 |
| Events |
| Forum |
| Officers |
| Newsletters |
| Class Notes |
| Directory |
| Event Photos |
| Trip Reports |
| Alumni Records |
| Alumni Home |
| College Home |
More on the Constitution from our Alumni Council Representative
Gentlemen,
The summary below from Jim Wooster is an evenhanded an informative message about the new constitution scheduled for all media voting from September 15 to October 31, 2006. Jim, as you know, is our Alumni Council rep for 1959 and 1960. It is well worth reading.
Best,
Ken
See also Dartmouth College Volunteers email.
----- Original Message -----
From: James W Wooster
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:58 AM
Subject: Constitution Update
Here is a message for your classmates, via list serv or otherwise.
* * * * *
59s and 60s:
As your Alumni Council Representative, I think it is my job to keep you
informed as to what is going on vis a vis the upcoming vote on the
Constitution. In that capacity I will try to separate facts from opinions, and
let you know which is which.
I recognize that some of you will have much more interest in this issue than
others, so I will try to keep these messages brief and list web sites where you
can find the details. I'll try to make it Headlines, Details and Opinions.
You can pick what you want to read.
HEADLINES:
The next annual meeting of the Association had been scheduled for October 15,
2006 - at which time new officers of the Association would be elected by those
present. Critics have long called for "all media" voting.
On May 24th the Association announced that they had decided to go to "all
media" voting for officers this year - the voting to take place after the
constitution vote is completed - and that the annual meeting had been postponed
until early 2007 (still within the 06/07 academic year).
On June 1st, a group known as ACTA sent a letter to the Association saying they
were "deeply troubled" that the meeting, and election of officers, had been
postponed in "direct violation of existing bylaws", and asked that the decision
be rescinded immediately. They also "expressed profound concern" over the
"alleged 'reforms'" in the new constitution, with particular emphasis on the
impact on the election of Alumni Trustees.
On June 15th the Association responded to ACTA explaining why they believed
they were acting within the current constitution, and explaining the process
that had led to the new constitution.
On June 21st the New York Times ran a feature article entitled "Dartmouth
Alumni Battles Become a Spectator Sport", including quotes from both sides of
the letter exchanges.
DETAILS:
Although the new constitution has not yet been mailed to alums, the first shots
are already being fired. On June 21st the N Y Times ran a feature story
entitled "Dartmouth Alumni Battles Become A Spectator Sport." You can view it
at
"http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/education/21dartmouth.html?ex=1151553600&en=a
5f08e5e07f1d338&ei=5070". (If you print it before you read it, make sure you
get both pages of the article, which may be 5 pages on your printer)
Leaving aside (for the moment) the meat of the controversy, here are a few
comments that should be non controversial, but may help set the record straight
and introduce the players. From the N Y Times article, referencing the
starting words of paragraphs, in order:
"Now the officers....". That vote, for new officers of the Association, has not
been cancelled. It originally was to have been held at the annual meeting in
October where only those present could vote. That meeting has been postponed
until sometime in the first half of 2007, and the vote has been changed to an
"all media" vote to be held after the constitutional "all media" voting has
been completed. The paragraph seems to confuse the election of officers of the
Association with the election of Alumni Trustees. In the second line -
inserting the word "Trustee" between "how" and "candidates" may help clear that
up.
"John Daukas, a lawyer....". John, better known as "JB" is an '84. Two years
ago he was proposed for President of the Association by DAOG (Dartmouth Alumni
for Open Governance) on their slate of officers.
"What we are seeing...." Anne Neal wrote one of the letters that apparently
got this article going. More about the letters later.
"Merle Adelman, ....." Merle Adelman is an '80, and the first vice president
of the Association. Al Collins '53 is the President, but he has been quite
ill, and Merle has been speaking for the Association in his absence.
"But critics said......". This is probably the only really confusing part of
the article. In the previous paragraph, Merle is talking about the election of
Association officers. What the critics said was in reference to the election
of Alumni Trustees. That aside, the sentence makes more sense if you insert
the words "trustee candidate" after "Alumni Association".
Concerning the letters that someone apparently used to get the NY Times's
attention.
Letter one is from Merle Adelman to all alumni dated May 24th. It discusses
how the vote on the new constitution will be conducted, as well as the change
of date of the annual meeting of the Association and the election of
Association officers by "all media" voting. You can find it at
"http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/getmedia.php?id=255".
Letter two is from Anne Neal, president of the "American Council of Trustees
and Alumni" to Al Collins dated June 1st. I don't know much about that
organization, but two of the names listed on the letterhead are Dartmouth alums
- Laurence Silberman '57 and William Tell '56. In the letter she addresses the
change of date of the meeting, (which "profoundly troubles" ACTA), and goes on
to criticize the proposed constitution. You can find a link to it at
"http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/news/news.php?p=3&id=0445". It may be a bit hard
to find the link, but it is in the middle of the page.
Letter three is a reply from Merle to Anne dated June 15th. It has a typo when
it states that the current executive committee was elected in 2006 - it was
elected in 2005. A link to it can also be found at
"http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/news/news.php?p=3&id=0445".
OPINION:
So much for the facts, here is my opinion:
For as long as I can remember, critics of the Association have demanded that
all important votes be made by all alums, not just the few that happen to
attend a meeting in Hanover. I strongly support that position. Last winter a
special meeting was held to amend the constitution to allow for all media
voting on proposed constitutional amendments. To my surprise, those same
critics opposed the change - and even went so far as to sue the Association,
asking the judge for an injunction to prevent the meeting. (That was their 4th
law suit against the College and/or Association in recent years - in no cases
have they prevailed) The rationale seemed to be that they felt they had a
better chance to defeat the new constitution if it required a 3/4 majority of
those present and voting in Hanover than if it required a 2/3 majority of all
alums. So much for their support of opening important votes to all alums. The
meeting was held, the amendment passed, and the new constitution will be voted
on by all alums (no thanks to the "critics").
Now the Association decides to hold the next election of officers by "all
media" voting (Merle's May 24th letter). Here come the same critics, now under
the ACTA letterhead, crying foul - the next set of officers must be elected at
the at the next annual meeting, which had been set for October 15, 2006 - and
the constitution prevents the officers from changing that (a disputed claim).
I don't see a commitment by the critics to foster open governance - all media
voting. I see folks using all kinds of procedural gimmicks to disrupt alumni
governance and sow seeds of dissent.
I think the new constitution is worthy of debate, and I would like to see that
happen - because I believe that the more alums know about it, the more likely
they are to vote for it. I would hope that the debate is about the facts, not
wild accusations. When I see a group of alums try to promote their cause by
damaging the reputation of Dartmouth and their fellow alums in the media, it
troubles me. When I read that a Trustee of the College is quoted in the N Y
Times as saying "This is as much a reform as when Joseph Stalin decided to hold
elections in Eastern Europe", it troubles me even more.
Dartmouth alumni rhetoric is starting to sound a lot like the junk we hear from
Washington. If you don't feel confident in debating your issue, change the
subject. Create a controversy. Get the media involved. Don't be satisfied
with just arguing against an idea, denigrate the speakers and their motives.
Invent conspiracies. Use hyperbole. Get the media involved.
I don't like it in Washington. I like it even less when it is used against
Dartmouth and/or its alums.
The issue to be voted on is whether the proposed constitution, in total, is an
improvement over retaining the status quo. We will have three months to
examine it, weigh comments by both sides, and all get to vote on it.
One man's opinion!
Jim
Dartmouth College Volunteers email
Subject: ACTA & The Association
We want to bring to your attention two pieces of communication: 1) a letter from ACTA, the "American Council of Trustees and Alumni" criticizing the Association of Alumni and taking issue with the proposed constitution and 2) a reponse letter to ACTA from Merle Adelman '80, first VP of the Association.
These letters may be viewed at the following url:
http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/news/news.php?p=3&id=0445 (Note: There is a small typo in the second paragraph on page two of the Adelman letter. The current executive committee was elected in October 2005, not 2006.)
The New York Times ran a feature story on this matter yesterday and we wanted you to have some background. The NYT feature may be viewed at <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/education/21dartmouth.html?ex=1151553600&en=a 5f08e5e07f1d338&ei=5070>
If you have any questions, please contact:
Patricia Fisher '81
Director, Alumni Leadership
6068 Blunt Alumni Center
Dartmouth College
Hanover, NH 03755-3590
603-646-3929
603-646-1600 (fax)