, 2008. Alumni will be asked to elect a president, first vice president, second vice president, and secretary-treasurer, as well as seven Executive Committee members. All Dartmouth alumni are eligible to vote. All-media voting (by mail and on the Internet) will be offered from April 28 to June 5. In-person voting will be available to alumni who attend the annual meeting in Hanover, New Hampshire, on June 10, 2008.

The Executive Committee will announce its nominated slate of candidates by February 14, 2008. Petition candidates have until February 29 to submit a petition with 50 Dartmouth alumni signatures for inclusion on the ballot. The deadline to submit signed petitions to place amendments to the association constitution on the ballot is January 30.

For more information, please review the election guidelines or contact Lynne Gaudet at (603) 646-3929.

Association of Alumni 2008 Voting Period Timeline:

January 30: Deadline to submit petitions to the Association of Alumni Executive Committee for association constitution amendments
February 14: Association of Alumni announces slate of nominated candidates
February 29: Deadline for petition candidates to file for inclusion on the ballot
April 28: All-media voting opens
June 5: All-media voting closes at midnight, Eastern Standard Time
June 10: Association of Alumni Annual Meeting in Hanover (in-person voting available); election results are announced

Dartmouth Alumni Magazine on "The Reasoning Behind the Suit"

2007-12-21T10:30:00.000-05:00

The latest issue of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine (January-February 2008) contains comments from a dozen students who do not understand why alumni have taken the College to court. It also profiles the six members of the Association executive committee who voted for this action, while providing no opportunity in this article for these individuals to provide alumni, or students, with any explanation. Instead DAM readers seeking more information on the reasoning behind the suit are provided with a link to this forum, along with a caution that this is not a “family-friendly” place.

For those of you who have taken the time to come here, and who apparently have the necessary courage to do so, welcome. The following paragraphs are intended primarily for today’s students, though alumni and others may also find them of interest.

Students and the “Lawsuit”

Dartmouth students want to understand two things: “how do I explain to friends why alumni are suing my College, and how does this entire governance debate affect me?” As reported in The Dartmouth, the president-elect of the Alumni Council believes there is no explanation. Let’s see if we can improve the understanding of people willing to consider the questions with an open mind.

Dartmouth is special in the role alumni have participating in her governance, through the selection of alumni trustees. The Board does not “run” the College, but it does set the strategic direction and employs the President to preside over faculty and administrators having more specific expertise.

How does alumni participation in College governance affect students? Recent elections of alumni candidates to the Board of Trustees have had a direct impact on students, regardless of whom the ultimate winners have been. We have seen improvements in policies regarding your freedom of speech, more attention to course sizes and availability, trustee-level attention to student disciplinary policies, and so on. Trustees have begun to interact directly in exchanges open to all students, as a result of the pressures generated by “the governance debate.” The publicity inherent in electing them has lead to more active involvement by all trustees, and their foremost interest is your educational experience. Those of us who believe in an undiminished voice for alumni understand that you very-soon-to-be-graduates also have opinions; your voice as students should not die at commencement, but should continue to be heard on behalf of future students.

Why is alumni involvement good for Dartmouth, and for her students? Perhaps the strongest argument for alumni participation is that, as products of a Dartmouth education, her graduates now living beyond the “Hanover bubble” are in the best position to assess the overall educational experience, understanding what was most valuable and what needs improvement. Most alums believe that a “liberal arts” education is vital, and is best delivered in a college environment that focuses on the undergraduate experience. This is not a condemnation of faculty research or graduate programs that distinguish Dartmouth from other colleges; it does have ramifications that the “College” must not succumb to the many pressures that force it away from its core mission. Some claim trustee elections and alumni involvement lead to controversy and that hurts Dartmouth. Progressive active debates on the most important issues of the day are inevitably controversial, yet the benefits far outweigh any short-term negatives. This was true for American independence and for the civil rights movement; it is also true for Dartmouth.

Why alumni and not professional educators? It is important that those who provide governance do not have a conflict of interest. The faculty, including those with great loyalty to Dartmouth, has potential conflicts with personal career desires. Similarly so for administrators, who have an obligation to do what is required by their employer. Students have short-term desires that conflict with the interests of future students… as a simple example, for spending more out of the endowment in order to expand current offerings. Alumni are different in that they are interested in Dartmouth without having a conflict of interest. (One small exception is those with interests in admissions for family members.) An interesting fact: the only professional academics on the Board were placed there by alumni petitions and votes.

What led to the lawsuit? On the very day alumni for the first time chose Association leaders in elections open to all, the Trustees announced that they were considering changes to the Board’s composition and the process for selecting its members. Believing in the value of alumni engagement, and understanding that alumni have a long-standing obligation to participate materially in the election of trustees, the Association asked the trustees that they not dilute their agreement with alumni, requested that the Association be included in discussions, and suggested that cooperation between the Board and Association would be the best means for alumni to be involved in solutions to related problems facing the Board. Some of us as individuals provided inputs to the trustee study group. Other than acknowledgements of receipt, there was no response to the specifics of our communications or a meeting with the Association’s executive committee. While arguing for an expansion in size, the Board took actions to eliminate two new seats already planned for alumni-chosen trustees, and reduced the percentage of alumni-chosen seats from 50% to 33% of the Board, excluding the President of the College and the Governor of New Hampshire. Their justification was that raising issues during trustee elections was divisive, and therefore that more elections are to be avoided. Can you imagine being that afraid of differing opinions? They further stated that the College would assume control of how the alumni were to conduct their own election process.

What is incomprehensible? Achieving the Board’s need for expansion and addressing the desires of many to improve trustee elections are both possible, without the draconian steps of eliminating alumni “parity” or usurping alumni rights to set the rules for our own elections. Yet the trustees never sat down to have this dialog. Members of the Association made multiple overtures to individual trustees to ask if they collectively would reconsider their actions, to address their concerns without violating what is deemed important to an overwhelming number of alumni. The trustees, understanding that legal action might thereby be avoided, refused these overtures. Having exhausted attempts for reconciliation, and being advised on the merits of our position, the Association had no recourse but to seek resolution through the legal system.

What do you tell your friends? I suggest you take pride that you attend a school that is strong enough to withstand open debate, a community that does not run from controversy simply because opinions differ, a place that engenders real passion in her graduates, who care about her present and future. We all have Dartmouth as a lifelong partner, one we love because of our unique understanding of her strengths. She is not a trophy wife, that we parade about to impress acquaintances based upon image. Alma Mater is to be loved because of the nurture she provides her sons and daughters, not for hot looks that are the envy of others. Focus less on the opinions of other people, and more on the Dartmouth that is miraculously builded within your own heart. Your true friends will understand.

Statement on Trustees and Alumni Sentiment

2007-12-05T08:26:00.000-05:00

The Executive Committee of the Association has voted to issue the following statement:

Evaluation of alumni trustees is properly the function of elections conducted by alumni.

For this reason, we favor and will strive to restore the historic right and obligation of Association members to determine whether alumni-chosen trustees should be elected to a second term, and to require that such trustees stand before all alumni in seeking re-election.

To further the voice of alumni sentiment on any matter, we favor and will seek to install a mechanism for alumni to place resolutions on the annual ballot by petition, similar to the process for petition amendments to the Association constitution, in order to assay alumni sentiments.

Concerning Trustee Zywicki and the Alumni Council

2007-12-05T08:22:00.000-05:00

Regarding recent statements, often quoted inaccurately and unfairly out of context, by Trustee Todd Zywicki, the majority of the Alumni Association Executive Committee has voted to issue the following statement:

The Association urges all members of the Dartmouth community to engage in dialog with civility and respect, but condemns the Alumni Council's censure of one Trustee's recent remarks as reflecting selective outrage out of political motivation, by an organization whose members simultaneously have, in their official capacity, issued condemnations of others in the Dartmouth Community that mirror the stridency of the remarks they condemn.

The entirety of Trustee Zywicki's remarks are available online.

******************************************************

UPDATE:

A message from Trustee Zywicki

The condemnation by the Alumni Council,
as published by the Office of Alumni Relations.

The Association is the Client

2007-12-04T22:02:00.000-05:00

In response to requests from several Association members for assurances that legal counsel for the Association serves only one master, the following statement is authorized by Rob Cary, lead attorney in this matter for Williams and Connolly, representing the AoA:

"Our client is the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College. As resolved by the Executive Committee of the Association, we receive our direction from its liaison as that individual is authorized by the Association's executive committee. The fact that our fees and expenses may be paid by others does not change the fact that the Association is the entity with whom we have an attorney-client relationship and the sole entity to whom we owe our professional duties in this regard. We understand that the liaison has not been authorized to direct any actions that will involve expenses due from the Association."

AoA Transparency Regarding Lawsuit

2007-12-03T12:26:00.000-05:00

This thread is initiated at the request of Anton Anderson '89"

Purpose: Discussion regarding whether the AOA Executive Committee should disclose the details, including funding sources, of its pursuit of the lawsuit against the College to the broad membership of the Association of Alumni.

Association Update to Alumni

2007-11-10T17:36:00.000-05:00

The following letter was approved for release by a vote of the Association of Alumni Executive Committee. We also voted to make approved minutes of all EC meetings available on-line on the AoA website maintained by Alumni Relations. Minutes going back through last May shall be available shortly.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear fellow Dartmouth alumni:

As the members of the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni
of Dartmouth College who are opposing the trustees' planned governance
changes, we write to update you on recent developments.

As you know, the trustees announced in September that they intend to
reduce from one-half to one-third the portion of trustees elected by
Dartmouth alumni (excluding New Hampshire's governor and the College's
president, who serve ex officio). The trustees also stated that they
may reduce the portion of alumni trustees even further in the future.

In the weeks before the trustees' announcement, ten of the eleven
members of the Association's Executive Committee issued a statement
strongly urging the trustees not to depart from the 1891 agreement
between the Association and the trustees, under which Dartmouth's alumni
select one-half of the trustees. The Executive Committee--the only body
directly chosen in an election in which all 68,800 Dartmouth alumni may
participate--declared that reducing the percentage of alumni trustees
would not be in the best interests of Dartmouth College, its students,
or its alumni.

When the trustees announced that they would proceed with the governance
changes notwithstanding alumni sentiment, the Association filed a
petition asking the Grafton County Superior Court for a judicial opinion
as to the propriety of the planned governance changes under the 1891
agreement. The Association also asked the Court for a preliminary
injunction to preserve the status quo, pending resolution of the matter,
and, in particular, to prevent the alteration of the board's membership
at the board's scheduled November 9, 2007 meeting.

In response to the Association's request for a preliminary injunction,
the trustees announced on October 26, 2007 that they will delay
implementation of the governance changes until February 2008,
effectively consenting, for the time being, to the relief sought in the
that request. Because the College action effectively delivers what was requested in the preliminary injunction, the Association has withdrawn that request. The Association's request for a judicial opinion as to the propriety of the proposed governance changes remains pending.

We hope for a speedy resolution of this matter. We believe that the
selection of one-half of the trustees by Dartmouth alumni remains vital
to ensuring that Dartmouth remains America's finest undergraduate
college. We also believe that those who love Dartmouth the most--its
sons and daughters--should continue to share responsibility for its
future. We again urge the trustees to reconsider the decision to reduce
the prominent role that alumni trustees have played on Dartmouth's board
since 1891.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Serious Reader Forum

2007-10-27T18:17:00.000-04:00

In an experiment to encourage thoughtful communication among alums, this forum is intended to be a place for serious readers to stay focused on truly important issues and ideas. To accomplish this, the initiator asks two groundrules:

1. That posters not be anonymous, but identify themselves by name and Dartmouth class. Note to newcomers... when you go to post, you can log in under a gmail account, or check the "other" box to identify yourself by name.
2. That every individual only be allowed 3 posts for the duration of the thread. So use your bullets wisely, either to put forward a comment or to respond to others.

(This idea came from someone who said the quality of academic papers would be immeasurably improved if faculty individuals were only allowed to publish 2 papers over the course of their career.)

The moderator will do his best to track posts; more than three from the same individual will be deleted. Posters are responsible themselves for keeping count and placing comments above that limit on the "Open Forum" thread that precedes this one.

Open Forum

2007-10-27T18:13:00.000-04:00

The prior discussion thread has devolved into many different discussions on a variety of topics. In an effort to get that thread back to the focus originally desired, this new forum for being created where anyone, even anons, can comment and reply to their hearts content on any topic of their choosing.

Creative Solutions Requested

2007-10-16T22:46:00.000-04:00

The following question is posted at the request of John Bruce '69:

How can the AoA and the Board of Trustees compromise or settle the lawsuit before it comes to trial, keeping both parties more or less happy?

Do any of you have creative ideas for a compromise that addresses the concerns of both parties, and suggestions on how such a solution might be brokered?

Is ACTA involvement healthy or not?

2007-10-16T22:39:00.000-04:00

This discussion initiated by Scott Meacham '95:

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni regularly comments on Dartmouth Trustee topics.

In July it provided thoughts on the Board's governance review, in response to an informal request by one member of the AoA's executive committee:

http://www.goacta.org/press/Press%20Releases/dartmouthmemo7-30-07.pdf

What do you all think?

NH Lawmaker Looks at Charter Legislation

2007-10-11T19:52:00.000-04:00

Scott Meacham '95 initiates this new discussion thread, wondering what are alumni opinions on the attempts by an NH lawmaker to revisit state legislation related to the Dartmouth College charter. The story was reported in the Valley News at:
http://www.vnews.com/10112007/4281925.htm

The article states:[S]tate Rep. Maureen Mooney, a 32-year-old Republican activist from Merrimack with no direct ties to Dartmouth, is drafting a bill that could revisit a 2003 vote by the Legislature to strip itself of any role in amending Dartmouth's charter. Reached yesterday, Mooney said her bill, if she decides to proceed, would "attempt to allow all alumni to be adequately heard with regard to alumni members of the board of trustees," the issue at the heart of the current Association of Alumni lawsuit against Dartmouth.

The Association of Alumni is not in any way connected with this effort and has no position on it. The same is true for individual members of the AoA Executive Committee. State Rep. Mooney is no relation to Alex Mooney '93, a member of the EC.

Are Trustee Elections Healthy or Not?

2007-10-11T07:16:00.000-04:00

The trustees have argued that having more elections are counter-productive. Many alumni argue that their elections of trustees provide a forum for raising issues, to the ultimate benefit of the College. Students question how all this govenance stuff has any impact on their Dartmouth experience.

What do you all think?

To open the discussion up, consider this extract from today's D, written by a student member of the Committee on Standards Task Force:

Perhaps Nelson was convinced to change his mind by the recent trustee election, which saw COS reform playing a major role with both major candidates disagreeing with Nelson’s decision and endorsing many task force recommendations. Trustee candidate Sandy Alderson ‘69, for example, supported the recommendations and wrote on his website that COS proceedings “are a source of distrust between students and the administration that can remain following graduation” and that delaying consideration of our proposals is “corrosive” to the “bond of trust that should exist between students and administrators.” Stephen Smith ‘88, the eventual winner of that election, also supported immediate consideration and adoption of our proposals. He wrote on his website that Nelson’s decision to delay their consideration until task force members have graduated amounted to telling students who have a reasoned proposal to the administration to “shut up and graduate.” We hope that Nelson’s reversal was not prompted by the graduation of all but one of the task force members.

The full article is on-line in today’s Daily Dartmouth.

A Message to Alumni and Alumnae

2007-10-08T20:25:00.000-04:00

This message is being posted by the six members of the Association of Alumni executive committee who have, after considerable thought, voted for the AoA to seek a judicial opinion, to resolve once and for all the issue of parity on the Board of Trustees. We understand you are tired of conflicting communications from all sides in this dispute, like us are saddened by the debate, and wish the controversy would “simply go away”. But we are prompted by the recent email sent to all alumni by the Alumni Council; we want you to be properly informed on our actions, our reasoning, and the legal basis of the Association’s claim.

The Council stated we are seeking “to stop the Board of Trustees of the College from … making nomination to the Board by alumni more democratic.” This follows comments from trustees themselves that they are “increasing” alumni participation by adding more seats. Consider what is actually occurring, and then pick your own adjective to describe these comments. The Board is adding eight new seats that will be appointed by the very small number of people who sit on the Board. They are reducing from 50% to 33% the number of seats that all 68,000 alumni have a voice in selecting. And they have stated that the College and not alumni will set the rules for how we alumni are to run our elections, until we alter our constitution with new election rules to their liking. Increasing alumni participation? More democratic?

There were alternatives the Board might have considered… adding 4 new charter seats and 4 new alumni-chosen ones, or 8 new alumni seats to match the 8 new charter seats, for instance. There would be no need to increase the number of elections, as the trustees offered as a concern, only in having more multi-candidate elections. Apparently they believe that the raising of issues during elections is fundamentally unhealthy to begin with. The Association was and remains open to addressing any legitimate concerns regarding the election process and “campaigning”.

We reached our decision as a last resort, having obtained no indication that the trustees would be open to discussing mutually-acceptable approaches. We did survey alumni, at some personal expense, and did find that of 4,000 responding alumni, over 92% believed that maintaining parity was a good thing for our College. We are unaware of any similar inquiry from the Council, who refused to endorse our communication of this alumni sentiment to the trustees in advance of their September meeting.

Our request for a judicial opinion is intended to resolve the dispute, to allow Dartmouth to refocus on issues related to her continued progress, and for you to return your attentions to your busy lives. We believe, as our forbearers did in 1891, that parity and alumni participation in college governance is vital to making Dartmouth the unique, enduring institution she is today. Without getting into the legal details, we believe there is a strong basis that the agreement between the trustees and we alumni is in fact “real”. Indeed in a prior dispute, led by some who now decry our action, the College prevailed by noting that both the trustees and the alumni had agreed to changes in the mutual agreement, so the trustees did not breach their part of it. How can they now claim there is no agreement?

For those of you wishing the full details, the legal filings are available online here for the injunction, and here for the request for an opinion and relief.

An extract from them reads as follows:

One Superior Court in New Hampshire already has decided the key issue in this case; i.e., that the 1891 agreement constitutes a legally binding contract between the Association and the College … The Court ruled that the 1891 agreement grants the Association the right to choose one-half of Dartmouth’s trustees ... In its final order,

“the Court sets forth the undisputed . . . facts . . . . One half, or seven [not the original five], of the non-ex officio members of the Board are nominated by the alumni of the College and are called “Alumni Trustees”. The nominees’ names are transmitted to the Board which must act to elect, or seat, the alumni’s nominees.”

The words at the end above are those of the Court itself, whose findings were based in large measure on information and arguments made by College officials, in this and related cases.

The request for an injunction is the only way that now remains to accomplish what we asked the trustees to do without involving the courts: defer seating new trustees until the dispute is resolved. We believe even greater harm will come to the College if new trustees are seated and the Board begins making decisions with a new and questionable composition. That is the path the current Board has decided to follow, in our opinion putting Dartmouth at risk.

Our recent action in response to the unilateral and precipitous move by the trustees reflects what we believe, and what we understand a majority of our constituents believe, is in the best long-term interests of Dartmouth College. That does not lessen the pain. For those who disagree, we ask that you at least respect those that have made, and those that support, this difficult decision.

Martin Boles, Timothy Dreisbach, Frank Gado, David Gale, Marji Grant Ross, Alex Mooney

Moderator note: At the request of the topic initiators, in order to improve the quality of discussion, this will be another thread where posters should identify their name and Dartmouth class. Anonymous posts will be deleted.

All We Are Asking

2007-10-03T16:11:00.000-04:00

It is totally within the powers of the trustees to end the needless “war” provoked by their unilateral action. The Association of Alumni is by no means “attacking” the College we all care deeply about. Instead we have asked, and continue to ask, that the level and methods of alumni participation in trustee selection not be diminished, while being very willing to address jointly any legitimate concerns about the actual election process, to insure a Board comprised of well-qualified individuals with needed expertise.

An Administrative email sent today to faculty and especially to students has suggested their school is under siege by a handful of misguided alumni. In one to three years, these students become alumni for life. The Association response, a last resort done with considerable reluctance and deliberation, is intended to secure for those students, and for all alumni, the continuation of a life-long right (and moral obligation) to participate in defining what they collectively think best for their, for our, beloved Dartmouth.

Let each individual judge the reasonableness of the Association’s simple requests, first of trustees, and now via our legal system. The following extracts form the “bottom line” of the filing papers:

1. Motion Conclusion:
The Association respectfully requests that the Court issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo by preventing the College from seating additional charter trustees pending the resolution of this matter.

2. Petition Prayer for Relief:
The Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College respectfully prays for:
(a) a declaration of the Association’s right to choose one-half of Dartmouth’s non-ex officio
trustees through the Association’s chosen selection process;
(b) an injunction (i) barring the College from adding charter trustees to its board, unless it
seats an equal number of alumni trustees chosen by the Association, and (ii) requiring the
College to continue seating alumni trustees chosen by the Association;
(c) an order that the College specifically perform its contractual obligations and promises by
seating equal numbers of charter and alumni trustees chosen by the Association; and
(d) such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ALUMNI OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE

2007-10-02T22:56:00.000-04:00

HANOVER, N.H.—The Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College has decided to seek a judicial opinion as to the propriety of planned governance changes that the board of trustees announced on September 8, 2007.

The trustees announced that they will expand Dartmouth’s eighteen-member board by adding eight new trustees to be chosen solely by the board itself. The trustees’ plan would reduce from one-half to one-third the percentage of trustees elected by Dartmouth alumni (not counting New Hampshire’s governor and Dartmouth’s president, who serve ex officio). The trustees’ plan also states that the trustees may consider reducing the percentage of “alumni trustees” even further in the future.

Under an 1891 agreement between the Association and the College, one-half of Dartmouth’s trustees are to be chosen by the alumni.

The Association’s Executive Committee believes that the selection of one-half of the trustees by Dartmouth alumni remains vital to ensure Dartmouth College’s progress, prominence, and usefulness as America’s finest undergraduate College. Alumni selection of trustees encourages Dartmouth alumni to take a lively interest in the College’s affairs and to devote their attention to its needs; ensures that the College benefits from the advice and experience of its great body of successful graduates; and ensures that those who love Dartmouth the most—its sons and daughters—have responsibility for its future.

The Executive Committee believes it has a duty to act in the best interests of Dartmouth College and its alumni, and it believes that it can best serve those interests by seeking a judicial opinion as to the propriety of the board’s planned governance changes, and by ensuring to the greatest extent possible that the responsibility of alumni for Dartmouth College’s governance is not diminished.

Formed in 1854, the Association comprises the 68,800 Dartmouth alumni. Its executive committee is the only body directly elected by all alumni.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A vote to issue the above statement was taken following the adoption of the following Resolution:

WHEREAS, the board of trustees enacted resolutions on September 8, 2007 that would reduce the proportion of trustees chosen by the alumni to less than one-third of Dartmouth’s board, and a committee of the board announced that the proportion of “alumni trustees” may be reduced still further in the future;

WHEREAS, the Executive Committee believes that the board’s willingness to diminish the responsibility of alumni for Dartmouth’s governance will ill serve the College by depriving it of the myriad benefits that alumni selection of trustees provides;

WHEREAS, the Executive Committee believes it is in the best interests of Dartmouth College and its alumni that a judicial opinion be obtained as to the propriety of the board’s planned governance changes, and to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the responsibility of alumni for Dartmouth College’s governance is not diminished;

WHEREAS, members of this Executive Committee reached out to the Trustees asking whether they were open to further negotiation on the issue of parity between the number of alumni-elected and charter trustees, and the Trustees said they were not flexible on this decision;

WHEREAS, a further request was made to the Trustees to delay implementation of their decision by refraining from choosing new charter trustees at the November meeting, in order to provide a chance for mediation, and the Trustees refused to provide assurance of such forbearance;

WHEREFORE, it is resolved that Frank Gado shall continue as Liaison for Legal Affairs (“the Liaison”), and that the Executive Committee hereby delegates to the Liaison the full power and authority to oversee and direct the work of outside counsel, on behalf of the Association of Alumni, to seek (a) a declaration of the Association’s right to choose one-half of Dartmouth’s non-ex officio trustees through the Association’s chosen selection process; (b) an injunction (i) barring the College from adding charter trustees to its board, unless it seats an equal number of alumni trustees chosen by the Association, and (ii) requiring the College to continue seating alumni trustees chosen by the Association; (c) an order that the College specifically perform its contractual obligations and promises by seating equal numbers of charter and alumni trustees chosen by the Association; and (d) such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Voting in favor of both the resolution and the statement-- 6:
Bert Boles, Tim Dreisbach, Frank Gado, David Gale, Alex Mooney, Marji Ross

Voting in opposition to both the resolution and the statement-- 3:
Cheryl Bascomb, Bill Hutchinson, David Spalding

Not Present: Kate Aiken, Kathryn Wallop

Representing Alumni Interests

2007-10-01T20:07:00.000-04:00

There is a confluence of actions directed at improving the communications between Dartmouth’s trustees and her alumni.

Importantly, the Board has created a new permanent committee on Alumni Relations, initially chaired by John Donahoe, to insure this important need has a center of focus among the trustees. John has already reached out asking alumni leaders for their thoughts on improving dialog.

Second, the Alumni Council is in the midst of developing recommendations for its own organization, and as a part of that is considering committee structures to facilitate this same task.

Finally, the leadership of the Association has finally recognized the constitutional duties of its elected leaders to represent the “general interests” of its members, who are in fact all the living graduates of the College.

This is certainly an area wherein we can all work together for the good of the Dartmouth, so it seems appropriate to open this discussion up for general comment and suggestions from all alums. To start things off, first we re-post a report by Rick Silverman ’81, current president of the Council, discussing its efforts to refine its “representativeness”. Then a post by Tim Dreisbach ’71, ten years older than Rick if not wiser :-) , on how the Association differs in its approach to representation, why both have relevance, and the implications for trustee interactions with differing alumni groups. After that, this thread is opened up for general comments by all.

The experiment of only allowing posts by people who identify themselves, by name and class, seemed to improve the dialog on another thread and will be repeated here. So no Anons. If anyone objects and has a strong reason why anonymity is needed on this particular topic, please contact the moderator.

Time for Women to Speak Up

2007-09-21T11:45:00.000-04:00

I've seen several (dozens of ?) posts back and forth regarding why women have not blogged here, particularly the women on the Executive Committee. Along with those questions have been some absurd, not to mention insulting, assumptions about what that "silence" means.

For starters, for me at least, it means I'm not much of a blogger, and don't have much free time to post my thoughts on line. But since some bloggers seem to think that my silence is a result of either my fear of speaking my mind, or my inability to create a coherent opinion for myself, it's time for me to be quite clear.

I believe the recent decisions by the Board of Trustees are reckless, arrogant, harmful to the College, completely dismissive of the alumni, and disloyal to the tradition of Dartmouth. I believe Dartmouth stands alone as the best example of how alumni and administration can work together for the good of the College -- at least, it DID stand for that, until September 7th. I believe it is foolish to emulate other institutions' governance when Dartmouth has been a leader in this field (it reminds me of those Supreme Court Justices who want to base their decisions on international law, rather than our own Constitution). And I believe the Board has been terribly misleading in their descriptions of what they passed, and what the ramifications of those changes will be.

I urge the alumni to speak up, to voice their strong objection to being robbed of our voice and being forced into a permanent minority on the Board of Trustees. It's disingenuous for the Board to say they kept the alumni-elected positions intact -- the fact is, they packed the court by doubling the number of Charter Trustees, and thus relegating alumni-elected Trustees to a permanent one-third position. I think it is shocking that the Board of Trustees would so baldly insult the intelligence and judgment of the alumni by stating that we cannot be trusted to elect the best Trustees for the College. What I think the Board of Trustees really meant is that we cannot be trusted to elect Trustees who will rubber-stamp the Board's wishes. In that, they are entirely correct.

Marji Grant Ross, '81
member, Executive Committee of the AoA

Admissions Preferences

2007-09-18T15:38:00.000-04:00

What are the preferences for alumni legacies? for Board families? What is proper?

These questions were under discussion in another topic and are better broken out separately.

Is the Trustee Decision Good or Bad for Dartmouth?-- No Anons

2007-09-12T21:26:00.000-04:00

By Popular Demand:

This is a new thread asking the same question as another... with one difference. Only people who identify both their name and Dartmouth class should post here. All other anonymous posts, done without such explicit identification, will be deleted as time of the moderator allows. This is done at the request of many who are finding the overwhelming anon postings overwhelming, distracting, and less thoughtful. This is not censorship, something claimed when this moderator attempted this once before.

Anyone who wants to post anonymously can still do so on other threads, and on this specific topic by linking to here. Please also take comments of the "can the trustees do this?", and "what are the rights of alumni?" varieties to the other discussion threads.

The moderator will copy here the identified posts from the prior thread, just to start things off.

A Statement to the Press

2007-09-11T11:02:00.000-04:00

Various news outlets have requested commentary by the Association of Alumni. We did not want to prejudge the trustees with a statement prepared in advance, and have not had a formal meeting of the Executive Committee since the announcement.

The following statement was released by members of the committee (a majority in fact, as noted) expressing their opinions. As noted earlier in the email message to alumni, a formal statement of position and courses of action will be made following thoughtful consideration by the commitee as a whole.

**********************************

HANOVER, NH -- A majority of the Dartmouth Alumni Association's Executive Committee has condemned the changes in the make-up of the school's Board of Trustees announced on Saturday. The statement echoes results of an alumni poll conducted by the Association in August, which showed over 92% in favor of maintaining the parity between"charter" (Board-selected) trustees and trustees elected by the alumni body.

As the Board's action on Saturday effectively wipes out an agreement between the trustees and the Association dating back to 1891, the Executive Committee is consulting the law firm of Williams and Connolly about its legal options. Dartmouth Trustees and administrators have already been advised to preserve all documents related to the Board's most recent action.

The Executive Committee had gone on record consistently in urging the Board of Trustees to maintain this historic balance between alumni-elected trustees and those chosen by the Board itself, called charter trustees. Frank Gado, an Association officer, said today: "The actions of Dartmouth's Trustees are more in keeping with the conduct of a totalitarian state than with a college dedicated to educating leaders of the world's greatest democracy. When you come right down to it, Dartmouth doesn't trust its graduates with a meaningful vote."

The Alumni Association leaders who are preparing for a potential lawsuit insist they are saddened by its prospect. All express their belief that, had the trustees' study group conferred with their alumni counterparts in good faith, solutions consistent with the historic 1891 agreement were available. Instead, all overtures were ignored. A single meeting with the Association's governance committee occurred after the trustee group had already completed its study and was just days away from finalizing its report to the full Board.

Dartmouth Trustee Chairman Charles "Ed" Haldeman maintains that the enlargement of Dartmouth's Board must be done without adding seats elected by alumni. These elections, Haldeman says, "increase rancor"and "divisiveness" and have become too costly. In response, Gado added: "Surely no strife generated in an election could compare with the rancor and divisiveness that have flared because of the trustees' unilateral stripping away of alumni rights. And the many hundred thousands of dollars consumed by this fight will overwhelm the $75,000 spent by each of the two frontrunners in this year's trustee race."

Undemocratic expansion of the Board is not the only issue being contested by the Association. Executive committee members Tim Dreisbach and David Gale have pointed to the Report's interference in the affairs of the Association, designed to operate independently of the College.

"I'm very disappointed," Gale remarked, "that the Board, rather than telling us which issues they'd like addressed and working with us to find solutions, has decided to mandate certain changes which they expect us to compel a super-majority of alumni to approve before we're allowed to manage further Trustee elections."

Dreisbach similarly questioned the right of the trustees to rip up the Association's constitution and redraft it to their liking. "What the trustees are now dictating for alumni elections accomplishes what was rejected in last year's constitutional referendum, strengthening the advantage of nominated candidates over petitioners. Is the Board teaching us that elections don't count if those in power don't like the results?"

Is the Trustee Decision Good for Dartmouth?

2007-09-11T08:14:00.000-04:00

A prior discussion thread was getting long. Let's try to break out differnet issues for discussion. This post is three of three.

A lot of the discussion until now centers on the rights of alumni to select trustees and the efforts of the Association to defend those rights. Go to the immediately preceding discussion areas if you want to comment on that; not here please!!

Another question, arguably more important, is whether the action taken by the Board is good for Dartmouth. Thoughts?

Alumni Interests

2007-09-11T08:06:00.000-04:00

A prior discussion thread was getting long. Let's try to break out differnet issues for discussion. This post is two of three.

A majority of the Association executive committee members were elected with a belief that they should adher to their fiduciary duties as specified in the Association's constitution... that they be responsible for the general interests of alumni. Therefore they feel duty bound to fight for the rights of alumni. A minority, but including the AoA president, feel the consitution is outdated and since alumni rejected the recent attempts to update it, it should only be followed "selectively".

So the question for discussion: What are the interests of the alumni? Are those elected by the alumni duty-bound to protect any rights associated with those interests?

Alumni Representation on College Governance

2007-09-11T07:56:00.000-04:00

The prior discussion thread is getting long. Let's try to break out differnet issues for discussion. This post is one of three.

There is some question as to whether the Association or the Council is the "primary" representative of alumni. To focus the topic, please comment on that question specific to the concerns of how alumni help chose trustees to govern Dartmouth, not how they provide input into the general activities of the College.

A Statement from the Association of Alumni Leadership

2007-09-10T00:40:00.000-04:00

Dear Members of the Dartmouth Community,

We, a majority of the elected leaders of the Association of Alumni, comprising all 68,000 Dartmouth graduates, lament the decision by the Board of Trustees to eliminate the historic parity between the number of trustees chosen by the Board itself and those chosen by all alumni. This is in flagrant violation of an agreement between the College and her alumni that has benefited Dartmouth for well over a century.

Further, we deem unacceptable that the Board should now dictate the election process by which alumni choose trustees, a power which has appropriately and historically been determined and exercised by alumni themselves.

The lengthy report by the trustees’ governance committee, seemingly reasonable on the surface, is revealed upon a more careful inspection to be problematic and at times misleading. One positive in the report, creating standing committees for academics, student life, and alumni relations, is sadly outweighed by the negatives of reducing your role in electing trustees.

A more expansive response, including our proximate course of action, will be issued after we have had more time to digest and deliberate the full implications of the trustee decision.

Association Officers and Executives:

Martin Boles ‘80
Timothy Dreisbach ‘71
Frank Gado ‘58
David Gale ‘00
Alex Mooney ‘93
Marji Ross ‘81
Kathryn Wallop ‘80

92% of Dartmouth Alumni want to Keep Right to Elect Trustees

2007-09-06T13:43:00.000-04:00

As promised by members of the Association Executive Committee, we are sharing the results of our survey of alumni, with data collected through August 27th. Many alumni also provided inputs directly to the trustees; it is hoped that the trustee Governance Committee will be providing a summary of these inputs along with their recommendations as adopted by the full Board.

Ninety-two percent of Dartmouth College alumni responding to an opinion survey say they want to keep their right to elect one-half of their alma mater’s trustees, a right they have enjoyed since 1891. The Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College, through its Executive Committee, conducted the survey via U.S. Mail.

On September 7, Dartmouth’s board of trustees will consider a report from its Governance Committee that many involved alumni fear may restrict alumni’s role in the selection of future trustees and could dramatically affect the composition of the board.

The Association received 4,156 responses from alumni during two weeks in August. The first statement on the survey read: "I believe that the Board of Trustees should maintain its current balance of 50% charter trustees and 50% directly-elected alumni trustees (excluding the two ex officio positions)."

Of the 4,062 who indicated agreement or disagreement, 3,740 (92 percent) were affirmative.

A separate second sentence stated: "any concerns over the process of electing alumni trustees should be referred to the leaders of the Association of Alumni as the representatives to have been duly elected by all alumni." 3980 answered; of these, 3638 (93.7 percent) expressed agreement.

The Association attempted to reach all living alumni, but the Dartmouth Administration’s refusal to permit use of current alumni mailing lists hampered the effort. Nevertheless, the Association’s survey was mailed to more than 55,000 of the 67,000 living alumni, though a few thousand envelopes were returned because the addressees had either moved or died.

"We were told our poll was unwarranted because it was ‘duplicative,’" said the Association’s Second Vice-President Frank Gado, a 1958 graduate, "but we needed to poll our membership to fulfill our fiduciary duty to represent their interests. The mandate the alumni have given us couldn’t be more forceful."

Dartmouth College is the only American institution of higher learning that allows its alumni to select half of its leaders. Reports that a select group of Dartmouth Trustees were spearheading a change in this policy have stirred up emotions among many alumni.

"Dartmouth men and women have traditionally been the most loyal and zealous alumni in the nation," Gado continued. "They treat their alma mater with respect, and they expect their alma mater to honor them in return. We sincerely hope sane heads will prevail."

###
For more than a century and a half, the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College has been the primary representative of Dartmouth men and women. Its eleven-member Executive Committee is the only body elected by all of the alumni.

A Plea for the Awakening of Trustee Understanding

2007-09-06T12:15:00.000-04:00

A majority of the individuals on the Association Executive Committee have great faith in their fellow alumni regarding our collective responsibilities to act as stewards for the College. We believe that in general alumni who care enough to be engaged do so as educated thoughtful people. Our stance that there should be no lessening of alumni participation in college governance, by all alumni, differs from those who believe alumni are in general ignorant of their College and that a more-worthy group of “Dartmouth elite” will make better decisions.

Our efforts on behalf of alumni interests relate to this belief in democratic alumni participation without deference to any oligarchy. We wish everyone would support this philosophy without regard for personal opinions as to the actual issues facing the College. But there clearly is a relationship between concerns for the College direction and attempts to control how alumni participate in her governance. There is also a disconnect between the trustees, the Administration, the “partnership” of Alumni Relations staff and Alumni councilors, collectively on one hand, and alumni at large on the other… this is reflected in last year’s constitutional vote and recent elections of petition trustees over Council-nominated candidates.

Understanding the reasons for discontent may help bridge the “divide” and bring all members of the Dartmouth community back onto the same page. Those on the “inside” continue to believe that the outsiders are ignorant and do not have Dartmouth’s interests at heart. Yet those labeled “outsiders” do care, hence their activism, do seek information, and wonder why those in the virtual ivory tower do not “get it.”

The following letter is from C.P. Montgomery, Jr. ’59 and is presented here to spur some discussion on the issues that underlie the governance debate. It certainly was not written in ignorance. With apologies in advance for its length, it is presented here in full:

*********************************
August 24, 2007
A Plea for the Awakening of the Trustees of Dartmouth College
Alumni Votes are not Understood

I fear the Board of Trustees is about to make a calamitous and misguided decision. The published Governance Committee memorandum of June 4, 2007, portends a reneging on parity between alumni-elected and appointed trustees, as well as the petition candidacy process by which the last four trustees were elected. I believe the administration, faculty, and majority of trustees fail to comprehend the depth and source of the distress that led the alumni to elect the petition candidates.

The cover article in the July/August 2007 edition of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine (Divided We Stand, the Polarizing Effect of Trustee Elections by Matthew Mosk, 92) explores the impetus behind the petition candidacies. Mr. Mosk reports his interviews with many people to determine whether a few well-financed alumni with a conservative agenda are hand picking the petition candidates to mount a hostile takeover of the board of trustees. In the interviews Sandy Alderson, President Wright, David Spaulding, and William Neukom to some degree confirm the conspiracy theory and the petition candidates themselves deny it.

Conspiracy theories have inherent appeal and they seldom are overcome by a denial. But isn’t this conspiracy theory beside the point? Unless there was genuine and broad discontent in the alumni with the governance of the College, the petition candidacies would never have gotten off the ground.

As I see it the main purpose of this conspiracy theory, obviously adopted by the administration and a majority of the trustees, is to de-legitimize the voices of the resounding majorities of alumni who voted for the petition candidates. The premise is that those majorities were but uninformed emotional putty responding to the false program presented by the well-financed conservative cabal. The message of those who advance this theory: the votes for the petition candidates do not really represent a majority of the voting alumni because they were manipulated into these votes.

My own experience that led me to vote for the petition candidates:

I voted for all the petition candidates because I believe that the Board of Trustees has abdicated its primary responsibility for the governance of the College. Over a turbulent period beginning in the 1960s the faculty has asserted its primacy in this governance and the trustees have acquiesced.

Like most alumni, I went out from Dartmouth to make my way, assuming that the College would be governed prudently to preserve its great tradition as a liberal arts college. I interviewed applicants and consistently supported the annual giving program, but my focus was my work. The news from Hanover as the years wore on, however, made me very queasy.

One example of the news was the decision to terminate the ROTC programs. I was in the NROTC program and saw first hand the healthiness of this civilian supply of officers to the military. From afar it seemed to me that the faculty’s political opposition to the Vietnam War led them to a reflexive and confused decision. Presumably the faculty did not believe the country should be without a military. Was not Dartmouth’s contribution to that force something to be continued?

News of Professor Cole was another example. I was dumbfounded by the published monolog of Professor Cole in class and threats outside. I could not understand how Dartmouth could have hired a person exhibiting such bigotry, lack of civility, and absence of any academic content in his classes. He sounded more like a rapper than a professor of music. Next I learned of the confrontation with the reporters from the Dartmouth Review, followed by the near hero treatment of Professor Cole as compared to the hysterical reaction against the student reporters.

My general unease changed to outright despondency after reading The Hollow Men by Charles J. Sykes (Regnery Gateway, 1990). The Hopkins Institute invited Sykes to study Dartmouth in connection with his continuing study of the liberal arts curriculum and the politicization of the university. The book is in three parts. The first deals with academia in America generally. The second, entitled The Deconstruction of Dartmouth, is a detailed history of how far the college had fallen from the ideals established by President Hopkins. Sykes’ study helped me understand the dynamics behind the disturbing news from Hanover. It continues to provide a basis to understand events up to the present.

The process by which the trustees acquiesced in the faculty’s unchallenged control of the curriculum and governance of the college spanned a great number of years and administrations. It occurred during a time of turmoil and change in American society and academia. The effects of the trustees acquiescence are with us today and I suggest that the following effects are behind the alumni votes for the petition candidates.

The veering from the Hopkins tradition:

1. Faculty commitment to Dartmouth as a research university. President Hopkins fought against the strong currents of his time towards the German university model. That model denigrated the importance of teaching undergraduates, defined the role of the professor as a researcher, and produced a proliferation of departments and courses as teaching became more and more specialized. President Hopkins believed that the function of the Dartmouth professor was to be a great teacher to undergraduates, and that the curriculum should aim to transmit the cumulative knowledge through a general core curriculum, grounded in what was called the western tradition. Hopkins’ goal was to prepare students for citizenship rather than involve them in narrow areas of research.

Sykes history shows that the Dartmouth faculty committed itself early in the Freedman administration to Dartmouth being a research university. Sykes quotes from the October, 1988, faculty report to the New England Association of Schools and Colleges,
"At least some administrators and trustees believe that Dartmouth is facing a choice whether to continue the traditional emphasis on the college nature of the institution or fully develop its university nature. We have, however, already passed this particular decision point; an about-face, returning to the liberal arts college of the past is an impossibility (p. 275). "
[Emphasis by Sykes.]

This was a cornerstone of President Freedman’s vision of a Dartmouth in the Harvard model. President Wright was part of the faculty that made that declaration. Yet it appears he has taken on the very delicate task of explaining to the alumni that Dartmouth remains true to the Hopkins’ ideal, knowing that the faculty is committed fully to Dartmouth being a research university.

One has only to peruse the College website to see the extent to which the faculty has carried out its written policy statement. The College now boasts 40 academic departments or programs, including African and African American Studies, Education, Engineering Sciences, Environmental Studies, Film and Television Studies, Jewish Studies, Native American Studies, Studio Art, and Women’s and Gender Studies.

The Focus on Faculty supplement to the June, 2007, edition of Dartmouth Life devotes itself entirely to convincing us that the faculty focus on research is really in the best interests of the undergraduates.

On the home page of the college website, under About Dartmouth the college is described as follows: "Founded in 1769 and a member of the Ivy League, Dartmouth includes an undergraduate arts and sciences program and four graduate schools: Arts and Sciences Graduate Programs, Dartmouth Medical School, Thayer School of Engineering, and Tuck School of Business. "[Italics added.]

The expression by the former director of admissions that college football was inimical to the purpose of higher education grows out of the Freedman vision of the loner scholar and a university of scholars. The aborted decision to drop intercollegiate swimming probably does as well. The latter decision may have been budgetary, but in the final analysis it was a decision based on priorities.

Where were the trustees in 1988 when the faculty declared Dartmouth a university in fact and where are they today when the primacy of Dartmouth as an undergraduate college is slipping away? Sykes interviewed retired chair of the English Department, Henri Terrie, in 1989. Professor Terrie gave his view that Dartmouth had the potential to be the best liberal arts college in the country, but was doomed to second-rate status as a research university because it could never compete with the likes of Harvard or Stanford.

The August 27, 2007, edition of U.S. News and World Report (published August 18th) shows how clear Professor Terrie’s foresight was. Dartmouth is ranked as a national university rather than a liberal arts college and it is ranked eleventh. Here is the methodology by which the magazine determines whether a school is a university or a college:
First, schools are categorized by mission and, in some cases, by region. The national universities offer a full range of undergraduate majors, plus masters and Ph.D. programs, and emphasize faculty research. The liberal arts colleges focus almost exclusively on undergraduate education. They award at least 50 percent of their degrees in the arts and sciences (p. 110).
This perhaps explains why on the website Dartmouth only includes an undergraduate arts and sciences program.

This is not a matter of emphasis where arguments can be made either way. The Dartmouth faculty is rendering Dartmouth a research university in fact and the trustees are acquiescing in that fundamental change. Without reassertion of the primacy of undergraduate teaching I believe the majority of alumni feel Dartmouth will fritter away its hard won reputation as a preeminent liberal arts college.

2. Dismissal of the western tradition in what Sykes calls the Attack on the West. Sykes relates a complex process by which an orthodoxy developed in the faculty based upon the victim-hood of women, African Americans, Native Americans, and homosexuals. The orthodoxy holds that because the western tradition has oppressed these groups it is morally suspect, having been handed down by dead white males. The orthodoxy demands, under the banner of multiculturalism, that study of the western tradition should be drastically reduced in importance in favor of the study of other cultures.

The historical oppression is a fact. The question is whether the oppression should be the basis of a radical reshaping of the curriculum of the College. The same western tradition that the orthodoxy denigrates provided the institutions and political freedom for the societal changes the groups advocate. It is not a question of whether studies of other cultures should be available. It is one of whether students should have an understanding of the culture and tradition that gives them their freedom.

Though the College does not require a core curriculum in western civilization, it does provide African and African American Studies, Asian and Middle Eastern Languages and Literatures, Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Latin American, Latino and Caribbean Studies, Native American Studies, Women’s and Gender Studies, along with its included Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies. To put a point on the rejection of anything western, the College does mandate exposure to what has been termed the non-western or third world requirement.

3. No speech that will offend. A corollary of this orthodoxy restricts free speech at the College. The oppressed groups are singled out for special protection. The theory is that speech that might offend women, African Americans, Native Americans, or gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender persons, would amount to psychological violence and therefore cannot be permitted. The damning curse for such speech is that it is racist, sexist, or homophobic.

This orthodoxy explains how the racial diatribes of Professor Cole were condoned while the Dartmouth Review students suffered kangaroo court-like proceedings and why the Indian symbol was removed. The public apology of our Director of Athletics, published in The Dartmouth, illustrates well the orthodoxy. Dartmouth invited the University of North Dakota men’s hockey team (who call themselves the Fighting Sioux) to a tournament in December last year. In November Ms. Harper apologized in advance to the Native American and Dartmouth community as a whole for the UND’s mascot. She felt that the appearance of the team would understandably offend and hurt people within our community. She called the use of the name offensive and wrong. Apparently Ms. Harper did not consider whether her apology might offend the UND and the actual Sioux who attend that school. The response of President Kupchella of UND to President Wright was a fount of common sense.

4. Injection of politics into the curriculum and life of the College. Sykes relates that President Hopkins espoused and obtained a separation from the curriculum of the political views of the teacher. Now the interjection of the teachers politics into the curriculum has become an acceptable norm.

The restoration of Army ROTC has been viewed by some as a positive sign of change, yet that was one of the few defeats suffered by the faculty in its governance of the College. President McLaughlin and the trustees voted this restoration over the fierce opposition of the faculty in 1987 (an action that led to a vote of no confidence by the faculty). The trustees have not had the temerity to restore any other ROTC programs. The political dynamic behind this failure to face up to the faculty can be found in Position Statement on ROTC of the Dartmouth Gay Straight Alliance on the College website (search ROTC).

The importance of the upcoming trustee meeting:

It is the responsibility of the Board of Trustees not the faculty or administration - to set fundamental policies which preserve the essence of Dartmouth, such as,
a. the maintenance of the teaching of undergraduates as the primary focus and priority of the faculty, and the recruitment of faculty with that in mind,
b. the separation of the curriculum from the politics of the teacher,
c. the recognition of students as individuals and not as defined by groups from which they have special status and rights,
d. the preservation of the right of free expression and association to the same extent as enjoyed within society generally, and without special limitations based upon the political views of the administration or faculty, and
e. reasonable curriculum requirements to ensure a basic grounding in the culture of the West which has been the source of our freedom and civil society.

The organization that was supposed to represent all sixty-some thousand of us organized elections so as to exclude all but those who were able to come to Hanover. Those alumni in control obviously were in agreement with the policies set by the administration and faculty and wished to perpetuate them. In my view the nomination process for the alumni positions on the board had become a beauty contest of resumes. The nominees said nothing substantive about the issues facing the college. They treated the nomination as a great honor, and seemed to learn that their service on the board was to be in deference to the administration and faculty. The petition candidates, on the other hand, spoke to the alumni about the issues that gave us concern and they promised to work for change. That is the reason I voted for them and I believe it explains the resounding votes in their favor.

My fear of what the meeting in September portends stems in part from the process surrounding the Governance Committee. The committee revealed only recently that it has been considering for some time significant changes in the parity of alumni elected trustees and in the petition process. It is obvious that the resounding alumni votes for petition candidates is the major impetus for the work of this committee, yet not one petition candidate is given voice on the committee. Moreover, President Wright’s performance is an important element of the alumni discontent, yet he is a part of the committee that seems intent on diminishing alumni input to the board. And for an issue as important as changing an agreement in place for more than a century, why were the alumni generally not brought into the dialog until a few months before the decision is to be made?

This process does not seem to me to be Mindful that the Dartmouth alumni body is one of the great assets of the College, as professed in the memorandum of June 4th. The final thought expressed in the memo, however, is salutary. We need effective and consistent collaboration between the board and the alumni leadership. I would say that we need a sense of partnership between the board and the alumni generally one in which the alumni are treated as one of the great assets of the college. The alumni are the fruit of Dartmouth’s existence. They go out into the world shaped by the Dartmouth experience and give effect to how Dartmouth has changed them. In terms of preserving the essential culture of the college, the alumni would seem to represent a tremendous resource. However, instead of being brought into the dialog of the issues facing the college as a partner, the alumni are treated as a constituency for which the administration must run a public relations campaign.

There is good reason that ultimate policy decisions rest with the trustees and that the alumni have electoral parity on the board. Decisions by the faculty carry the same risk as decisions by any homogeneous group: unbalanced perspective. Given ultimate power they make decisions such as those spread before us in the second part of Sykes’ book. Of course, the setting of basic policy is a collaborative effort with the administration and faculty. But when disagreements develop about the essential character of the College, it is the trustees who must exercise the fortitude to preserve that character.

The parity of alumni elected trustees ensures the alumni body voice on the board. The petition candidacy provision in the constitution is equally important. It gives the alumni a means to tell the trustees that all is not well, as the alumni are telling them now.

If the board in September reneges on parity for alumni trustees and tampers with the petition process, I believe the trustees will reap the whirlwind of what they have sown. And they will discover full well that the election of the petition candidates of late did not result from a cabal of conspirators, but from widespread dissatisfaction with the abdication of responsibility by the trustees to maintain Dartmouth’s essential culture as a liberal arts college.

C.P. Montgomery, Jr. ’59

Trustee Zywicki Responds

2007-09-04T10:04:00.001-04:00

Trustee Todd Zywicki has posted a response to Professor Kate Stith-Cabranes's critique of his editorial in the Dartmouth about the 1891 agreement between the Board of Trustees and the Association of Alumni, and whether or not the Board has a responsibility to behave according to the agreement.

The response is fairly lengthy, and can be found here. Some highlights:

As Professor Stith-Cabranes seems aware, her "response" is actually a comment on an argument that I never made in my essay--whether the 1891 Agreement was also a legally-binding "contract." I did not characterize or refer to the 1891 Agreement as a "contract" but as an "agreement."...Professor Stith-Cabranes, therefore, misrepresents my position in a legally-relevant way.

My use of the term "agreement" thus was deliberate, even if Professor Stith-Cabranes confuses the two and has caused others to believe that I was making a legal argument as well. In fact, I didn’t make any legal arguments in my column-I simply followed Chairman Haldeman’s precedent and expressed my personal opinion on the meaning of the 1891 Agreement and moral and fiduciary duties that I believe it entails, wholly independent of the question as to the legal status of the agreement.

As far as I’m concerned, that is sufficient. In exercising my fiduciary duties as a Trustee, I believe that the Board should honor the promises made in the 1891 Agreement and recognize the benefits that have been reaped from this century-long governance partnership. Others, such as Professor Stith-Cabranes, apparently believe that the Board’s fiduciary duties are coterminous only with the minimal obligations imposed by law.

...

But one doesn’t need an extensive factual record to identify the errors in Professor Stith-Cabranes’s legal argument or to recognize that any litigation that might result would be expensive, fractious, protracted, and counterproductive.

...

Dartmouth’s Board has no formal bylaws. But in place of bylaws, the Board is governed by its various minutes and resolutions-such as the 1891 resolutions-which have the same legal status as bylaws. So, in fact, the Board’s 1891 resolutions, which Professor Stith-Cabranes so facilely dismisses, are according to the Board’s own rules the functional and legal equivalent of bylaws. Thus, the resolutions would be subject to the same analysis just described for formal bylaws. Professor Stith-Cabranes notes that the Board typically can repeal or amend its prior resolutions with impunity. That is correct-as a general rule.

But the reason why this is correct as a general rule is because the overwhelming number of Board resolutions and practices do not implicate the cognizable interests of third parties. The general rule does not apply, however, when a proposed amendment implicates the rights of third parties. Where that is the case, the Board’s general power of amendment is tightly restricted by law. This is especially so in a situation such as the current one, in which the facts suggest that there not only has been over a century of unbroken acquiescence by the Board in the obligations of the 1891 Agreement, but also a practice grounded in an identifiable written agreement, implicitly ratified on several occasions when the Board has expanded its size, and in which the board has not merely passively acquiesced but affirmatively held out to alumni in order to encourage their good-faith reliance.

...

Third, Professor Stith-Cabranes notes that the Board has been expanded twice since the 1891 Agreement without seeking the approval of the Association of Alumni. But, as I noted in my original column, neither of these expansions fundamentally threatened the principle of parity between Alumni and Charter Trustees. In fact, by ratifying the principle of parity, these expansions confirm the traditional understanding of the 1891 Agreement as providing for parity.

...

The 1891 Agreement, unlike the 1876 plan, thus permits amendment only by the joint agreement of both parties. Today’s Association of Alumni has stated quite clearly that it will oppose any oppose any attempts to "violate, restrict, abridge, or dilute" the rights of alumni reached in the 1891 Agreement. Unlike the collaborative process that resulted in the 1891 Agreement and the joint decision to supersede the earlier pact, however, the Board this time has implied that it believes that it has the power to act unilaterally and impose by fiat any decisions that it reaches.

...

But even assuming the College would prevail at the end of any such litigation, I have a more fundamental disagreement with Professor Stith-Cabranes. In the end, her argument boils down to the proposition that even if the Board entered into an agreement with the Association of Alumni in 1891 promising alumni the right to elect half the Board and to provide a meaningful role in College governance, if a Court holds that agreement not to be a legally-binding contract then the Board has no further moral or other obligations to the alumni.

On this point, I respectfully disagree.

The 1891 Trustee Resolution

2007-08-28T10:08:00.001-04:00

The following is being posted at the author's request:

THE 1891 TRUSTEE RESOLUTION WAS NOT A CONTRACT
Kate Stith-Cabranes ’73

Let us consider an "urban legend" that has recently emerged at Dartmouth: That the 1891 resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College, providing for alumni nomination of a number of Trustees, is a "contract" or "agreement" to which the Trustees are bound in perpetuity.

The 1891 resolution was just that - a resolution of the Board, and the Board remains free to enact a superseding resolution whenever it decides to do so. Indeed, not only does the Board have the authority to alter the process for selection of Trustees, it has the obligation to do so if it concludes, in the exercise of its fiduciary responsibilities, that the current process is not serving the interests of the College. Like the trustees of other charitable organizations, the Trustees of Dartmouth College have plenary authority to establish mechanisms of governance as long as these mechanisms are consistent with its Charter and with state and federal law.

An August 3, 2007 column in The Dartmouth by my fellow law-professor Todd Zywicki (a present Trustee) refers to the 1891 resolution as an "agreement," a "deal," and a "partnership." If Professor Zywicki means to suggest that this resolution was a contractual undertaking, he is mistaken.

The historical record does not support the notion that either the Trustees or the Association of Alumni thought they were entering into such an arrangement in 1891, much less a contract that would be permanently binding on the Trustees. Nothing in that record, including the reports to the Association of Alumni by its Alumni Trustee Committee, suggests that the alumni in 1891 assumed an obligation to infuse the College with additional "financial support" or yet more loyalty, at that moment or in the future. In all the correspondence and discussions leading to the 1891 resolution that I have reviewed, there is no reference to a contract of any kind and nothing from which one could infer that the "parties" intended to enter into a reciprocally binding legal arrangement.

Even if alumni leaders in 1891 had explicitly assured continued financial support (from themselves? from all current alumni? from future alumni?), such a promise would be too indefinite to constitute legally binding consideration for an enforceable contract. No contract can exist unless a court has the ability to determine whether a party is in breach and, if so, the amount of damages. Nothing in the 1891 resolution, in the proceedings of the Association of Alumni, or in Richardson’s history provides any basis for a metric by which a court could determine the quantum of "generous financial support" (Professor Zywicki’s term, not appearing, in any form, in the historical record of the 1891 resolution) that was allegedly promised by the alumni.

It is equally far-fetched to claim that the Board is bound by the 1891 resolution in perpetuity because "the alumni" (which alumni? all of them? some of them?) have relied on these arrangements in one way or another. It would be well-nigh impossible for any graduate of the College to claim, much less prove, that financial contributions to Dartmouth were made in the expectation that alumni would in perpetuity nominate half of the members of the Board of Trustees. But even if such a claim could be asserted with a straight face, no court on that basis would enjoin the Trustees, in the exercise of their fiduciary responsibilities, from superseding their own resolution (as amended in 1961 and 2003) - any more than a court in 1972 would have enjoined the Trustees from admitting women to the College on the basis that a contributor to the College "relied" on its historic commitment to single-sex education.

As Leon Burr Richardson’s History of Dartmouth College makes clear, the 1891 resolution was a political response to diffuse political tensions that existed at the time - in particular, the conviction on the part of leaders of the Association of Alumni that the College Trustees (all of whom were serving life terms) were too conservative and parochial in their theology and educational policies; that there were too many New Hampshire residents on the Board; and that the College was in need of fresh ideas, fresh blood, and new resources. The Trustees who voted for the 1891 resolution were likewise animated not by contractual promises or personal benefit, but by what they thought best for Dartmouth- including, to be sure, better relations with the alumni and the prospect of greater alumni contributions to the College. They were right, at least for a time. As Richardson, writing in 1932, concluded (p. 660):

"The members of the board who, in the lapse of forty years, have been elected by the graduates have invariably proved themselves to be worthy of the honor . . . . [E]lectioneering has been almost absent and alumni bitterness and dissension entirely so."

( Kate Stith-Cabranes is the Lafayette S. Foster Professor at Yale Law School. She served as a Trustee of Dartmouth College from 1989-2000. Her fuller analysis of the 1891 Resolution is posted at http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2007/08/no_contract.html )

The Harvard Plan for Dartmouth Governance?

2007-08-17T08:50:00.000-04:00

The following is an individual opinion piece posted to stimulate discussion. The Daily Dartmouth declined to run it as a guest editorial, so the author wishes it to be presented to alumni here.

************************************

In three weeks, the Dartmouth trustees will be receiving and likely acting upon the recommendations of their Governance Committee study group, regarding the composition and selection of Board members. The elephant-in-the-room question is whether they will honor their historic agreement with alumni that half of the Board (excluding the president and the NH governor) be chosen by alumni.

A related question that should be asked: Can the Board honor this agreement in name only while in substance reducing the level of material participation by alumni? The scenario is simple: The Board continues down the path of size expansion, maintaining the 50/50 balance. At the same time, it creates an Executive Committee and delegates real decision-making power to that smaller group. Alumni receive no assurances that the trustees they chose will have a corresponding level of representation on that smaller committee.

Several facts indicate this is a distinct possibility:
*The Board is already committed to expansion, arguing there are advantages to having more seats.
*The trustees are studying “best practices” and several other institutions have a model of a large board- for “advisory”, financial, and other support; and a smaller group where the real power lies- approving budgets and providing direction to the administration. Let’s label this model after one university that employs it: “the Harvard plan”.
*In its questionnaire to a small select group of alumni, the trustee governance committee asked for comment on the Board’s “executive” committee even though there is no such group listed among the current Board committees.
*The trustee questionnaire also raised the issue of a larger board needing to delegate more to operating committees.
*The current governance group of five, a permanent standing committee, was chosen without any guarantee of participation by alumni-chosen trustees and not one of the last four alumni-chosen trustees, being those elected by petition, is included.

Given that Dartmouth’s mission is education, those in the proper position to choose overseers of that mission are the products of that education, i.e. the alumni. Alumni can judge what educational elements have had value, and what improvements can be made. They are “disinterested” and do not have the conflicts inherent with administration, faculty, students, and other groups, possibly even incumbent trustees. Alumni choose trustees not to represent interests of alumni, but to represent what they believe to be the best interests of the College; no other group can make as clear a claim without conflict.

Some claim alumni do not have the expertise to manage a complex academic organization like Dartmouth. That is not their role. They do have the experience, obligation, duty, and right to select the most appropriate trustees, who in turn oversee the College’s mission and hold accountable the administrative experts who are hired to fulfill it. Few of us have the expertise to decide how to reform Medicare, what to do about the Iraq war, or how to battle pollution. But we do not abolish our democracy and turn over power to an unelected oligarchy of “experts.” Rather, citizens elect those who share their broad vision for the country and delegate to them a determination of the means to achieve it. Dartmouth alumni are at least as wise and engaged as the average American citizen, and reducing the alumni level of participation in college governance, by centralizing power in a non-elected committee, makes no more sense than limiting democracy in the United States of America.

So the question for both alumni and trustees: Will our mutual agreement be honored in spirit and deed as well as in word? Following the above scenario of consolidating power will be a violation of the premises behind our agreement. Indeed, a plan for a larger alumni advisory board and a smaller operating committee was specifically rejected by alumni in the discussions that culminated in the 1891 Agreement. Eventually they and the trustees opted for the benefits of a more direct engagement by alumni. One hopes the Board has the wisdom not to execute this scenario; Dartmouth alumni are discerning and will once again deem it unacceptable.

Tim Dreisbach '71
South Royalton, VT

Too Much Alumni Power?

2007-08-12T08:03:00.001-04:00

This topic is posted by Tim Dreisbach as an individual. Any other alumnus/a who wishes to initiate a new discussion is encouraged to do so.

******************************************

Two weeks ago the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni mailed its members to ascertain alumni opinion regarding the level of alumni participation on the Dartmouth Board of Trustees, specifically should the current balance be maintained with 50% charter trustees appointed by the Board and 50% chosen by the alumni in open elections (excluding the seats reserved for the College president and the NH governor). A second question queried alumni on their opinion as to whether or not any concerns about the election process should be referred to those individuals that alumni elect to lead their Association.

The responses to this mailing are beginning to come in, and quantified results will be shared with all alumni after the input period ends on August 27. One reply received to date may stimulate some thoughtful discussion. One graduate from the class of 1959 has disagreed with both propositions. He added the comments: “Too much alumni power” and “Too much athletic emphasis”. This is certainly a counter-point to claims that the survey was intentionally biased and that no one would disagree with its postulates. The committee wants to learn the extent of agreement, and disagreement, in order to understand and represent the sentiments of alumni.

Quantification will come with the survey’s completion. But for now, why not some discussion as to the underlying premises of alumni involvement. Is the current participation by alumni in the governance of the College, via trustee elections, a net negative for Dartmouth, or a positive? Anticipating the “anonymous” postings that are likely to follow, it is suggested that people will be more credible by identifying themselves, especially those with the courage to take a position they believe will be in the minority. The gentleman from ’59 identified himself in his reply card. Perhaps he and others who agree with his comments can explain their positions to their fellow graduates, and what negatives are implied in the phrase “too much power”. Others may disagree and wish to argue that the body of alumni collectively should have an even stronger voice.

Some related questions to spur discussion: If alumni power is too controlled by an “outside” group of activists, or too concentrated in a small group of “insiders”, how can it be made more democratic? Does the college Administration have too much power by controlling the principle mechanisms by which alumni communicate? Given an increasing number of communication channels, is an empowered alumni base smart enough to separate true information from one-sided opinions? And finally, what can the Association leadership, perhaps in conjunction with alumni Councilors, do to improve the understanding by Association members as to College issues, and accurately represent those members' desires?

Do alumni really have too much power? All of them, or any one group? Your thoughts?

Todd Zywicki on the Agreement

2007-08-03T15:50:00.000-04:00

In today's Dartmouth, there is an editorial by alumni Trustee Todd Zywicki '88 on the legal status of the 1891 agreement between the Alumni Association and the Board of Trustees. This is the agreement which established the current balance between alumni and charter Trustees.

The meeting minutes where the agreement was presented to the Association, with a detailed description of the agreement, are available here.

A Philosophy for Board Compostion and Selection

2007-08-03T14:36:00.000-04:00

Alumni are weighing in with opinions as to the participation of alumni on the Board of Trustees, and in selecting a portion of its members. The following paper was written after the trustee study was revealed to the Alumni Council in May, and was submitted to the trustees after their subsequent request for input. It is shared here because its author wants to spur constructive discussion among alumni as to the inter-related issues. Surely opinions by alumni, as well as decisions by the trustees, must have some underlying framework to serve as their guide. The paper is an individual piece and is not meant to be a statement of overall alumni opinion or that of the Executive Committee.

********************************************

On the Dartmouth Board of Trustees Composition and Selection- A Working Paper:

Tim Dreisbach, 4 June 2007; Revised July 3, 2007.

The Board of Trustees has indicated that its Governance Committee is studying this important topic and looking for inputs to inform their deliberations. Concerns have been raised as to problems with the status quo. This paper provides some thoughts on the topic and addresses the apparent concerns.

Fundamental composition: Dartmouth’s mission has recently been re-articulated as the education of the next-generation of societal leaders. Who better to judge how well the College is performing on this mission than the alumni it has already educated? They will surely be in the best position, with the benefit of hindsight and judgment, to assess where it has helped them, where it failed, and how it can be improved. Therefore the mission of the institution is furthered when its alumni participate, indeed lead, in its governance. Given this fundamental first-principle, trustees who represent the collective thinking of all alumni should constitute a material portion of the Board. The 50/50 balance of alumni-selected and board-appointed trustees has proven itself over a long time.

The “best” individuals: It has been stated repeatedly that an institution of Dartmouth’s caliber, and one with inspirations for further excellence, needs the “best” individuals as Trustees. Correct in spirit, this leaves open the question of how “best” is defined. A better way of framing the issue is that the Board needs those “most appropriate” to needs, first those needs of the institution itself, and second, those needs of the Board. As noted above, the first need of the College is to have trustees able to guide its execution relative to its mission, and those in the best position to assess that, viewed over a strategic timeframe, are the alumni.

Special needs: Clearly there are cases when the institution and the trustees have special requirements. These are not rigid but will change over time. In this narrow sense, the composition of the Board is complex and in need of regular re-evaluation. But special needs should not be used as an argument to alter the strategic fundamental composition.

Selections by the Board: There will undoubtedly be cases where special needs exist, but they are of a sensitive enough nature that a public discussion, and the search to find an “appropriate” trustee with the proper background and expertise, is best conducted in confidence. That is the purpose of the “charter trustee” seats whose appointments are made solely at the discretion of the Board. Examples are provided at the end of this document.

Selections by alumni: As noted above, alumni will assess and chose those people they feel most appropriate to the needs of the institution. The trustees and the administration have an obligation to complement that understanding by informing alumni of the Board’s own needs, when these can be openly addressed. For example, John Doe is stepping down and we need to replace his financial expertise, or Jane Smith is ending her term, and we have come to value her understanding of curricular issues. Then the alumni can fold such considerations into their own thinking.

The alumni nomination process: While thoughtful and educated alumni are well-positioned to chose the most appropriate individuals, the latter persons might not step forward of their own accord. Therefore there is a need for at least one group, a nominating committee, to identify such individuals and encourage them to participate. The committee itself must both be representative of alumni, and sensitive to needs of the board and the institution. It is suggested that its members be comprised of alumni elected by all alumni, i.e. the Association of Alumni, just as these members of the Association ultimately select a single trustee from among potentially-several nominated candidates. The nominating committee should consult with the Board, the Administration, the head of the faculty, and even student leadership, to insure the committee’s understanding of needs and thereby inform its own search for candidates; the committee should also inform alumni as to the needs it believes important, for their consideration when voting. In the past the Council has tried to offer the “best” candidates without exploring institutional “needs” or alumni “concerns”; that is why the candidates it offered fail to connect with voters. Since the Council is itself an organization of volunteers, it is not surprising that they make service an overwhelming requirement with less consideration to what is “most appropriately” needed.

Offering alumni choices: When the nominating committee senses that there are conflicting views as to the priorities of needs, they should put forward several candidates so alumni can decide on the priorities. They may also wish to offer alumni a choice of different individuals with different approaches to addressing the same concerns. Again, it is then up to the alumni to make the final determination. Furthermore, other groups may wish to put forward candidates. The Alumni Council may wish to recommend one or several candidates. Ditto independent alumni organizations like the Hanover Institute. Indeed, perhaps even the Trustees themselves. And finally of course, any alumnus/na should be free to put him or her self forward for alumni consideration. To insure fairness and choice, all such people and groups should not be subject to the vetting considerations of a small nominating committee, even an elected one, but instead have the right to place a name on the ballot through petition.

Money and campaigning: One complaint about our current system is that money, or its lack, creates an uneven playing field. Alumni should be informed and make decisions based upon issues. This objection is eliminated if all candidates are afforded sufficient and equal opportunity to communicate their stances through Association or College-provided resources. This means more than Q&A’s in which the candidates respond without being able to raise issues they believe important, and campaign statements having severely restricted word lengths; they must be able to control what they wish to communicate. Give all candidates access to a common mailing that includes whatever materials they wish and support them equally in creating web pages. Further “speech” by candidates that does require financial support should not be restricted, as alumni should be trusted to sort issues from slick marketing PR.

Political Parties: Political parties gain power when their resources are required for individual candidates to get out their message, and even to get on the ballot in the first place. The solution lies in making it easier for more people to run as individuals. There is a balance between giving alumni choices, and permitting so many candidates that confusion abounds, let alone the complications when affording all candidates a basic means of communicating their messages. This is accomplished today by requiring 500 signatures for petition candidates. Arguably that number is too high. It has resulted in what today is essentially a two-party system… an “inside” party of non-elected nominators, and a single “outside” party that puts forward a single candidate. Claims that obtaining petition signatures is no problem are inconsistent with complaints about the mailing-list power of the “outside” group, and are further disproved by the fact that a potential candidate in the last election could not obtain sufficient signatures. The limit should be lowered to 100, enough to be obtained by a serious candidate with limited resources. This is also a number that would enable the Council, if it desired, to put forward nominees in parallel with an elected Association nominating committee. Democracy works, the playing field even, if all candidates are then treated exactly the same once their candidacies are approved to be on the ballot, without regard to their nomination by official committee, by another group via petition, or running as an individual.

Addendum: Hypothetical Examples Relevant to Charter Appointments

The College is in the middle of a capital campaign: the Board will benefit from an individual whose leadership-level of giving will promote similar major donations by others.

The College is responding to a consultant study recommending more accountability and less bureaucracy: the Board will benefit from a CEO from a similar-sized organization but in a fast-paced competitive knowledge-based industry.

The College is entering the quiet initial stages of a search for a new president: the Board will benefit from someone well connected in the circles of higher-education, with a network of other college/university presidents and provosts.

The College is challenged to attract distinguished faculty without being able to offer “relief from teaching” that can be offered to “the best” by large research universities: the Board and the president may benefit by including among its members the president of a leading college that has no graduate programs yet is renown for academic excellence, or by including someone from a larger institution cognizant of the pitfalls.

The One-Minute Survey

2007-08-02T11:21:00.000-04:00

This discussion topic is initiated by Scott Meacham '95:

**********************************************************

The Association recently sent out a survey, reproduced below. What are your comments on its contents and the potential results?

----

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!

Dartmouth College Association of Alumni One-Minute Survey

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following:

"I believe that the Board of Trustees should maintain the current balance of 50% charter trustees and 50% directly-elected alumni trustees (excluding the two ex officio positions)."

AGREE DISAGREE

"I believe that any concerns with the process of electing alumni trustees should be referred to the leaders of the Association of Alumni, as those representatives are duly-elected by all alumni to represent alumni interests, especially alumni participation in the trustee selection process."

AGREE DISAGREE

Please affix a stamp and drop this into the mail as soon as possible!

----------------------------------------

Posted at the request of Scott Meacham '95

Disclosure of Executives' Possible Connections with the Hanover Institute

2007-08-02T10:14:00.000-04:00

The following topic for discussion is initiated by Scott Meacham '95:

***************************

The Hanover Institute is a nonprofit group that solicits funds from alumni and seeks to influence the direction of Dartmouth. It took positions in favor of individual candidates in the last election for Executives, supporting Frank Gado and others who eventually won, and it took positions for and against particular candidates for the Trustee race, supporting Stephen Smith. John MacGovern, who recently concluded a lawsuit against the Association of Alumni, is the Institute's president, has been described as its sole employee, and collected two-thirds of its operating expenses as salary in 2004, according to The Dartmouth.

At least one member of the recently-elected Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni, Frank Gado, was described by The Dartmouth as a member of the board of the Hanover Institute in August of 2006. Gado did not note any past or present Institute affiliation in his "Candidates Gallery" biography prior to the Association election, which was held in April and May of 2007, and no other candidates appear to have noted any Institute affiliation.

Here are some concerns that the Executives and others might be able to lay to rest as they work to represent alumni interests:

1. Did any then-member of the Institute's board win a seat on the Association's Executive Committee in the recent election?- If so, how many of those received the Institute's endorsement?

2. Was Frank Gado or any other present Executive a member of theInstitute's board during the campaign for his current Association position?- If so, did he or they disclose the Institute membership to the voters?- Did he or they consider that membership to represent a conflict of interest, and, if not, why?

3. Is any current member of the Executive Committee a member of the"1891 Society" or any other group, not recognized as a traditional alumni club, that might be dedicated to influencing the Board of Trustees?

Thanks,

Scott M. '95

A Letter from the Honorable Angus King '66, former Governor of Maine

2007-08-01T17:43:00.000-04:00

The Honorable Angus King ’66, former Governor of Maine, recently sent a letter to Mr. Ed Haldeman, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, regarding the board’s Governance Committee study of board composition and selection. A copy of that letter appears below.

Mr. King provided a copy of his letter to Trustee Stephen Smith, ’88, with permission to use it as he saw fit. Mr. Smith believes it is a thoughtful articulation of concerns, and that it would be valuable if shared with other alumni.

We recently promised to help any alumnus initiate new discussion topics, in order to provoke thought and encourage dialog with fellow graduates, as described here. Accordingly, the following is posted on behalf of alumnus Smith:

************************************

From the Desk of:
Angus King ‘66

To:
Ed Haldeman, Chairman, Board of Trustees

Dear Ed,

I am Angus King, Dartmouth '66. After graduation, I went on to Virginia Law School and progressed from law to business to politics (if one considers ending up in politics progress), serving as Governor of Maine from 1995 to 2003. I have always cherished my experience at Dartmouth and have stayed close to a number of my friends from those days. I have also had two sons graduate from the College, Angus III in 1993 and James, '98.

I write as one of the Alumni who has been on the sidelines during the various controversies and contested elections of the past several years but who, in the end, has voted for the "independent" candidates for trustee and against the changes proposed in the alumni constitution last year. I understand now that the Governance Committee of the Board is contemplating proposing changes in the manner of the selection of trustees and a possible dilution of the role that the Alumni have historically played in this selection process.

I am writing to urge you not to undertake such an effort. It would be extremely disruptive of the traditionally strong relationship between the College and her alumni and, I believe, would ultimately only harm the College and her mission.

I have read the various materials on the College's website with regard to this matter, including your letter, the FAQ and the memo from the Governance Committee, and find them uniformly unpersuasive as to the need for such a process at this time. To an outside observer, the conclusion is inescapable that the real motivation for this project is the fact that insurgent candidates keep winning and that the changes in the constitution last year failed.

I realize that these events must be frustrating to many of the trustees and certainly to the College's Administration, but suggest that a better response than an alteration of the rules would be to listen to and try to understand the reasoning and motivation of those who keep electing dissident (if that is the right word) trustees.

The issue for me (and, I suspect for many others) is really quite simple: we believe that Dartmouth's proper mission is to be the very best undergraduate college in the world and not a second-tier research university. Given her history, resources, size, student body, reputation, faculty, traditions, and a host of other qualities, Dartmouth could be the best college on the planet. Not one of the best, not in the top five, but the very best--and with proper leadership and focus, this goal is eminently attainable.

Instead, the Administration over the last twenty years or so--first under President Freedman and now under President Wright--seems intent upon trying to compete with Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and others as a small scale research university. We should compete with them, to be sure, but the competition should be between alternative views of the best setting for a quality undergraduate education, not head-to-head as essentially equivalent institutions. In the latter competition, we inevitably lose and, ironically, the muddy focus which results from this pursuit diminishes our chances of achieving the undergraduate pre-eminence that is realistically within our grasp.

This has nothing to with politics or ideology; there is no conservative or liberal position on this issue that I can discern. For me, it is simply a matter of Dartmouth realizing her highest potential and providing her students with the best possible educational experience.

There is much more I could say, but the above pretty well sums it up. I hope that with some honest dialogue (there are many good people on each side of these sometimes complicated questions), we can make Dartmouth even better and closer than ever to the loyal band of alumni which has, over the years, been such an important source of her strength.

If there is some way I can be of help on bringing the factions together and finding a mutually satisfactory solution to the present divisions, please don't hesitate to let me know. The inevitable bitter confrontation over a change in the rules would be disastrous, regardless of the outcome.

With appreciation for your service and dedication to the College and warmest best wishes,

Angus

Alumni Responses Regarding the Trustee Governance Study

2007-07-29T21:32:00.000-04:00

In a post titled Input Needed, Association of Alumni executive committee member David Gale noted that the trustee governance committee, a five member subset of Dartmouth's Board of Trustees, was studying possible changes to the composition of the Board, and to how trustees are selected. He also noted that the College had denied a request to support a mailing by your Association's leaders, recently elected in a vote open to all alumni, intended to inform Association members about the trustee study. That denial from the Alumni Relations office stated that, after consultation with both Dartmouth's president and Board chairman, communication on this topic by alumni Association leaders to their constituents was redundant with the College's own efforts, and thus unnecessary. Your executive committee has disagreed and proceeded to inform alumni without that support. David's post ended with a request that alumni provide input to the trustees, and importantly, share their thoughts with fellow graduates via this forum.

Inputs to date have been lost behind a chain of multiple anonymous posters, who were commenting more on peripheral topics than sharing their specific inputs to trustees. A few brave alums did identify themselves and provide such thoughts. Readers can see those comments by "fast forwarding" to the point where the substantive dialog began. PLEASE RETURN HERE if you want to share your own thoughts on this important topic!

To encourage a more productive format, alumni are asked to share further thoughts on these matters, including copies of their inputs to the trustees, on this new thread. In order to maximize the crediblity of the comments, and minimize diversions, only posts from those who identify their name and Dartmouth class will be allowed; all anonymous postings will be deleted. If someone does feel the need to post anonymously, they remain welcome to do so on the Input Needed discussion thread.

Update: Another member of the EC has objected to the suggestion that anonymous commenters, having been asked to use an alternate discussion thread, would have their comments below deleted. So be it. The intent was not to stifle voices, but to serve readers by keeping this one thread issue-focused and credible. New commenters are still asked to abide by the request for name/class identification on this particular discussion topic. With this as context, readers should take anonymous posts below as a conscious attempt to confuse alumni rather than to engage in meaningful discussion.

To get things started, here is a first response, extracted from a longer communication and copied here with the sender's permission:

***************************************************************

From the Desk of
Neil P. McCulloch '50

Sirs,

I am a member of the class of 1950. My brother, Sandy, was president [Chairman] of the Board of Trustees a few years ago, and he continues to serve the college admirably as head of the Dickey Foundation. He hired James Freedman, for better or worse, and he is a great friend of James Wright. I mean no criticism of my brother, but he and I do not always agree.

I received the letter from the Dartmouth Association of Alumni,reporting on the current intention of the Board's Governance Committee. I have the feeling that this committee is populated by a majority of well-meaning, but mis-guided individuals, who don't approve of the Alumni looking over their shoulders. To me, their "looking into" changing the size of the Board and the method of Trustee selection is an outrageous attempt to walk around (i.e., trample upon) the recent Alumni vote to quash the proposed constitutional amendment, supported by our current President [that would have changed election rules for trustee petition candidates].

The Alumni, of course, are the financial pillars of the college. They have a perfect right to vocal representation and participation concerning its affairs. Moreover, the presence of Alumni selected and elected Board members, among other advantages, replicates our Country's own constitutional system of checks and balances. God help us if that were not there. And let's not take it away from Dartmouth!

How dare [that] the Trustee's Governance Committee is still trying?

I have always given what I can afford, each and every year since I graduated. And Dartmouth is in my will. If this garbage continues, let alone becomes "the law," that will be all changed. I will still cheer for the "Big Green" and part of my heart will always be in Hanover. But my ongoing financial support of the college will cease.

All of us want only what is best for the college we love. I have watched what has happened at other Ivy colleges; I do not want the same for Dartmouth.

Sincerely,

Neil P. McCulloch '50

P.S. Feel free to air my views in any manner you choose.

P.P.S. On the windows of our cars, there are Dartmouth Alumni decals. On my rear license plate, there is a Dartmouth Alumni frame. (The front one is a New England Patriots plate.) I have two Dartmouth golf caps, a couple of Dartmouth T-Shirts, and a neat Dartmouth sweater (which I rarely wear in Florida). None of this makes me a better person, but it does make me feel good!

"No Strings"-- Funding the Alumni Treasury

2007-07-27T07:36:00.000-04:00

A previous discussion thread raised the issue of alumni communication and the use of College resources. Your elected Executive Committee responded to a denial by the College to support our communication to all alumni, as briefly explained here.

All members of the Executive Committee recently received a copy of the following letter, addressed to the Secretary-Treasurer of your Association.

****************************************************

Timothy A. Dreisbach
119 Morgan Road, South Royalton VT 05068

24 July 2007

Mr. David Spalding
Secretary-Treasurer, Dartmouth Association of Alumni
c/o Blunt Hall, Dartmouth College
Hanover, NH 03755

Dear David:

People have expressed concerns about third parties spending money to influence alumni without public disclosure of their activity. There should be similar concerns about the College using the power of the purse to control how the alumni’s elected representatives communicate with their members and represent those interests. Having the Association cover and openly report on its expenses, with financial support coming both from the College and from other individuals or groups, appears a proper balance between these two alternatives.

It is understandable that the College only spends its money as it wishes; that is its right. What upsets me is the Alumni Relations office not giving access to mail lists that would cost nothing additional, including email lists that were provided for use by the prior Executive Committee but are now denied. It is disconcerting to find that even changes to content on our Association web site, which you (wearing your other hat as Dartmouth VP Alumni Relations) once described to me as “maintained by the College as a convenience for the alumni” are also subject to review and veto by College staff.

Enclosed is a personal check in the amount of $xxx that I am donating to our Association. As you know, our alumni constitution requires that we members of the Executive Committee be responsible for “the general interests of the Association [being the alumni], including the raising and expending of money to meet current expenses”. I wish that this sum be deposited in a general account of the treasury, and used to cover Association expenses as determined by the Executive Committee. As we recently decided to communicate by a letter to our members, and the College refused to support that effort, I expect my donation will be applied to help cover the expenses of that mailing.

Further this donation will hopefully serve as an example for other alumni to donate as well. As you know, the Association has opened PO Box 525 in Hanover (03755) to receive feedback from that letter and correspondence in general; if checks made out to the Association are received there, they will be forwarded to you for deposit in our treasury. No longer shall the treasurer’s report be “there is nothing to report because we have no expenses and have no funds.”

As a committee member, I do not believe we should be declaring “financial independence” from the College, as their support to cover Association activities such as trustee and officer elections is necessary and of mutual benefit. But as we have seen, the College is unwilling to fund other efforts deemed by the Association leadership to have high priority. Accordingly, I suggest you consider partitioning our accounts, and the expenses being reported, into two categories… those of a “restricted nature” as contributed by the College, and those freely given for general use.

This donation may not be tax deductible, as we are today not incorporated as a tax-exempt organization. I would appreciate if you could advise as to the requirements of establishing such status. In the interim, I suppose others wishing to donate can do so without such regard as I have done, or will consider making donations to other exempt organizations with a stipulation that those in turn help reimburse our expenses; I believe we can accept such monies in good faith, so long as there are no “strings attached” that would in any way compromise the interests of our members. This should be true without regard as to whether it is the College or other parties who provide the funds.

Sincerely, for Dartmouth alumni and hence for Dartmouth,

Tim Dreisbach ‘71
Executive Committee Member

Enc: Personal Check

Alumni Blog Open to All Alumni

2007-07-27T07:18:00.000-04:00

In the past, this blogsite has provided an mechanism for the alumni's elected Executive Commmittee to post news deemed important to alumni, as it relates to your Association. While anyone can comment in reply, it has not been possible for you to post your own topics that you feel merit thoughtful discussion among your peers.

Your Executive Committee is exploring alternatives with the hope of providing a true discussion forum open to all. On an interim basis, one member is willing to receive your desired posts and place them up here for you. Please send any new discussion threads via email to timdreisbach@gmail.com. Include the topical headline, the text message of up to 500 words, your name and class. I will do my best to post them in a timely manner.

This is an interim "patch" and not a final solution. Let's all consider it a trial. The volume is likely to be minimal to start, but my apologies in advance if I do not always get your posting up as quickly as you want. While the blog does permit anonymous posters, only those who provide their name will be taken seriously enough to merit their own titled discussion thread.

Let's see how it goes. More later on a "real" discussion forum with better features that will enhance communication among our alumni members.

Tim Dreisbach '71

Communication and Use of College Resources

2007-07-24T10:23:00.000-04:00

The following was the response to the request made by the AOA Executive Committee (following a majority vote) to Alumni Relations to both fund the mailing of a hard-copy letter to all alumni and to distribute that letter electronically to all alumni who have e-mail:

July 6, 2007

Mr. William L. Hutchinson
P. O. Box 701
Nantucket, MA 02554-0701

Dear Bill,

I am writing today in response to the resolutions passed on Tuesday night regarding the Alumni Association's request for funding and resources to communicate with alumni about the review being undertaken by the Governance Committee of the Board of Trustees.

The Board has made clear that it is committed to considering the views of alumni as part of its review. As a first step, Ed Haldeman, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, sent a personal letter to alumni on June 8, the day that this review was initiated, informing alumni of the reasons for and the goals of the review. The College also established a website at <http://www.dartmouth.edu/governancefeedback> and issued a press release publicizing the site so that alumni would be encouraged to provide feedback. The online feedback process was reinforced in two separate "Speaking of Dartmouth" emails sent to all alumni. These emails included a direct link for easy access to the feedback site. Many alumni have already gone to the website and provided their thoughts and comments on the issues under review by the Governance Committee. Ed will be sending a communication to all alumni early next week.

In addition, the Committee is actively soliciting the views of trustees, emeritus trustees, and alumni leaders, as well as gathering information on best practices followed by other educational institutions and non-profit institutions.

In short, a number of steps have already been taken and mechanisms are in place to keep alumni up-to-date about the governance review and to solicit alumni views on this matter - and these measures appear to be working effectively. I discussed this with Ed Haldeman and Jim Wright. Given the various efforts underway, we do not believe that separate and duplicative communications from the Alumni Association are necessary.

Thanks again for your interest in this issue.

Sincerely,

David Spalding

Input Needed

2007-07-10T11:07:00.000-04:00

As has been mentioned here before, the governance committee of the Board of Trustees is examining the size and composition of the Board, and will be making its recommendation to the Board in September. The Executive Committee of the Association voted to send a letter to all alumni informing them of this issue, and pointing to the governance committee's feedback form; the College, which traditionally has funded all expenses the Executive Committee deemed appropriate, denied our request for funding this communication.

Because our constitution requires that the members of the Executive Committee "have charge of the general interests of the Association", and because we feel that the role alumni have in electing half of the Board of Trustees is a primary interest, we have decided to run a survey to more accurately assess the opinions of the entire alumni body. We are exploring our options to ensure completeness and accuracy, and will make an announcement when the survey actually begins.

In the meantime, we strongly urge our fellow alumni to take a few minutes and send their comments and suggestions to the governance committee through its form.

Welcome New Alumnae and Alumni

2007-06-11T19:14:00.000-04:00

The leadership of the Association of Alumni and the Alumni Council, heartily welcome the more than 1,600 new association members! We encourage you to become familiar with and participate in the association to which you now belong. Alumnae and alumni play a vital part in the life of the college in terms of service, support and guidance, and we look to you, our newest members, to bring your energy, ideas and commitment to your new role as a Dartmouth graduate.

One alumni activity stands above all others: voting. Dartmouth is unique among its peers in that half of the non-ex officio seats on its Board of Trustees are graduates of the college who are selected by all alumnae and alumni. The leadership of the Association of Alumni is elected in the same way. As a voting member of the association, you will be asked to carefully and knowledgeably choose trustee candidates and your association's leadership. Your participation in this process is critical. You have a say in Dartmouth's future and a responsibility to guide her well.

Similarly, while members the Alumni Council are selected or elected in many different ways by the various entities involved, as we go forward, the goal is to have most if not all representatives elected. Here, too, you should remain involved through your class, your club, or your affiliated group. You should communicate with your representatives to make your views known, so that they can be addressed either in the Alumni Council or through the Association.

The moment you matriculated you became a part of the Dartmouth family. We celebrate with you the beginning of the next phase of your experience within that family. The learning, the fellowship and the fun have really just begun. Welcome!

William L. Hutchinson '76, President, Dartmouth Association of Alumni

Richard T. Silverman M.D. '81, President, Dartmouth Alumni Council

Motions to recover legal fees from MacGovern twice denied

2007-06-07T21:35:00.000-04:00

The motion filed by Dartmouth College on behalf of the Association of Alumni for award of attorneys' fees in the suit brought by John MacGovern has been denied by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. This follows a previous motion for attorneys' fees against MacGovern in the Superior Court, which was also denied. Both motions had charged MacGovern with "vexatious litigation."

MacGovern's suit had sought redress and remedy for alumni he maintained had been effectively restricted from voting in their own Association's elections through unconstitutional and self-serving guidelines, imposed by a previous executive committee of the Association without approval by the Association members. As it was his only legal action against the Association, as he has never sued the College, and as he presented a substantial case in both the original action and the appeal, he argued, the motions filed by the College's attorneys were baseless. "The voting rights of alumni having been achieved, however," MacGovern quipped, "I will be magnanimous and not sue the College for vexatious litigation."

Issue of Concern to All Dartmouth Alumni

2007-05-31T10:07:00.000-04:00

To all Dartmouth Alumni:

The Dartmouth Board of Trustees is considering changes to its composition, including the means by which its members are seated. The agreement for seating alumni trustees is one between the Trustees and the Association of Alumni. We understand the Association's previous leadership has not been invited or involved in these considerations over the past months. This is of great concern to us, as participation by alumni-chosen trustees has been of great value to the College, and through this stewardship, it is a most-meaningful way of engaging her loyal sons and daughters.

The attached letter was approved by ten of the elected leaders of your Association, with one dissenter, and sent to the Trustees. A majority of the Executive Committee, being those of us signing below, believes we have a further obligation to report our concerns, and our actions, to you. This is at the core of our belief that alumni leaders must be more open and transparent to the alumni they represent. We trust that if alumni are kept informed, you will individually and collectively be able to make good judgments. As a courtesy to the Trustees prior to this public statement, we awaited confirmation that the letter had been received, and we alerted our Association president that we would also be communicating it to you.

We ask that you read the attached letter and give it thoughtful consideration. Please let us know your concerns, which will inform any subsequent dialog we have with the Trustees; also communicate directly to others as you deem appropriate. The Trustees convene next week prior to Commencement, beginning June 8.

Respectfully,
A Majority of the Association of Alumni Executive Committee
Frank Gado, Second Vice President; Martin Boles ; Tim Dreisbach; Alex Mooney; Marji Ross; Kathryn Flitner Wallop
**************************************************************************

Dear members of the Dartmouth Board of Trustees:

We, the newly elected officers and Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni, wish to convey the concern of a majority of our members regarding an issue raised in a statement made by current Board Chairman, Mr. William Neukom, to the Alumni Council on May 19, 2007. In those remarks, Mr. Neukom indicated that the Governance Committee of the Board would be presenting its report to the Board at its June 9, 2007 meeting and that the Board would consider changes to the alumni trustee election process and over-all Board composition at that time.

We sense that the agreement alumni have with the Board, established in 1891 and historically evolved since then, whereby alumni effectively elect half of the non-ex officio members of the Board, is threatened. We believe that any action which violates, restricts, abridges or dilutes that agreement, as currently enjoyed, would be injurious to Dartmouth College, its students and alumni. Not only do we strongly urge the Board to take no such steps, but we also believe strongly that the newly constituted AOA Executive Committee, elected for the first time in all-media, alumni-wide voting, should be included in any discussions related to that agreement. We feel that such cooperation and coordination with the Board is the best means for alumni to be engaged in solutions to problems facing the Board and the college's administration and for us to fulfill our obligation to take all appropriate measures to protect and insure retention of the agreement, the uninterrupted exercise of which has redounded to the great benefit of Dartmouth for 116 years.

For the committee,
William L. Hutchinson '76, President

Association Election Results

2007-05-21T13:06:00.000-04:00

Members of the Dartmouth College Association of Alumni have elected a new slate of officers and executive committee members. The results were announced at the association's annual meeting on Saturday, May 19. The following alumni were elected:

Executive Committee Officers:
President: William Hutchinson '76 (8,093)
First Vice President: Kate Aiken '92 (9,997)
Second Vice President: Frank Gado '58 (8,254)
Secretary-Treasurer: David Spalding '76 (8,288)

Executive Committee Members:
Cheryl Bascomb '82 (5,832)
Martin Boles '80 (5,320)
Timothy Dreisbach '71 (6,636)
Kathryn Flitner Wallop '80 (6,993)
David Gale '00 (5,529)
Marjory Grant Ross '81 (5,651)
Alexander Mooney '93 (4,985)

Other candidates and vote totals included Dean Spatz '66, Candidate for President (7,485), James Baehr '05, Candidate for First Vice President (5,580), Malcolm Robinson '57, '58Tu, Candidate for Second Vice President (6,894), Richard Roberts '83, Candidate for Secretary-Treasurer (6,907), Robert Adelizzi '57 (4,122), Jan Brzeski '89 (3,509), Albert Cook '62 (3,786), Ann Haley Fromholz '90 (4,589), John Harrington '80 (4,052), Chris Hjermstad '68 (3,132), Gary Love '76 (3,676), John Reed '75 (3,668), Noah Riner '06 (4,920), Alex Wilson '01 (3,018), Allison Zeilinger '04 (3,865).

All 67,700 Dartmouth alumni are members of the association. Voting took place online and by paper ballot from April 1 through May 19, 2007.

Reminder - Voting Deadlines

2007-05-11T08:43:00.000-04:00

Remember these important dates --

o May 15 - deadline for receipt of paper ballots and on line ballots for the Trustee and Association Officer and Executive Committee elections

o May 19, 1:30 PM - Association of Alumni Annual Meeting, Alumni Hall, Hanover NH

Members of the Association of Alumni who have not voted will have the opportunity to vote in person during the meeting. If you have already cast a ballot you will not be able to submit a new vote.

The final results of the Association election will be announced at the close of the meeting.

We look forward to seeing you in Hanover on the 19th!

For more information go to: www.voxthevote.org.

MacGovern Lawsuit against Association Dismissed by NH Suprerme Court

2007-04-25T17:33:00.000-04:00

The State of New Hampshire Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by John MacGovern '80 against the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College.

MacGovern, filed a petition on November 20, 2005, with the Grafton County Superior Court to force the Association to accept 420 proxy votes he collected prior to the Association’s annual meeting on October 23, 2005, and overturn the results of the Association’s annual officer and executive committee elections. The Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit on August 4, 2006. MacGovern appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court.

In an order issued April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court said “The petitioner’s allegations fail to ‘meet the threshold necessary to intrude upon the association’s internal affairs.’…. He has failed to state ‘any logical reason for the interference here by the courts in the internal affairs of the [Association] and we can conceive of none.’Accordingly, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate injustice or illegal action resulting in damage to him, we … affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s action.”

On February 10, 2006, the Superior Court also denied MacGovern’s request for a temporary restraining order to force the Association of Alumni to include proxy votes at its February 12, 2006, meeting.

Copies of the Superior Court’s decision are available from Orr & Reno.

Annual Meeting of the Association of Alumni

2007-04-23T10:34:00.000-04:00

This is a reminder that the Annual Meeting of the Association of Alumni will take place Saturday, May 19 beginning at 1:30 PM. Any member of the Association who has not cast a ballot for Officers and the Executive Committee will have an opportunity to do so in person at the meeting.

Vote for Association of Alumni Officers and Executive Committee

2007-03-16T14:13:00.000-04:00

The voting period for the election of officers and the executive committee for the Association of Alumni will open April 1. All eligible voters can vote via paper ballot or electronically until 11:59 PM on May 15, or you can vote in person at the annual meeting on Saturday, May 19. For a list of candidates, biographies and statements, go to www.VoxtheVote.org.

New Alumni Trustee Nomination Guidelines

2006-12-06T07:15:00.000-05:00

New guidelines for Alumni Trustee Nominations are now available. Information on the candidates nominated and ratified by the Alumni Council as well as information on the petition process can be found on the Vox the Vote web site.

Reforms to Constitution Fail to Gain Passage

2006-11-02T10:09:00.000-05:00

The proposed new constitution for the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College and the petition amendments to the current constitution failed to achieve the level of support necessary for passage in voting by Dartmouth alumni that ended October 31. Approval by two-thirds of alumni voting was required to pass any constitutional amendments. More information on the vote is available at www.voxthevote.org.

Thirty-eight percent of eligible alumni participated in the vote. The 24,834 ballots cast represent a record number of voters in any Dartmouth alumni election. Those voting cast ballots online and by telephone and mail.

As a result of the vote, the two existing constitutions will remain in place.

We are encouraged by the high level of turnout, and we hope that all alumni will continue to be engaged in Dartmouth and its students.

What Happens When the Voting Period Ends on October 31?

2006-10-27T16:41:00.000-04:00

Click here to learn about the ballot counting procedure which will take place on November 1, 2006.

Questions? Contact Merle Adelman, Chair, Balloting Committee at merle.adelman.80@alum.dartmouth.org.

Final Chance to Vote!

2006-10-24T07:04:00.000-04:00

As of October 24, 22% of eligible Alumni have voted via the internet or by telephone. If you have not done so already, please submit your paper ballot, vote on line, or vote via phone. Instructions are available at VoxtheVote.org.

Get out the Vote!

2006-10-06T08:39:00.000-04:00

As of October 6, 14% of eligible alumni have cast their vote.

Your vote WILL make a difference so please take the time to cast your ballot via email, paper mail or telephone.

More information is available at http://voxthevote.org/.

MacGovern Appeals Case Dismissal

2006-10-06T08:35:00.000-04:00

John MacGovern '80 has appealed the dismissal of his case against the Association of Alumni to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The court will process the legal briefs this fall, with a decision possible sometime in 2007. For more information about the case, click here.

Constitutional Amendment Election Period Now Open

2006-09-18T11:45:00.000-04:00

The Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College constitutional amendment election period is now open. All alumni will receive a postal mail and/or email notification announcing the election period and including instructions for voting and viewing the accompanying election materials. Electonic notification has been sent to all alumni with email addresses on file with Alumni Relations, and printed packages are being sent to all alumni unless the person asked for electronic versions only earlier this summer.

This vote covers the new proposed constitution (Amendment #1) and four additional petition amendments that have been proposed to the current constitution (Amendments #2-5).

Eligible voters may cast their ballot via postal mail, a secure web site (you will need your unique Alumni ID number which will be sent to you), or via telephone.

Votes may be cast between September 15 and October 31, 2006.

Election of Officers and Annual Meeting

2006-09-13T08:30:00.000-04:00

The voting period to elect officers and the executive committee for the Association of Alumni will take place April 1-May 15, 2007 by all-media voting (as stated this spring). Votes may also be cast at the annual meeting of the Association, which is scheduled for Saturday, May 19, 2007. The May 15 deadline gives the independent election administrator time to tabulate the results received to date and expedites the announcement of the final election results following the annual meeting. The tabulated results will remain confidential until the final votes are counted. A formal announcement regarding the annual meeting and election of officers and the Executive Committee will be made in November.

Trustees Vote to Endorse the Proposed Constitution

2006-09-10T22:40:00.000-04:00

On September 9, at their annual planning retreat, the Board of Trustees adopted a motion (passed by a 14 to 3 margin) to support the proposed constitution:

VOTED: to express appreciation for the work by the Joint Committee on Alumni Governance and Trustee Nominations (2001-2003) and the Alumni Governance Task Force (2004-06), and to thank the many individuals and groups who participated in the process that has led to the proposed system for alumni governance and the nomination of alumni to the Board of Trustees.

VOTED: to record the Board’s support of the proposed constitution of the Dartmouth Alumni Association that provides 1) a more representative alumni governance structure; 2) better communication channels with the Trustees and College administration; 3) a fair trustee nomination process; and 4) modernized voting methods for election of Association officers and representatives.

Full text available from Speaking of Dartmouth

John MacGovern Lawsuit Dismissed by Grafton Country Superior Court

2006-08-09T14:17:00.000-04:00

The State of New Hampshire Grafton Superior Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by John MacGovern against the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College. MacGovern, a member of the class of 1980, filed his petition on November 30, 2005, to force the Association to accept 420 proxy votes he collected prior to the Association’s annual meeting on October 23, 2005, and overturn the results of the Association’s annual officer and executive committee elections.

In its order, the court found that "since there is no statute applicable to the Association that authorizes proxy voting, the Court concludes that the common law rule that members may not vote by proxy applies ... Accordingly, Mar. MacGovern's claims fail as a matter of law, and the Association's motion to dismiss is granted."

On February 10, 2006, the court also denied MacGovern’s request for a temporary restraining order to force the Association of Alumni to include proxy votes at its February 12, 2006, meeting.

The decision was delivered on August 4, 2006. MacGovern has 30 days in which to appeal the decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Copies of the decision are available from Orr & Reno.