92% of Dartmouth Alumni want to Keep Right to Elect Trustees
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.
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.
posted by Tim Dreisbach '71 at
9/06/2007 01:43:00 PM
29 Comments:
I received the survey and thought it was very misleading. Basically, the questions were posed in such a way that you wouldn't return it unless you agreed with the propositions being advanced. It looks like 50,000 alums elected not to respond. The headline of this press release reminds me of just how misleading the original "survey" was. The whole thing is very discouraging to alums like me.
By
John Mathias '69, at 9/06/2007 4:25 PM
John:
The first survey question was:
"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). Agree or disagree?"
Either you agree or not, so how is the question biased?
Of course there is room for interpretation... for example some respondents disagreed as they believe the percentage of alumni-chosen trustees should be INCREASED.
Want to test this? Read the question to someone totally unconnected with the College and ask if they can identify bias.
In what way was our survey structured so that you were unable to check the DISAGREE box? We would like to understand what you and possibly others might find more acceptable in future surveys of alumni opinion.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/06/2007 5:00 PM
Would the survey have been less biased if it had had a second question:
"I believe the balance should be changed, and the percentage of alumni-chosen trustees reduced. Agree or disagree?"
True a real scientific survey has such duplicate questions, but it is unlikely such filtering would result in a materially different outcome.
By
Anonymous, at 9/06/2007 5:12 PM
Tim, we've been over and over why the survey was biased. It looks like something that came out of "Persuasive Writing 101," a piece of propaganda or political push-polling meant less to take a scientific sample than to convince people that a particular contention is correct. It is unlike any civic ballot referendum any of us has ever seen, because the stated premises on which it bases its questions are objectively false.
There are no "directly-elected alumni trustees" at Dartmouth. The first survey question claims that there are, however. If you say "I believe" the balance of directly-elected trustees should be maintained, you are actually agreeing to at least two volatile propositions: (1) there is such a thing as a "directly-elected alumni trustee" and (2) the balance of those people should be maintained.
It's exactly like the old joke, "Do your parents know you're gay?" Any yes or no answer assumes the truth of the premise, which is that the respondent is gay, whether or not that premise is true. That's what makes it a joke and not generally a serious question. Although someone who is not gay could truthfully answer "no," his full answer ("no, my parents do not know I am gay because I am not in fact gay") is not one of the two possibilities on the pollster's chart (which are, of course, "I am gay but my parents do/do not know").
We're not talking shades of interpretation, we're talking demonstrably false. Even the people who claim that they have some "election rights" do not generally claim that there is a direct election. Instead, they tend to say that the Board promised to "elect" those whom the alumni "nominate." If this claim could be proven, the Trustees will be defeated in court, and yet there will still not be anything "direct" about the multi-step election.
Here's one way you could have written the question to make the bias less obvious:
"The Board of Trustees elects sixteen of its eighteen members following nominations by a Board committee or by the Association of Alumni, which selects its nominee by vote. Should the Board continue to take nominatees from both groups in equal numbers?"
Check Yes or No.
By asserting a variety of contentious points within a single question while giving only two answer possibilities, the survey torpedoed the usefulness of the response.
Some people seem to think that getting a belief, any belief, is valuable. But some of those who checked "yes" were not stating an opinion about Board policy, they were saying that "I believe that Alumni Trustees are directly-elected." Sure, alumni beliefs could the subject of an entirely separate survey ("I believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11," "I believe that the earth is flat," etc.) but that is not the goal of this survey. And we can't tell how many people were making this statement of belief under the current survey anyway.
Again, this is exactly the kind of poll that would be appropriate for the Hanover Institute or the Dartmouth Review, some group whose stock in trade is taking partisan positions. It does not seem appropriate for the Alumni Association to be adopting the stances of those groups.
By
scott m. '95, at 9/06/2007 6:35 PM
Mathias,
Misleading or not, you checked the boxes, returned the card, and those responses figured in the totals.
As I recall, the questions were vetted by the entire Executive Committee, including Spalding and Hutchinson.
Like Tim, I don't see how "agree" and "disagree" were leading. "Push" techniques include a declaratory statement with which the person questioned is bound to have a strong reaction. For example: "Given Scott Meacham's record of hectoring instead of seeking information, he should be prevented from participation. Agree or Disagree. The real point of the question is not to solicit opinion but to plant a biased view.
Pity the ALumni Relations Office never revealed the responses to its model questions.
By
Tom Paine, at 9/07/2007 12:50 AM
Frank, was that dig above strictly necessary? It sounds like my earlier questions hit fairly close to home... Especially given that my requests for information about your undisclosed conflict of interest were expressly phrased as requests for information rather than as personal attacks.
You still have not disclosed whether the NH corporate filing for the Institute is currently accurate in declaring you a corporate officer, a status both you and your endorser (the Institute) declined to disclose when you campaigned for your current AoA seat. Given that you have claimed that you have a fiduciary duty to the AoA and you unquestionably had or have one to the Institute, will you please tell us now whether you remain an officer of that corporation?
Will you also tell us whether you or someone else is funding the retention of the law firm you have spoken of, and whether that funding is a gift or a loan to the AoA for payment to the firm, or is being paid directly to the firm itself? If it is paid directly to the firm, does the firm consider the AoA to be its client, or you?
Other than the "mandate" of your election, have you run any of your actions by the membership or the Executive Committee for approval?
It seems to me that the entire Association has a right to know the answers to these questions, if you are undertaking these things in the name of the Association.
By
scott M. '95, at 9/08/2007 1:44 PM
Scott is asking right questions. I wonder why Mr. Gaddo refuses to answer and resorts to attacks. Perhaps because he is much less concerned with the welfare of the DOA or the college, but seems intent on pusuing his and the Dartmouth Institute's agenda.
I can only agree with the editorial board of the "D", that Dartmouth needs stewards not politicians on its board and in its alumni body.
By
Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 9/08/2007 3:30 PM
Scott,
As discussed previously, nine of the ten non-Frank members of the Executive Committee voted that he does not have a conflict of interest, disclosed or otherwise. I thought that closed that issue.
As to the law firm: we discussed this in our most recent meeting; once the minutes of that are finalized, you (or any other alum) will be able to request them and review them (a major change from previous executive committees, by the way). In short: the funding for the law firm is currently coming from alumni, not the executive committee; the executive committee is the client; these funds are not a loan to the AoA. We also voted on whether or not to force Frank to disclose exactly who was paying the bills; the majority voted against this, for a variety of reasons, the most obvious (to me) being that, no matter what his personal view on the matter are, David Spalding can be compelled by his employer to reveal any information which is shared during the executive meetings, even if such information should be held confidential from the College. We also voted on whether or not to request that the College reveal to us how much money they're spending on matters related to the AoA, including legal fees, and again the majority voted against such disclosure.
Finally, all actions Frank (and everyone else on the EC) have taken in the name of the Association have been properly vetted by the EC. Again, you can request our minutes if you'd like to verify this.
By
David Gale, at 9/08/2007 3:35 PM
David
If I understand you correctly, some anonymous alumni are paying for the EC to get legal representation to challenge a potential action of the Board. The same anonymous alumni who are behind the Committte to Save Dartmouth and the recent ads.
The Board and the college has been open and transparent about the governance review, which the DAA has no more right to be consulted on than any other alumnus.
It seems to me that it is the executive committee that isacting improperly in enabling Frank to pursue this before the Board has even announced the results of its study.
The actions of the newly elected majority demonstrate that you are not interested in listening to their conclusions and then evaluating them, but rather have become a political party driven by an agenda in opposition to that of the current college board and administration.
Your actions are precisely why the edeitorial in the "D" by the Board recommends change.
By
Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 9/08/2007 3:52 PM
Mr. Lewin,
I don't know whether the alumni funding the law firm are the same as the Committee to Save Dartmouth or the recent ads, and certainly would not make the categorical statement that they are the same merely on the basis that I don't know who they are.
I'm also not sure how "open and transparent" the Board and the College have been. They have not, to my knowledge, told anyone which problems they are trying to solve; the questionnaire that they sent to certain alumni leaders covered pretty much every aspect of the Board, without once indicating which ones they feel are in need of fixing. For instance, in my response, I questioned why one of the questions dealt with the size of the Board, while we are in the middle of a decade-long increase in its size; surely we should complete that expansion before we determine whether or not further growth beyond that is necessary.
They have also not shared what solutions to these non-defined problems they are considering, even when they (finally) had a conference call with the EC less than a week before filing their recommendations.
And, of course, according to Bill Neukom, the governance committee had been meeting for a year discussing these issues before his announcement last spring.
You also seem to assume that the EC has "enabled" Frank to do more than we actually have. All that we have given him authority to do is to retain counsel for legal advice & to keep our options open; we expressly did not give him authority to file suit against anyone. That is, again, available in our meeting minutes; if you would like, I can send you a copy.
Finally, I'm not sure how you feel our actions indicate that we're "not interested in listening to their conclusions and then evaluating them", when most of our actions to date have been requesting that the Board actually consult with us--talk to us about what they feel are problems, and what solutions they're considering--before they do anything that would remove from the Association the role that it has enjoyed since 1891--specifically, the role of electing half of the non ex-officio Trustees. We want to talk with the Board, and feel that we have valid (and valuable!) input that they should've sought during this review process.
By
David Gale, at 9/08/2007 4:31 PM
I would request that in the interest of fairness someone post yesterday's editorial in the "D".
This is what students think. I only wish that the DAA executive committee majority running roughshod on everyone else could think as clearly.
AN OLD TRADITION FAILS
Dartmouth’s trial in organizational democracy is no longer in its best interest. But let us be clear, and don’t let anyone fool you; the College’s current structure of governance isn’t really a democracy. Democracy is government by the governed. In the case of Dartmouth, the students and faculty are the governed, but the alumni are not. The so-called government for those constituencies is the Board of Trustees and, no matter how the Board is composed, the governance of Dartmouth relies on the construction of a Board that acts in the best interest of the College’s students and teachers. So, when the Board convenes Friday, it should attempt to construct a Board with that goal — and only that goal — in mind.
Over the last few years, elections for alumni trustees have seated the wrong people. The victor in the most recent election, Stephen Smith ‘88, ran against a phantom speech code. One of the winners of the previous alumni trustee election was Todd Zywicki ‘88, a Virginia lawyer skilled at and willing to make completely specious arguments convincingly.
Zywicki recently backed off the argument he made in an August op-ed in this newspaper that the 1891 resolution of the Board is a contract between Dartmouth and its alumni that “promises the alumni body the right to elect half of the Board.” For a systematic dismantling of that argument, the Editorial Board would point readers to former Trustee Kate Stith-Cabranes ‘73’s essay published on The Dartmouth Independent’s website last week. Zywicki responded to Stith-Cabranes on his blog, denying that he had ever tried to argue that the 1891 agreement was legally binding. He without question was trying to convince readers that the 1891 resolution was binding, whether or not he believed it himself.
Smith’s and Zywicki’s demagoguery demonstrates what can go wrong in the current system if individuals decide to exploit it. In the age of all-media voting and the Internet, smart people can convince the less informed of many things, true or not, and the current system has rewarded those adept at rhetoric. We want for Dartmouth stewards, not politicians.
Now Dartmouth is at a juncture. It must decide what is best for its future. A big part of that future is the money that will maintain the College. Truly frightening would be a scenario in which the major donors lost their say on the Board to those who undervalue large gifts to the College. If major donors cease to have influence, Dartmouth will cease to have major donors, a scenario that the Board has a responsibility to avoid. Indeed, these financial considerations should be understandable; they were the impetus for the resolution in 1891.
Dartmouth’s new Board structure could take one of many forms. Whatever the Board decides, it should place a great deal of the power in the hands of people dedicated to stewardship and to future Boards. It should reward large donors, and it should consist of a range of vantage points and skills. Undoubtedtly the alumni viewpoint is vital and should have a place on the Board; T.J. Rodgers ‘70 shook up the Board positively when he brought Dartmouth’s questionable commitment to free speech to its end. But the alumni should not be able to take the Board; it is not theirs to take. We agree with Board Chairman Ed Haldeman ‘70 that alumni will sometimes resist beneficial change and that tough decisions are not always popular.
Dartmouth is distinctive in its alumni dedication, but that loyalty is the product of our college, not the structure of the Board. To those loyal alumni who love the College so, Dartmouth will always rely on your approval. Your philanthropy or lack thereof will always be a constraint on the Board’s decisions. But true love is selfless. If you truly love it, you should be able to cherish the College without controlling it.
By
Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 9/08/2007 4:31 PM
Mr. Lewin,
You state: "The Board and the college has been open and transparent about the governance review, which the DAA has no more right to be consulted on than any other alumnus." Unfortunately, your perception is as faulty as your grammar. There has been nothing "open" or "teransparent" about the Board's review. Even the alumni trustees elected through the petition process knew nothing about the year-long review until Neukom stated his intention to nuke'em the alumni at the May meeting. And how one could say that a putative review that never interviewed the representatives of the only elected alumni, the successors to the AoA governance committee with whom the Board's counterpart struck the 1891 agreement, is open and transparfent is beyond me. This administration, which is behind the proposed alteration in the system, has been anything but "open." Vide the unreleased McKinsey Report. And the survey it took of alumni last year.
Not that you really want to know, but the donors paying the legal fees are as anonymous to me as they are to the rest of the EC. Properly so. In that way, we are not beholden to anyone's views of the case. Are they the same donors as those who funded the savedartmouth.com ads? I have no idea. But why should that trouble you any more than Peter Fahey's huge financial support of the adminstration. Haldeman told Hutchinson he was feeling pressure from wealthy supporters who wanted him to "do something" about the election of petition trustees. That, I assume, doesn't bother you at all.
Open and transparent! Now THAT's rich!
By
Tom Paine, at 9/08/2007 4:33 PM
From what I have seen and read on this blog, the actions of Frank Gado are shameful and a disgrace to Dartmouth and the Association of Alumni.
If he has any honor and integrity, Frank should resign immediately. He represents no one but himself, and is filled only with fulfilling his negative vendetta with the college. I find it surprising that Frank is allowed to stay and continue being a member of the Hanover institute (it would be hard for him to not to pass information along), but David Gale, you cite secrecy regarding funding and David Spalding's ties to the college as the reason not to disclose the alumni financial backers. Strange how you allow one conflict and disallow another, although you mention " a majority" - and I imagine this was along petition/non-petition lines.
Seems like the majority can do what it wants, and as it suits them regardless of it being the "right thing" - sounds like you are no better than the college's actions you criticize. I am very diappointed by what I (and many alumni) would consider a serious conflict of interest - especially given the dollar amounts involved.
I am surprised that the rest of the Association of Alumni would let certain members act in such a unethical and/or unilateral way. If you claim the association represents alumni, then I can feel it is only fair you have to disclose who is funding the associations - or since democracy is cited a lot - why not put it up to the alumni to decide - you could have asked a couple of more questions on that green card. The dollar amounts being spent are not trivial, and constitute an "agenda".
So sad how hollow things have become.
By
Anonymous, at 9/08/2007 4:40 PM
Andrew:
I think our executive committee has been as open as possible. We were near unanimous on sending a letter to the trustees, and then a majority of us voted to make those communications open to alumni. We have published the results of our survey as promised. All actions taken in the name of the Association and its executive committee are approved beforehand by a vote of the committee, and as David Gale notes, our meeting minutes are then open to any Association member who requests to see them. This is a huge improvement in transparency from prior administrations. The only area where confidentiality has been deemed appropriate, on the advice of counsel, is the details on legal arrangements in the light of potential litigation (which all hope can be avoided).
The Board has not been as open (and perhaps they cannot be)... their survey of alumni leaders was done quietly and not opened to all alumni (or even members of the Executive Committee) until after some of us on the committee forced the issue with our President. They have not indicated that they will reveal any quantifiable summary of the inputs they have received. The Governance Committee did not even share the existence of the study, which began last winter, with the full Board.
Re our own listening before acting, we would have been happy to await hearing recommendations from the governance committee if the plans were to discuss them with the AoA before a formal vote by the Board. But this is not how things have proceeded.
The Association, being all 68,000 members collectively, with whom the trustees struck a governance agreement, does have the right to be consulted.
In the "D" articles you reference, Ed Haldeman states one cannot have a democratic group of alumni running the College. But that is not what is argued for... only maintaining a parity of trustees democratically elected by alumni to then do what they believe to be in the best interests of the College, just as current trustees similarly pick new charter ones.
Would co-education have passed under such a system? First, one notes that today's system was also in place in 1971-2. Would the organized dissent of today have made the trustee co-education decision more difficult? Perhaps. But it does not mean co-education would not have happened. Perhaps it would have taken a year or three longer to accomplish, with more of the issues known to alumni... such as the need for more dormatories which are only being addressed thirty years late. Arguably with more alumni involvement, we could have transitioned to being co-ed without as much of the pain in the early years, as the College raced ahead in "me too" fashion.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/08/2007 4:42 PM
The Dartmouth ran a story that explains a bit more about the Execs' retention of Williams & Connolly. The article mentions that the Execs have sent a letter to Dartmouth requesting that it preserve its documents for legal discovery prior to a trial.
Thank you again, David, for clarifying the AoA's actions on this important matter. As I understand it now, the Executive Committee has retained the law firm on behalf of the Association of Alumni, which seems to be the only party with standing to seek to enforce the 1891 Agreement. Counsel is being paid not by the Association but by one or more undisclosed parties whose point of contact is Frank Gado, the Secretary of the Hanover Institute, Inc., acting here in his capacity as Association Vice President.
Other schools' alumni associations charge dues and presumably raise their own funds, which seem like more broad-based and transparent ways of paying for a legal attack on the College. Perhaps there is not enough time to get those methods into motion, however, and tapping individual donors is the only way to go. The whole thing would just smell a little better if we knew who the donors are and knew that they were donating to the Association rather than writing checks directly to a D.C. law firm (which is my interpretation based on David's explanation).
It sounds like an expensive project for all involved.
By
scott m. '95, at 9/08/2007 5:22 PM
Scott: I believe you have presented an accurate summary. Litigation would be both expensive and regretable, which is why many of us have worked so hard to provide input to avoid trustee actions taking us all over the edge.
By the way, there is precedent for attorneys representing the Association with fees paid by a third party, wherein the Association and its Officers had no involvement in the finances. As you know just last winter, the College was the third-party financier of undisclosed amounts in litigation involving the Assocation.
It is my understanding that past Association officers also received legal advice on various issues pertaining to the annual meetings and the constitutional amendment efforts. These sums have also never been disclosed.
A majority of our executive committee is very much looking for ways to be even more open about finances, short of charging dues. Sadly it is our President and Treasurer who have been most resistant to accepting money from alumni and then reporting on how it is spent. The retention and handling of legal counsel is one exception to the rule, for purposes explained by David G. above.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/08/2007 5:54 PM
Thank you, Tim. I was not aware that the College had not disclosed how much it had to spend defending the Association against lawsuits (by Frank's Institute, perhaps? It doesn't matter). At least we know where the money came from then, since I assume the College was not hiding its involvement.
An anti-Dartmouth lawsuit put forth by the Execs and funded by anonymous foundations or individuals would seem to be a different creature, but I doubt it will come to pass now. Dartmouth announced that it is preserving all of the Alumni Trustees, so we can step back and call off the law firms.
I was worried the Trustees would abolish those seats or do something else to offend Frank.
By
scott M. '95, at 9/08/2007 9:58 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Hanover, NH September 8 2007 – 100 KILOTON F BOMB DROPPED OVER HANOVER PLAIN
Early this evening, an F bomb estimated to have a force of more than 100 kilotons detonated over the Green on the campus of Dartmouth College. The force of the blast devastated the 238 year old college, and the fallout immediately created a toxic cloud that is expected to remain for generations to come. While investigations are ongoing, the perpetrators are believed to be a grossly myopic subset of Dartmouth alumni who, feeling threatened by the Tinys, a still smaller set of the same alumni body, decided to launch the F bomb not only against the Tinys, but also against approximately 92% of all other living alumni who cared about having a voice in Dartmouth’s governance. Experts believe that the blast will create donation sickness for years to come, likely to be followed by decades of bequeathment sterility. Speaking for Dartmouth, the majority faction of the Board of Trustees said “It WAS a small college, but we don’t love it. One day the Tinys might have been able to mess up our power trip, so we’re glad we launched the F bomb. Hey, we’re trustees - our kids are already guaranteed admission, so what the F do we care if other alums continue to support Dartmouth.”
By
Anonymous, at 9/08/2007 11:07 PM
Isn't "dropping the F-Bomb" slang for using the F-word? The Board, which includes Trustees Zywicki, Smith, Rogers, and Robinson, explained its rationale very clearly in its report. Adding eight new seats is actually pretty mild and non-confrontational compared to abolishing all alumni trustee seats, which was another option on the table.
Anonymous, why are you so insulted? Why do you think "92%" has any credibility? And what the f*** is "bequeathment"?
By
Anonymous, at 9/09/2007 1:27 PM
The Globe says "half of the revolving members were slotted for alumni selection" for a century." But half of the revolving members have been slotted for alumni only since 1961, which is less than a century. Before that, it was "five" (out of ten, to be sure, but not "half" or "parity," which is a concept instituted in 1961 and maintained in 2003).
Why doesn't the Globe point out that the Board drastically boosted the power of Alumni Trustees, who always had limited terms, when it slashed its own Charter Trustees' terms from lifetimes to 8 years max, the same as the ATs?
The Globe says some alums are claiming that the expansion violates the Charter. That can't be right -- has anyone been deluded enough to say that? I don't think so.
By
Anonymous, at 9/09/2007 1:51 PM
Immediately after a quote from John MacGovern, the Valley News quotes our VP Frank Gado:
"This is crap, just as the whole process has been a sham."
The link.
By
scott m. '95, at 9/09/2007 2:10 PM
Scott,
I'm not sure what you're trying to intimate. The way you wrote that, it sounds like you're saying that Frank called John's comment "crap", though the Valley News uses the term "added", indicating that Frank was, in fact, agreeing with John, and was referring instead to the decision by the Board (which is, after all, the focus of the article).
Or are you surprised, after all of your interaction with him, that Frank periodically speaks in a very blunt manner? I don't think anyone who has dealt with him for any length of time would be surprised by that.
-David
By
David Gale, at 9/09/2007 2:47 PM
David, I rewrote my post to reduce intimation and just present the facts, but not enough apparently.
I was trying to state that the article quoted Frank immediately after John, intimating that they were speaking along the same lines. The reporter might have called them independently and just put their quotations together, of course, so we can't conclude that they were working together.
By quoting Frank, I was trying to intimate that he is representing us poorly to the public. His blunt terms and the content of what he said (the simplistic "sham" idea) makes the Association look like a petulant child. It sounded like the reporter caught him at an unreflective and frustrated moment, which is not very professional on his part and reflects poorly on the group. The reporter made him sound like a hothead, that's all.
By
scott m. '95, at 9/09/2007 3:49 PM
A press release from Blunt states:
William Hutchinson, President of the Association of Alumni, the organization that oversees alumni trustee elections, among other things, stated, “We too are very pleased with the Trustees’ recommendations, since they preserve the role of the petition candidate and give us the opportunity to improve the election process. As a past petition candidate myself, I have discovered how important it is not simply to criticize but to work effectively with colleagues and address issues and challenges productively. These changes will make the Association’s role in election oversight clearer and should result in elections that are fairer, less costly, and less politicized, to the benefit of all candidates but most essentially, to the benefit of Dartmouth, the College we all love with great passion. Dartmouth is a close family, and the attempts by those alumni and outsiders to advance their own agendas and smear the College in the national press are unacceptable. We look forward to working with all alumni and the Board to refocus on our critical mission of ensuring that Dartmouth remains the pre-eminent undergraduate institution that it is today.”
By
Anonymous, at 9/09/2007 7:11 PM
Anonymous:
A significant portion of the Association Executive Committee is most definitely not pleased with this result, Bill's use of the plural notwithstanding. We have not managed to have a formal vote on the matter yet, so I can't be any more specific than that.
I will say that I, as an alumnus, personally feel insulted by the decision and the complete and total disregard for the "overwhelming" alumni support for parity, not to mention the Board's stripping the Association of the ability to run elections until such time as we're able to amend our constitution to meet their demands.
By
David Gale, at 9/09/2007 8:43 PM
David,
While I do not agree with Bill or others speaking for the association as a whole as you mention without prior exec committee approval, I am surprised that you do not sanction or make the same comment when Frank Gado uses "we" in his comments or intimates to speak for the association. Only Cheryl Bascomb highlighted that Frank does not speak for the association in her comment to a previous thread.
I am sorry, but I think you and the other petitioners have a double standard. The overall dialog confirms that the association has its own agendas with personal egos becoming more important than the issue of basic Association governance and responsibility.
By
Anonymous, at 9/09/2007 9:14 PM
David,
As an alumnus, I believe the Board's action was consistent with its fiduciary duties, especially given the way Frank Gaddo and others have been allowed to conduct themselves in the name and on behalf of the association. I am also a dartmouth parent and believe the Governance Committee report quite properly pointed out that there are many constituencies at dartmouth, and that the college is not to be run by and for alumni.
William Hutchinson is absolutely correct to say that
"Dartmouth is a close family, and the attempts by those alumni and outsiders to advance their own agendas and smear the College in the national press are unacceptable."
The Executive Committee should remind Mr. Gaddo that he should not use his position to reinforce John MacGovern's and the Hanover Institute's point of view.His statements in the press are disgraceful, regardless of how one feels about the decision.
Throughout this process, it appears to me that the new Executive Committee has regrettably chosen conflict and challenge, and have fanned the flames.
For example, I question your decision to allow Frank Gaddo, given his ties to the Hanover Institute, to retain attorneys on the association's behalf.
Whether you are insulted or not, I hope that you will be able to put agendas aside and work with "all alumni and the Board to refocus on the critical mission of ensuring that Dartmouth remains the pre-eminent undergraduate institution that it is today.”
Whether or not Bill Hutchinson was not speaking for the entire EC, I find it disturbing that you still are considering continuing this misguided crusade.
Frank and others raise the spectre of litigation on this blog, and I believe in the press as well. Litigation will not achieve a reversal of the Board's reasonable exercise of its fiduciary duties.this. As an attorney for 22 years I can assure you that it will end the way the 2002 suits over student governance did. See http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0202/brzic009.htm
Matt Brizca et al v. Trustees of Dartmouth College. Sanctions were imposed in that case I believe by the NH Supreme Court when finally dismissed.
I urge all of you to read that case.
I sincerely hope that the rest of the Executive Committee will follow William Hutchinson's lead on this.
By
Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 9/09/2007 9:23 PM
We've got the president saying one thing and some others saying something else -- but still not participating in decisions about the Gado lawsuit or learning the source of his secret bankroll.
Is there an AoA Executive meltdown going on? Are the Leaders going to start making arbitrary decisions in secret and extending their terms and getting conflicted and generally doing all the things they accused the last group of doing?
That would be rich, and pathetic.
By
Anonymous, at 9/10/2007 1:02 PM
Anon: In answer to your questions, No and No.
Although Bill Hutchinson's "me too" comment on the Alumni Relations website implied he was representing the Association and its Executive Committee, he was only stating a personal belief. He is in the minority.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/10/2007 1:26 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home