Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/11/04/tdr_interview_dean_spatz_66.php
Friday, November 4, 2005
Editors' Note: Candidates from both the nominated and petition slates of candidates were contacted for interviews after the Alumni Association election. At press time, however, no response had been received from candidates from the nominated slate. Check online in the coming days at http://www.dartreview.com for interviews with the nominated candidates.
The Dartmouth Review: Let's start with the obvious question—judging from anecdotal reports, it seems that most alumni present at the election voted a straight ticket, either for the nominated slate or your petition slate. Why do you think your slate was defeated?
Dean Spatz: I think you have a situation where there are a lot of people in the Upper Valley who have a vested interest in the status quo, in not making changes. Then there was our group who did want to see changes, who we tried to get to stay around for the Sunday meeting. The problem was that there just were not enough of them. There just wasn't enough national outreach beyond the Vermont and New Hampshire area for people to come show up. So the people who did come were those who wanted to see little change.
TDR: Outcomes aside, it seems that alumni involvement in this election and others has been up markedly in recent years. To what do you attribute this change? And is it a positive one?
DS: I think the alumni sensitivity and activity is increasing significantly. When I come back from Minnesota, guys are stopping and saying, "I'm glad you're representing us, because I can't make it back for the meeting." It's both older classes and younger classes. With the trustee petition candidates, people are realizing that it is not just the New England old boys club anymore, and that it is possible to effect real change.
TDR: What surprised you most about the election?
DS: One thing that really surprised me was after the presentation of the candidates, a young fellow, I believe from the Class of 2004, cornered me and asked me some questions. What surprised me was that it appeared that in government classes—I think he was a graduate student—a lot of the professors must have been pushing their students to vote for the status quo; they did not want to see much change. That is fine by me; they are entitled to say that. But what this student essentially said is, "Don't you think the only people who should be able to vote on these things are active alumni—alumni who are doing things, and are active within the College?" This struck me because he was implying that the rest of the alumni were incapable of knowing what they believe is best for the College. I asked him, "Don't you think people across the country are capable of knowing what they want for the College? Why do you think the broad base of alumni is not knowledgeable enough to vote?" I guess I was just surprised that a young person, who would typically be considered rather liberal, would take such a patrician stance in this regard.
TDR: Based on the outcome of the election and people you have spoken with, what do you believe most of the alumni want, both for their own governance and for the College as a whole?
DS: The number one thing people want is a proxy vote. I don't know that it has to be proxy per se, but what people want is the ability to vote—whether it is a write-in as it was for the trustees or a true proxy. I'm not sure that everybody is willing to give that up at this point, but I know people want the ability to send in a vote that states their position.
TDR: What is your take on the new proposed Alumni Constitution?
DS: I've written things—as CEO of a public company—and there were a lot of things I wanted to say, but could not because there was always too much to say. People want concise things and brief things and I think that is the problem with the constitution. It is too complicated, too long. It is more appropriate to go back to the current constitutions and make amendments or changes to come up with one that is three thousand words, not sixty-five hundred. It needs to be shortened, re-evaluated, and not so complicated.
TDR: What is the next step? Will you personally stay involved with the Alumni Association? What is the next move for your slate members and supporters?
DS: I plan to stay involved. Everybody on the slate has been involved to some extent. We've got a few people like Joe Asch '79 who really made it his business to read the constitution and understand it and be very involved. We have some very young alums, like Lauren [Day '99] and Alex [Wilson '01] who I know will stay very involved, representing classes from the early '90s to '05. People at the meeting pointed out that the present executive committee was already doing many things they wanted to get done, and that is due to petition candidates in the past few years.
A lot of what my fellow presidential candidate said goes along with what we had been advocating, and that has also been because of petition pressures in the past few years. It is disappointing to lose, but it is refreshing to see people moving away from a monolith that always walks in step with the administration. More and more people, even nominated candidates, are advocating the same stances as petition groups, and that is what is most important.