The Trustee-Alumni Dust-Up Round-Up
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Since the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni (AoA) voted to sue the College, many statements and letters have been promulgated and circulated. What follows are choice excerpts in chronological order.
AoA announcement of their suit against the College: 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.
Statement by President James Wright: You may have read in the The Dartmouth this morning that the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni, by a divided vote, decided last night to have the Association file a lawsuit against the College concerning the governance changes adopted by the Board of Trustees earlier this month and to seek an injunction to prevent the Board from filling any of the new charter trustee seats authorized by the Board.
I am deeply disappointed that some members of the Association Executive Committee have decided to take this action, which can only harm the College. Although the Association’s formal legal complaint has not yet been served on the College, the College has been advised by its attorneys that the Board has full authority to enlarge the Board as it did and make the other governance changes that it authorized, and that there is no merit to the legal claims asserted by the Executive Committee members who voted to bring the suit. The College is well-prepared to respond to this legal action.
While the action by some members of the Executive Committee to sue the College is ill-advised, I hope that it will not prove a distraction to the good work of the faculty, students, and staff. Dartmouth is in great shape and we need to continue to focus on continuing to provide the best experience possible for our students.
Letter to Dartmouth alumni from AoA: We feel that the alumni, indeed the entire Dartmouth community, deserve a clear, honest description of the changes passed by the Board, and what those changes portend for the College. Thus, we set forth such a description below.
1. Increase the size of the Board of Trustees. In his official letter to the Dartmouth community, Board of Trustees President Ed Haldeman describes the change that increased the size of the board thus: “expand the board by adding more alumni to better meet the needs of the college.” But what the Board actually did was abandon the balance between alumni-elected Trustees and administration-appointed “Charter” Trustees. Rather than the historic balance of 8 alumni-elected Trustees, and 8 appointed “Charter” Trustees, the Board left the number of alumni-elected Trustees at 8, but doubled the number of non-alumni-elected Charter Trustees. Much like FDR’s notorious Supreme Court manipulation, the Board of Trustees have “packed the court.” By reducing the percentage of alumni-elected Trustees from 50% (a level it has been at since 1891), to 33%, the Board has guaranteed that alumni-elected Trustees (and viewpoints) will always be in the minority.
2. Mr. Haldeman’s second point was that the changes passed would “preserve alumni democracy by retaining alumni Trustee elections.” This would be laughably misleading, if it were not also deeply worrisome in what it seems to imply. Yes, the Board “preserved” alumni’s right to elect 8 Trustees. But, as we have seen, it also doubled the number of Charter Trustees, thus effectively and permanently keeping alumni-elected Trustees in the minority. Even more troubling is the fact that the Board lists this as a privilege. We are very concerned that the Board of Trustees is paving the way for a future total elimination of alumni-elected Trustees, laying the groundwork now by framing such elections as a special privilege, not a clear and inalienable right. Haldeman goes on to say Dartmouth has the highest proportion of alumni-elected Trustees. Yes (at least, we did before that proportion was slashed in half), but that is one of the signature qualities of Dartmouth governance, one of the differences that has made Dartmouth great, that has kept a respect for tradition and alumni concerns, that has reined in rash or ill-conceived changes to the fundamental and unique Dartmouth culture and experience. Dartmouth has long been held up and admired for this strong alumni role, and instead the Board has sought to “dumb down” our governance to match other, less successful models, and ones that were never created for Dartmouth herself.
3. Next, Mr. Haldeman gives us “simplify the alumni nomination process.” Translation: Strip the Association of Alumni and the Alumni Council of their historic role in running Trustee elections (as our constitution specifies), and supplant these alumni bodies with the will and judgment of the Board of Trustees. The new rules would, in fact, permit only one formal nominee for each open seat, and that person would be automatically elected unless an opponent presents him/herself. And then, the Board has given itself broad new powers to heavily regulate the elections that would result. This change eliminates the role of the AoA and the Alumni Council until such time as we behave (presumably stop nominating these pesky petition candidates who refuse to tow the line), at which point the Board may “consider permitting” the alumni organizations to resume their administration of the process. This is a huge change, and a complete abrogation of alumni’s role in governance and elections.
Also buried in this section of Mr. Haldeman’s report is the “explanation” that “Dartmouth’s Trustee elections have become increasingly politicized, costly and divisive.” This is almost entirely because the Board and the administration so vehemently oppose the viewpoints of the petition candidates that they do everything in their power to defeat them and to defame them during the campaign. We have heard from every petition candidate of nasty, unethical and shockingly ad hominem attacks on them, orchestrated by the College and the Board, during their campaigns. And yet, still, is the solution to “divisive” elections to simply abandon democracy? Are we comfortable, as the Dartmouth community, to say that when the debate gets too heated, we should gag the speakers and run them out of town? This seems to be the Trustees’ solution.
4. Mr. Haldeman claims that the Board has also passed changes that will “Improve Direct Board Engagement with Alumni and Other Stakeholders.” Laudable goal, we agree. But there is no reason to believe that any of these changes will improve engagement between alumni and the Board. In fact, from every change the Board has made, it seems quite clear that they are totally uninterested in what the alumni want or have to say. We see no reason to expect more engagement with alumni, at least not the majority views. Haldeman mentions creating new Board committees; new Board committees are fine, but none of these other, damaging changes were necessary to create new Board committees.
5. In sum, the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni, as the only directly-elected body designed to protect alumni interests, feels very strongly that the changes passed by the Board do severe harm to the College. We should note that this is the opinion of the majority of the EC, not the unanimous opinion.
Daniel F. Linsalata ‘07, in a letter to the Daily Dartmouth: Do I think the Governance Committee made the right decision? No. Do I believe Ed Haldeman ‘70, Christine Bucklin ‘84, et al. are acting like children who want to change the rules of a playground kickball game simply because they’re losing? Absolutely. But can anything besides national embarrassment for the College come from alumni suing their own alma mater? Not a chance.
Extract of what was filed by the AoA: 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.
Dartmouth College Alumni Council Statement Opposing Lawsuit: As the principal spokesperson for Dartmouth College’s alumni, the Alumni Council opposes and calls for the immediate voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit. While the Alumni Council is aware that Dartmouth alumni have varying opinions on the desire for “parity,” the Council believes that the lawsuit is meritless, against the will of the majority of Dartmouth’s alumni, and harmful to the interests of the College and the alumni.
In the event, the lawsuit is still pending as of the time of the Alumni Council’s Fall Meeting, November 29-December 1, 2007, the Council will consider whether any further action is appropriate based on additional consultation with the alumni body. n
|
