Alumni Constitution Shenanigans Continue

By Danielle M. Thomas | Friday, April 7, 2006

While a Beltway alley may have been a more appropriate setting for the crass political maneuvering taking place, the “Final Public Discussion” of the constitution proposed by the AGTF (Alumni Governance Task Force) transpired quietly Monday, April 27 in the Boston Sheraton’s ironically named Republic Ballroom. The live and virtual audiences were smaller than expected and the meeting concluded without any eruptions of passion or venomous debate. Most alumni statements expressed skepticism or frustration with the constitution—no staunch support was voiced except by the AGTF itself.

Hosted in Boston and made accessible to all Dartmouth alumni via webcast, the meeting was the final opportunity for alumni to interface with the AGTF before the constitution is revised and presented to the Alumni Council. Currently in its penultimate draft, the constitution has been undergoing a process of revision throughout the past several years. The AGTF published its first draft in September and released the current draft in March. The task force is collecting feedback, at least nominally, on this draft until April 10. It will present its final draft to the Executive Committee on May 19, and then to the whole Alumni Association for a vote this summer. In order to pass, the constitution must be accepted by 67% of both the Alumni Council and the Alumni Association. This was reduced from a requirement of 75% in a misleading and controversial amendment passed this February (see TDR 3/3/06).

Before analyzing the constitution itself, it must be noted that, not to be outdone by the gerrymandering of the AGTF, the Executive Committee has released a set of constitutional voting guidelines proving that it too can be unabashedly manipulative. In these new voting guidelines, the Executive Committee has given itself essentially unchecked power to arbitrarily call for and cancel votes with hardly a nod to propriety. The Committee is able to demand a vote at any time, despite the existence of an annual voting period, as well as to cancel a vote in “extenuating circumstances” with no requirement for establishing a new voting deadline. They are given full discretion over when the voting takes place, with no justification required for their actions. These insidious maneuvers pale in comparison, however, to the guideline which stipulates that the “ballot will include a recommendation of ‘For’ or ‘Against’ by the Executive Committee, and such other information as may be deemed appropriate by the Executive Committee in its discretion.” The same “discretion” that would permit the Committee to believe that such preposterous guidelines would be palatable to a body of Dartmouth graduates? Hardly comforting, this assurance of discretion. This particular guideline allows the Committee to enclose an argument for its position with the ballot, without requiring any opposing view to be similarly included.

Then there is the timing to consider. The constitution happened to be published the day after the Daily D stopped printing for winter term, while the Boston meeting was conveniently scheduled the day before the commencement of spring term publication. As Joe Asch ’79 noted during the meeting in Boston, the scheduling of the events prevented dissemination of material to the alumni at large since many of them rely on the paper for their Dartmouth news. Despite the assurances of J.B. Daukas ’84 that this suggestion gave the AGTF too much credit for craftiness, these dates smack of having been intentionally chosen to insure that both occurrences would receive minimal attention in the Daily D. Even if this were not the case, one would think the AGTF, in its discretion, would at least have had the foresight to avoid the appearance of conspiracy and chosen different dates to prevent that criticism altogether. Or, at the very least, demonstrated that it was sufficiently in touch with Dartmouth itself to bother to read the D.

As for the constitution, whether its content or the behavior of those promoting it is more outrageous is debatable. Perhaps the latter is meant to be a red herring, distracting concerned alumni from the more sinister issues at hand. Or perhaps the AGTF’s vague and convoluted answers to serious questions were an ingenious attempt to bore interested parties to sleep. In fact, the real question is why this group who inanely (or insidiously) refuses to conduct their meetings according to parliamentary procedure is entrusted with the design of a serious document.

Shenanigans and testimony of poor judgment aside, it is the substance of the proposed Constitution that poses the greatest threat to the College. None of the panel members could directly outline the issues that were most controversial. Without a clear concept of which issues are being debated and what is at stake, the alumni are largely confused or indifferent. Amidst the many frustrating changes, however, two respectively stood out as being particularly insidious and illogical: the changes governing petition candidates and the role of affiliated alumni groups.

The most threatening provision is Article VII of the proposed constitution, which, as Frank Gado ’58 observed in Boston, guarantees that Dartmouth would never again elect a petition trustee. Daukas referred to the petition candidacy as a safety valve for alumni. The triggering of this “safety valve” thrice in two years with the election of T.J. Rodgers, Todd Zywicki, and Peter Robinson indicates the alumni are deeply frustrated with the direction of the College. Dartmouth has failed to respond to this wakeup call and recognize the significance of these victories; instead, the AGTF is attempting to wrest this channel of expression from the alumni and insulate the College from constructive criticism where it should be modeling its nominees off these petition candidates with platforms promoting free speech, athletics, and a commitment to undergraduate education.

Article VII stipulates that, in the situation of a trustee vacancy, the Nominating Committee (NC)— a body that shares the agenda of the administration—will nominate “up to two” candidates. Petition candidates must gather 250 signatures within a 30 day period and submit their candidacy to the NC on the day of its meeting. While gathering the signatures itself is a significant obstacle coming from a small college with dispersed alumni, the more threatening change is the requirement that petition candidates submit their signed petition before the NC chooses its own candidates. Forcing petition candidates to determine their candidacy before the NC slate is presented defeats the very purpose of opposition candidacy. As the ACTA notes “the very notion of the petition candidate is predicated on the recognition that oppositional candidacy is a legitimate and reasonable thing, something that tends to arise spontaneously, out of felt necessity, when official candidates are felt to be lacking. The new rules that may govern petition candidates render that sort of candidacy virtually impossible, and so weaken what ought to be a vigorous, robust, and open electoral process.” Phil Mone ’02 compared this change to a baseball batter who demands the pitcher to reveal which pitches he will throw, eliminating spontaneity and giving the batter the advantage. The failure of the NC to nominate satisfactory candidates should not be assumed (or considered acceptable)—which is what the AGTF does by making petition candidates a permanent facet of the ballot via Article VII. Petition candidacy should remain a fallback option to which the alumni can resort in the case that they are unsatisfied with the NC. The only way petition candidates can function as a check on college administrators is for them to be a last resort in response to the failure of the NC, not institutionalized “outsider” candidates.

To further safeguard the College from petition trustees who actually—Lord forbid—respond to alumni concerns, the AGTF has indicated that the Nominating Committee will nominate “up to two” candidates. This allows it to potentially nominate only one College candidate to prevent a second from splitting votes, or, more likely, to nominate a Potemkin candidate with a platform similar to that of the most threatening petition candidate. It will be able to choose this straw-man with care since petition candidates will have already been identified so the vote will be effectively split and the college candidate will slip into victory.

Lest these concerns be dismissed with any of the trite buzzwords—reactionary, right-wing, racist, homophobe, &c.—the administration cronies have so unfairly launched at other voices of reason, it should be noted that two respected neutral institutions have also condemned this proposed constitution. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a watchdog of higher education, rejected the constitution as an “attempted advance of censors,” while the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) expressed similar outrage at the “chilling intentions of the new constitutional provisions.”

These obstructions, hobbling the alumni power of dissent, are the primary objective and main danger of the proposed constitution. A more benign, but very telling, concern is that of the affiliated groups. The constitution carves out seats to be allocated to the College-recognized groups, currently the Asian-Pacific Alumni Association, the Black Alumni of Dartmouth Association, the Dartmouth Latino Alumni Association, the Dartmouth Gay and Lesbian Alumni Association, and the Native American Alumni Association, giving them special representation in the uniquely undemocratic Alumni Assembly. The new constitution arbitrarily doubles the voting power of these affiliated groups from the current one representative per group to two.

The constitution must fail not because of this arbitrary increase of affiliated representation, but because of the fundamentally absurd and illogical principle behind it. To make special provisions based on race, sexual orientation, religion, any factor, in a governing body is to promote divisiveness and inequality. If these minorities are truly qualified to represent Dartmouth alumni, they can run on their own merit to be representatives of their classes or of their regional clubs. The inclusion of affiliated groups creates a slippery slope of determining which minorities should receive special attention; the calculus seems to be representation based on who has suffered most, or had the most scurrilous jokes made about them. Accordingly, shouldn’t a women’s group be included? a Muslim group? a Jewish group? Or, as the Review suggested on 1/20/06, a Polish-American group? And a special spot must be reserved for Native American Guatemalan feminist peasants a la Rigoberta Menchu. And without question, affiliated alumni of the Dartmouth Bestiality Club. As Trevor Burgess ’94 solemnly reassured the Boston audience, “We’re not trying to create a perfectly representative system here.” Clearly.

Alumni Constitution Shenanigans Continue

Article Tools

Related Articles