Dartmouth Inner Circle Consolidates Power

A LETTER FROM ED HALDEMAN, CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TO THE DARTMOUTH COMMUNITY

Earlier today, the Dartmouth Board of Trustees took several steps to strengthen the College's governance. Given the intense debate about this issue in recent months, I wanted to write to you as soon as possible to tell you what we've done and why.

Let me start by saying Dartmouth has never been stronger than it is today. It's one of the most selective institutions in the country. Our commitment to teaching has never been stronger and student satisfaction is at record highs. The student-to-faculty ratio now stands at 8:1. We have expanded the faculty by 15 percent since 2000 and maintained competitive faculty compensation, reflecting the College's sharp focus on its academic programs. Once current building plans are completed, we will have invested $1.1 billion in new and renovated state-of-the-art facilities since 1998.

Like its peers, however, the College confronts new challenges. We are facing increasing competition for the finest students and the best faculty as well as for the financial resources needed to support the College. And, we operate in an increasingly complex and highly regulated environment. Having the strongest possible governance is a critical factor to ensuring Dartmouth's continued success in the years ahead.

The changes we are making preserve alumni democracy at Dartmouth by keeping eight alumni-nominated trustees. They expand the Board with eight additional charter trustees, adding alumni to meet the needs of the College. And, they address the destructive politicization of trustee campaigns that have hurt Dartmouth. These changes represent a balancing of competing interests. They are true to Dartmouth's founding principles. And, they will ensure that, moving forward, the College has a strong, effective, and independent governing body.

Over the past three months, the Board's Governance Committee conducted a thorough review of this issue. We carefully considered input from many alumni, current and former trustees, faculty, parents, students, and other members of the Dartmouth community. We consulted with experts in college and non-profit governance and carefully evaluated practices among 30 leading colleges and universities. And, we developed a report to the full Board, which I encourage you to read for yourself at www.dartmouth.edu/governancereport.

After reviewing the Governance Committee's recommendations - and after much thought and deliberation - the Board of Trustees concluded that Dartmouth should strengthen its governance by taking steps to:

* Expand the Board by Adding More Alumni to Better Meet the Needs of the College: We are expanding the Board from 18 to 26 to ensure it has the broad range of backgrounds, skills, expertise, and fundraising capabilities needed to steward an institution of Dartmouth's scope and complexity. Dartmouth has been at a competitive disadvantage to its peers, with one of the smallest Boards of any comparable institution. We have had 18 members on our Board, versus an average of 42 trustees at peer schools and an average of 34 at other liberal arts colleges. We also are giving the Board more flexibility to select trustees who offer the specific talents and experiences that the College needs, which elections don't ensure. We will accomplish both of these goals by adding eight new charter trustee seats to the Board.

* Preserve Alumni Democracy by Retaining Alumni Trustee Elections: We are maintaining alumni trustee elections at their current level and preserving the ability of alumni to petition onto the ballot. Dartmouth currently has the highest proportion of alumni-nominated trustees of any peer institution and is one of the few schools that allows alumni to petition directly onto the ballot. The Board believes that this gives Dartmouth's alumni an important direct voice in our governance and fosters greater alumni involvement in the College. Dartmouth will continue to have one of the most democratic trustee election processes of any college in the country.

* Simplify the Alumni Nomination Process: Dartmouth's trustee elections have become increasingly politicized, costly, and divisive. It's not the results of these elections that are the problem, but the process itself. So we are charging the Alumni Council and the Association of Alumni to develop and implement a process for selecting alumni trustee nominees that preserves elections, maintains petition access to the ballot, and adopts a one-vote, majority-rule election process.

* Improve Direct Board Engagement with Alumni and Other Stakeholders: A larger group of trustees representing even more diverse backgrounds will help us enhance Board engagement with key areas of the College including academic affairs, student life, and alumni relations. We are therefore creating new Board committees focused on each of these three critical areas. This will facilitate greater interaction and communication with individuals in each of these three areas.

While we will continue to have eight trustees nominated directly by alumni, a significant number of seats on the Board, I know some will ask why we didn't simply expand the Board through an equal number of charter and alumni trustee seats. Given the divisiveness of recent elections we did not believe that having more elections would be good for Dartmouth. We also believe that the Board needs more trustees selected for the specific talents and experiences they can offer the College - which elections can't guarantee. We will still have more alumni-nominated trustees than most other schools and the opportunity for regular contested elections. But we think this is the best balancing of Dartmouth's interests.

I know there are strongly held views on all sides of this issue. And I respect that many of those views are driven above all by a desire to do what is best for Dartmouth and its students. But some of the recent rhetoric in this debate has become so harsh and divisive it is now doing harm to Dartmouth. I want to urge everyone who cares about Dartmouth to debate this issue in a reasonable and respectful way. As President Wright has said, there is far more that unites us - as friends, faculty, students, and loyal alumni of the College on the Hill - than divides us. Above all, we have a shared love of and dedication to Dartmouth.

One thing that has made Dartmouth an enduring and successful institution is that its history has always been one of adapting to meet new challenges and needs, while still preserving what is unique and special about Dartmouth. That is why a board originally composed of twelve New England men, half of them members of the clergy, today consists of eighteen men and women from many parts of the country and walks of life. That is why Trustees who once served for life now serve four-year terms. And, that is why elections once open only to "graduates... of at least five years standing" are now open to all alumni.

In these and many other respects, Dartmouth's Board has made fundamental changes to its governance structure and procedures throughout the College's history. The changes we're making today are no different. They are driven by what is best for Dartmouth and its students, and what is necessary to ensure the College continues to meet the new challenges it faces in the 21st century.

I love Dartmouth. I honestly believe there is nowhere else in the world quite like this great College. We need to protect Dartmouth and ensure it continues to prosper for future generations of students. I, and the entire Board, are intensely focused on helping Dartmouth to continue building its world-class academic program. That is what drives us forward. And, I look forward to continuing to work with all of you - alumni, faculty, students and parents - to build on Dartmouth's unique and pre-eminent place in American higher education.

Some background on the Dartmouth story from the Hanover Institute

http://hanoverinstitute.org/news.htm

We are, unfortunately, facing a new threat.

Recently, as reported earlier, the board of trustees announced that it is considering taking away from Dartmouth alumni the 116 year old right to select one-half of the board of trustees.
In a public statement to the Alumni Council on Saturday, May 19, just hours after the election victory of independent petition candidate Stephen Smith, the outgoing Chairman of the Board William Neukom stated that the Governance Committee of the Board were considering changes in the right of alumni to select half the board as Alumni Trustees. He said that the committee had been meeting all year on determining the “appropriate” composition of the Board and the right means to reach that goal.

Then on June 9, the new board chairman Charles Haldeman confirmed his predecessor’s announcement: the 1891 agreement establishing alumni trusteeships would be under review.

Please click here to view a copy of the 1891 agreement and the minutes of the 1891 Association of Alumni meeting.

Mr. Haldeman’s first public statement reads, in part: “the Governance Committee of the Board this summer will review the composition of the Board and the process of trustee selection.”
Any plan that alters, dilutes or tampers with the alumni’s ancient privilege is harmful to Dartmouth College and simply unacceptable to the vast majority of Dartmouth alumni.

Here is what you can do to help:
Please send your comments to the Governance Committee of the board of trustees.

Administration seeks to block Dartmouth Association of Alumni leaders from communicating with their members.

NEWS FLASH
Hanover, July 6 —

The Wright administration has sought to block the newly elected leaders of the Association of Alumni, from speaking to Dartmouth alumni, their constituents, about a pending proposal to take away the right of alumni to vote for trustee.

Specifically, the administration has denied the Association’s Executive Committee access to the Association mailing lists and has refused to release to them the funding allocated for their communications with alumni. In light of the urgency of the matter at hand, they were forced to obtain a mailing list and funding for their critical message from other sources.

We urge the new leaders of the Association to take whatever action is necessary and proper to obtain their mailing lists. In addition we urge them to open a bank account for the Association and to start raising funds necessary to fulfill its responsibilities to Dartmouth alumni and to the College.

Please see the letter from David Spalding, Vice President of Alumni Affairs.

Update: May 31st. 2007

On May 19, Dartmouth Trustee Chairman William Neukom made some very troubling statements to the meeting of Dartmouth’s Alumni Council.

I reported on that event in more detail in a May 28 communication to alumni (below).

On May 30, The Dartmouth ran a front page story on Neukom’s statements.

Now, the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College has acted.

In response to the refusal of Dartmouth Trustee Chairman William Neukom to commit to respecting the 1891 agreement between the board and alumni, the newly elected Association of Alumni leaders, in 10 to 1 vote, have approved and sent to the Board of Trustees this statement.

In addition, I have included an introduction to that statement written by six of the eleven members of the committee.

This action in defense of Dartmouth and her alumni ‘s unique partnership has occurred only because of the election, almost two weeks ago, of independent alumni leaders.

MacGovern Report on Neukom Statement
May 28, 2007
Important and troubling news

Reports are just now leaking about troubling statements made by the Chairman of the Dartmouth College Board of Trustees, William Neukom, pertaining to vital and cherished alumni rights.

In a public statement to the Alumni Council on Saturday, May 19, hours after the election victory of petition candidate Stephen Smith, Chairman Neukom reported that the Governance Committee of the Board is considering changes in the historic right of alumni to select half the Board of Trustees. Neukom revealed that the committee had been meeting all year to determine the appropriate composition of the Board and the right means to reach that composition. Furthermore, he stated that the results of these deliberations will be presented to the Board at their meeting in June.

Immediately following these remarks, Dartmouth alumnus Joseph Asch ’79 asked Neukom if he would give assurance to the Alumni Council that the numerical parity between alumni and charter trustees would not be affected. Neukom answered evasively, and Asch repeated his question, emphasizing again the critical significance of numerical balance between the two classes of trustees. Again Neukom prevaricated, impatiently replying: “I said the Board is keeping all options open.”

In 1891 the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College, after decades of negotiation with the Board of Trustees, won the right, by agreement with the Board, to select half of the trustees. For 116 years this close governance partnership has provided great benefit to Dartmouth and has contributed significantly to the legendary loyalty of alumni to the College.

It would appear that a small cabal of Dartmouth trustees, as a result of four consecutive defeats of their preferred candidates, is seeking to change the rules, resulting in a significant dilution in the traditional right of our alumni to select half the Board of Trustees.

Loyal Dartmouth alumni urge our newly elected Association of Alumni leaders to make it resoundingly clear to Dartmouth’s Trustees that Dartmouth alumni are vehemently opposed to any action that would dilute or undermine this important right of all alumni to select one half of the Board of Trustees, and, will take all actions necessary to protect that traditional right.

We urge the Board of Trustees to bring all sub rosa discussions, deliberations and votes on this matter into the light of day. Such a disclosure enables Dartmouth, it’s graduates and undergraduates, to share in the important deliberations about the institution’s future governance. Any failure in this task is degrading to the institution, to students and alumni, and most of all to those trustees who may be engaged in secret discussions to preserve their entrenched and self-interested control over one of the great and free educational institutions in America.

Dartmouth College alumni who support reform and democracy won decisively in the two elections held between April 1 and May 15, 2007.

As I reported to you, Stephen Smith’88 won the election for a seat on Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees. In each of the last 4 elections, independent petition candidates have been chosen by alumni, while the establishment candidates, with the full support of the administration, have been defeated.

In the historic election for new leadership for the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College, seven of the eleven seats on the Executive Committee were won by alumni not endorsed by the establishment leaders but who, rather, earned their place on the ballot by petition and were committed to specific reforms leading to more transparency, democracy and fair play.

Another win; 7 of 11
Report on the Association of Alumni election/meeting of May 19, 2007.

For most of us the election for Association leadership ended at midnight on Tuesday, May 15; but any alum who did not vote was allowed to vote in person at the Association meeting held today(Saturday) in Alumni Hall at Dartmouth College.

The results have now been tabulated; seven of the eleven seats went to petition candidates; four went to officially nominated candidates.

This is a big win for reform and for the preservation of alumni rights. It was the first election where all alumni could vote whether they were in Hanover or not. Nearly 17,000 voted as opposed to 200, or at most 350, in the past.

Truly, this executive committee are the duly elected representatives of the 65,000 Dartmouth alumni, an important fact to remember as they conduct the election of one half of Dartmouth’s board of trustees.

The following alumni were elected to the eleven seats on the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College.

President: Bill Hutchinson ‘76
First Vice President: Kate Aiken ‘92
Second Vice President: Frank Gado ’58, Petition candidate
Secretary/Treasurer: David Spalding ‘76

Executive Committee Members:
Marjory Grant Ross ’81, Petition candidate
Cheryl Bascomb ‘82
Martin R. Boles ’80, Petition candidate
Timothy A. Dreisbach ’71, Petition candidate
David S. Gale ’00, Petition candidate
Alexander X. Mooney ’93, Petition candidate
Kathryn Flitner Wallop ’80, Petition candidate

Here is a breakdown of the votes.

We should all be proud of this day and this election. Thanks to your persistent, unwavering and wise efforts, all Dartmouth alumni had the very first opportunity ever to vote, without being required to come to Hanover, for their representatives who may have an influence on the future directions of the College.

Congratulations.

UPDATE ON 2007 TRUSTEE ELECTION RESULTS

MAY 16, 2007

I have great news to report.

Stephen Smith’88, stellar independent petition candidate, was elected to Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees with 55 percent of alumni voting for him, decisively defeating the three nominees of the Alumni Council: Richard “Sandy” Alderson, Carol Oberg and John Wolf.

18,603 alumni voted in the election, roughly three thousand more than in the 2005 trustee election. Of that number, nearly 10,000 voted for Professor Smith.

The three official candidates were outstanding candidates. They are to be commended for offering to run for trustee. They are all accomplished individuals and a credit to Dartmouth, as was the vote of alumni for Stephen Smith.

Smith ran a race on issues, not personalities. And Dartmouth alumni made their selection based on those issues.

Professor Smith’s win is a great victory for the Dartmouth College and for reform.

Many thanks to all of you for your efforts, your energy and your devotion to Dartmouth.

Report on February 12, 2006 Special Meeting

At the special meeting of the Association in Hanover on February 12, 2006, the Constitution of the Association was successfully amended to make it easier for the small group currently in control, backed by the administration, to pass their proposed new constitution and ultimately to better control future Dartmouth trustee elections.

The vote in the room on the executive committee amendment broke down as follows: 198 votes were cast for the administration-backed amendment, and 32 votes against it. More than 450 proxy votes against the amendment and for alternative amendments were not counted.

Once again, as with all the recent Association meetings, whether of December 2002, December 2003, September 18, 2004, or October 2005, we had to play against a stacked deck. This time the leaders of the so-called Affiliated Groups (societies organized on the basis of sexual practices or minority racial identification) were staying in Hanover as guests of the College administration—some even had their transportation paid for by the administration. The Affiliated Groups were awarded seats on the Alumni Council in the 1990’s. Not incidentally, the AGTF constitution for which the amendment paves the way doubles the number of representatives from these Affiliated Groups in the new, merged alumni governing body. The Executive Committee has openly admitted that the February 12 date of the meeting was chosen to coincide with the Affiliated Group gathering.

As had happened at the meeting on October 23, 2005, the president of the Association, Allen Collins, ruled that only alumni who had physically entered the room could vote—though they could leave their ballots and were not required to stay through the discussion. He excluded hundreds of proxy votes submitted by loyal Dartmouth alumni from all across the country. The meeting had been set for a date in the depth of winter, and the weather did not disappoint: a major storm pounded the East Coast, and heavy snow made for treacherous travel throughout New England. Many alumni who might otherwise have come understandably stayed home. As a result, a mere 230 alumni (a large portion of whom consisted of Affiliated Group guests and local alumni employed by the College) made a fundamental decision for over 60,000. Should unwarranted restrictions imposed by a self-selecting, self-serving 11-member Executive Committee allow four-tenths of one percent of the alumni represent the will and interests of all?

There was NO voting on rank and file members’ alternate proposals because “Guidelines” issued by this same executive committee imposed a four-month notice requirement three months before the meeting. Lewis Carroll could not have invented a more outrageous device in his Alice in Wonderland! When we asked the committee to waive that filing deadline, as its own guideline specifically allows, [it not only refused but claimed it was required to follow the rules!

But even that was not enough for this Executive Committee. In violation of logic and all parliamentary rules of order, NO amendments were allowed from the floor. None! The Chair said there were no rules, only his rules. And so, the only choice was to vote Yes or No—no matter how strongly one may have objected to any of the three provisions in the amendment. The behavior of the Executive Committee, and of their supporters packed into Spalding Auditorium who tried to drown out speakers with handclapping, was reminiscent of a Bayonne, New Jersey, Teamsters Union Local on one of its less democratic days. Tony Pro had nothing on Al Collins.

Update Report on the Lawsuit (March, 2006)

Since 2001, all our repeated efforts to have Association leaders allow absentee voting for the election of officers have been rejected.

At the Association of Alumni annual meeting in October 2005, two slates of candidates sought election to the Executive Committee of the Association: one slate hand-picked and backed by the incumbent Executive Committee and the second slate backed by rank-and-file alumni and placed on the agenda by petition.

I collected more than 420 proxies and attempted to vote them at the October meeting. These 420 proxies from Dartmouth College alumni from diverse parts of the US and foreign countries were not counted. Consequently, the election had the same result as the one that had put Walters’s slate in office: the slate created by the Executive Committee was “elected.”

I decided to protest this year’s round of being forced to play against a stacked deck.
One important reason: this year a new constitution is being proposed by the Alumni Governance Task Force (AGTF), and its ally, the Executive Committee that will curtail our rights dramatically. A key feature of the new AGTF constitution is its change of the rules for the election of Alumni Trustee—the very rules that resulted in the successful bids of petition candidates T.J. Rodgers last year and Peter Robinson and Todd Zywicki this year.

Unwilling to acquiesce to an illegally-installed Executive Committee and watch while it finesses a new constitution that will further skew alumni governance and impede the expression of alumni in their selection of Dartmouth’s trustees, I have, with great reluctance, begun the process of obtaining legal remedy through the courts.

To that end, in November 2005, I filed suit against the Association in New Hampshire Superior Court, seeking to have the proxies counted. As yet, contrary to what you may have been led to believe, that case has not been heard.

Within days of their sham election, the new Executive Committee called the February 12, 2006 special meeting specifically to amend the present constitution so as to make it much easier to ratify its replacement.

I again went to court, this time seeking a Temporary Restraining Order to direct that proxies be counted. On February 10, the judge denied this request. He denied my request, solely “by focusing on whether the petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the underlying merits of his claim.” In other words, he was saying that it was not an open and shut case.

When Allen Collins announced from the podium on February 12 that the judge had ruled against counting proxy votes, that statement was false. The court has NOT ordered that proxy votes should not be accepted, as Collins implied. (We await the audio recording of the meeting so that we might quote Collins’s exact words.)

No decision has been reached, indeed no hearing has been held, on the underlying case on the 420 proxies that were rejected in the election of Association officers at the October 23, 2005 meeting.

Union Leader - Editorial
October 24, 2005

Sham election in Hanover

Less than two weeks ago, a Superior Court judge upheld the New Hampshire law that allows the victorious party in the previous election to have its candidates listed atop the next ballot. If you think that law creates an unfair advantage for incumbents, get a load of the rules governing the election of Dartmouth College’s alumni association executive committee.

Dartmouth alumni are eligible to vote for executive committee candidates — with one caveat. To vote, you have to come to Hanover and do it in person.

The restriction ensures that alumni who stick around Hanover — grad students, professors and others who settle within easy driving distance — get to vote, while those who move out of New England will find it much harder to cast a ballot. It also ensures that a tiny percentage of alumni — predominantly, those physically tied to the campus (and likely, to the administration) — actually get to vote for alumni association officers.

A slate of petition candidates ran for election to the executive committee this year, pledging to change the rule so that all alumni could vote. Not surprisingly, the Hanover area alumni yesterday voted down the candidates who pledged to dilute their power.

The issue of the alumni association’s rules was the latest in a string of controversies involving alumni upset at the Dartmouth administration. This spring, in what was called the “Lone Pine Revolution,” two conservative academics ran as petition candidates to the board of trustees and were elected. In response, the administration proposed changing election rules to make it harder for petition candidates to win.

Funny thing. Where are the campus activists who are always running around advocating “speaking truth to power”? You don’t hear a lot of left-wingers crying about the powerful oppressing the weak, or the well-connected rigging the system to keep out the outsiders, when the powerful and well-connected are left-wing academics and university administrators.

What can the powers-that-be at Dartmouth find so frightening about a few independent-minded alumni who would like to have a say in running of the college that they feel compelled to rig the system to keep them out? Couldn’t they just campaign against them and let the voters decide?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.