AoA Election: Interview with Frank Gado '58

By A.S. Erickson | Tuesday, March 4, 2008

As The Dartmouth Review reported briefly in its last issue, the College’s motion for dismissal of the lawsuit brought by the Association of Alumni was denied by the Grafton County Superior Court. This was a significant setback to the administration and the Board of Trustees, both of which are on record stating that the case had no merit. In a statement released last October, President Wright claimed the following:

The College has been advised by its attorneys that the Board has full authority to enlarge the Board as it did and to make the other governance changes it authorized, and that there is no merit to the legal claims asserted by the Executive Committee members who voted to bring the suit.

Ed Haldeman ’70, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, added in a statement of his own that he too believed the case had no merit:

While I respect the many different views held by Dartmouth’s alumni on governance issues, I think it’s regrettable that a small group of individuals would cause the Alumni Association to file a lawsuit against the College, particularly when there is no legal basis for the suit.

In response to the court’s decision and in light of the administration’s and Board’s previous claims, The Dartmouth Review sought reactions from the administration—in particular, General Counsel Robert Donin—and from the Association’s Executive Committee’s Second Vice-President, Frank Gado ’56; Gado is a vocal critic of the administration’s and a key player in the Association’s lawsuit against the Board of Trustees.

The press office of the administration wasn’t interested in answering any of the questions forwarded by this paper; instead, they steered me to press releases. Regarding the denial of the College’s motion to dismiss, their February 1 release noted the following:

We are of course disappointed that the College’s motion to dismiss has been denied. This lawsuit is not in the best interest of the College or its students – and it is regrettable that it will continue to drain the College’s time and resources. We remain confident that when the case moves beyond allegations to evidence, the suit will be shown to be without merit. We are eager for the case to proceed to trial so we can secure a ruling on the merits.

Because the College had anticipated winning this first round against the Association, the Board had announced late in the fall that they would not seat any new Charter Trustees until their February 22 meeting. Two weeks elapsed before, on February 14, the Board announced in a joint notice with the Association that they would not seat any new Charter Trustees without first giving the Association forty-five days prior warning. Had the Board not announced the indefinite postponement of electing new Charter Trustees, it is believed that the Association would have successfully asked for an injunction from the court. The day after the joint notice was crafted, the College’s press release had this to say:

Given the continued uncertainty created by the lawsuit filed against the College, the Board of Trustees has decided to suspend for now election of any additional trustees to the Board. We believe this decision will help ensure that the Court has the opportunity to consider the full range of evidence in this case before being asked to decide whether a contract was formed in 1891 that prevents the College from implementing its current plan to strengthen Dartmouth’s governance. We regret that this costly lawsuit is interfering with the College’s ability to appoint talented individuals to the Board and advance Dartmouth’s mission. We remain confident that the College will ultimately prevail in this case and look forward to a full review of the facts by the Court.

In the meantime, the opponents of parity on the Board have shifted their focus from the courtroom to Blunt Hall. This upcoming spring will witness the election of a new Executive Committee for the Association. Voting will be permitted from April 28 until June 5. Petition candidates must collect fifty signatures to be placed on the ballot. The official slate of nominees was recently selected by four members of the current committee (none of whom are supporters of the lawsuit).

At the head of the nominated slate is Chicago lawyer John Mathias, who has been openly hostile to the interests of alumni. Also of note, two of the four people on the nominating committee, Cheryl Bascomb ‘82 and David Spalding ’76, nominated themselves for another term without nominating anyone to oppose them; yet, when they renominated Gado, they also nominated someone to challenge him for his seat. The blatantly self-serving tactics of the nominating committee may come back to hurt them later in the election if voters become aware of the tawdry nominating process.

The Dartmouth Review conducted the following interview with Mr. Gado via e-mail. The entire exchange is reprinted below.

The Dartmouth Review: What is the AoA’s and your response to the Superior Court Judge’s decision to deny the College’s Motion for Dismissal?

Frank Gado: We sued only as a last resort when the Board of Trustees refused to acknowledge that the Association, as one of the two parties to the original agreement, should have been consulted regarding any changes in that contract. The motion for dismissal was consistent with that position. Obviously, we are delighted that the Court has rejected that posture.

TDR: Has the College underestimated the strength of the lawsuit?

Gado: Given the tattoo of assurances to alumni audiences by Robert Donin, James Wright, and Ed Haldeman for months that the suit was “frivolous” and “utterly without merit,” that conclusion is ineluctable.

TDR: The Association has won the first round in court; how do you evaluate the Association’s chances of further success?

Gado: If we did not firmly believe that our conviction regarding the unwarranted assault on alumni rights by the Board and the Administration would be upheld in court, we would not have taken the extraordinary steps required by our response.

TDR: Are you apprehensive about the AoA elections in the spring? If not, are you apprehensive about anything?

Gado: This spring’s election will be the most important alumni election in Dartmouth’s history. What hangs in the balance is nothing less than the nature of Dartmouth and its future direction.

The election will be a referendum on the principle of parity that has made Dartmouth unique and been a major source of its strength. At stake is whether alumni will be restored as partners in the stewardship of their school, or control will rest solely with a small, plutocratic circle of self-perpetuating trustees steered by an ever more bureaucratic administration.

At a meeting not long ago, Executive Committee Secretary David Spalding, who is also the College’s Vice President of Alumni Relations, stated that the administration would spare no effort in order to defeat those of us who have opposed the Board’s actions. This was no idle threat. Spalding and the administration have used every means at their disposal to frustrate our attempts to communicate with our own Association membership and to act on their behalf.

I expect as strenuous and nasty a campaign enabled by the administration as occurred in the fight over the AGTF constitution. I hope I am proved wrong in that prediction. As in the campaign over the proposed AGTF constitution, the resources available to both sides are asymmetrical, but the facts are on our side.

TDR: What are the chances that the lawsuit will be withdrawn if you and likeminded members of the AoA executive committee are replaced in the election?

Gado: 100%

TDR: Is it odd that neither Bascomb nor Spalding had people nominated against them--and you did?

Gado: “Odd” is hardly the word. It is absurd.

President Hutchinson appoints the Nominations Committee. At the beginning of our term, I maintained that all actions recommended by EC committees must be subject to approval by the EC. Unfortunately, my contention, based on logic, was seen as unnecessarily divisive and it failed to muster sufficient support.

Predictably, Hutchinson appointed a Nominations Committee that reflected his own views. Traditionally, incumbents have been renominated, but Hutchinson’s “committee,” while placing those incumbents on the ballot, also put forth nominees whose views are antithetical to ours. As a result, a minority, in the name of the EC, is choosing and endorsing a slate of nominees dedicated to abrogating the actions of the EC’s majority. This is a whole new category of “odd.”

TDR: Have you ever interacted [with] John Mathias, and if so; what is your impression of him?

Gado: I am not aware of ever having met him. We did have several exchanges in the early days of the Association’s discussion blog. He raised several pointed questions, and I answered candidly. After a while, however, it became clear to me that his real purpose was not to obtain information but simply to attack for political advantage. (How many times should one answer the same questions, fraught with prejudicial language?)

Mathias, if I recall correctly, made much of his extensive background in litigation and his expert judgment that our case was wholly without merit. Well, even the best lawyers make mistakes, but what is of far greater concern is his view that parity itself is a bad thing. This puts him in opposition not only to 116 years of Dartmouth history but also to the alumni interests of the very association he wants to lead. I find that quite extraordinary. n

AoA Election: Interview with Frank Gado '58

Article Tools

Related Articles