AGTF Blog

This is the combined blog for the members of the Alumni Governance Task Force, a body commissioned jointly by the Association of Alumni (AOA) and the Alumni Council. As volunteers, we have a developed a constitution that reforms many alumni governance processes, providing for greater transparency, greater democracy, and greater opportunities for broad alumni involvement. Use the search box (above) to view our archives to see the discussions that occurred throughout the comment-gathering period. Please join the AOA Blog for an ongoing discussion of these issues. If you have questions, contact us directly by sending an email to AGTaskForce [at] alum [dot] dartmouth [dot] org; it will go to all of us, and we will respond to your email.

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

On Alumni-College Partnership

One of the recurring themes we have heard from alumni/ae is a desire to have a stronger and closer relationship with the Trustees/administration, a relationship earmarked by a greater sense of partnership in addressing and solving the challenges that face the College. The feeling that the Trustees/administration reject alumni participation on that level seems to be at the heart of a sense of alienation expressed by many alums and is of great concern to the AGTF.

While it is ultimately up to the Trustees/administration to effect a shift in the alumni/College relationship, we alumni can specifically ask for it and put in place mechanisms to facilitate our end of the bargain. To that end, the Alumni Liaison Board (ALB) proposed by the AGTF is intended to be the vehicle for a dramatic increase in the frequency and quality of communications between alumni and the College. Its mandate will be to utilize any and every means to foster an informed, intense, substantive, two-way dialog. In addition, the majority of its membership will be elected by all alumni via all-media voting, giving the opportunity for diverse interests and viewpoints to be represented on the ALB itself, thereby giving it greater legitimacy in the eyes of both the College and alumni. Most encouragingly, we have had some preliminary indications from the Trustees that they embrace the concepts behind this new entity and will work closely with it. A deeper commitment may be a ways off, but the hope is that a strengthened Association of Alumni and an invigorated alumni body will be seen as a worthy partner. While we feel that we are making headway in this critical area, we would appreciate any comments or ideas that would further the effort.

posted by AGTF at 4:13 PM

16 Comments:

  • "In addition, the majority of its membership will be elected by all alumni via all-media voting..."

    This is a bit misleading, I think. Of the fifteen members of the ALB, only 6 (40%) are to be directly elected by all alumni; three others are elected only indirectly (the current, last, and next presidents of the Association).

    I have trouble believing that any alum will decide whom to elect to the presidency of the Association based on the fact that that person will also be on the ALB, so it's specious to suggest that nine, rather than just six, members of the ALB are to be elected by the alumni for the purpose of their being on the ALB, which this article seems to be trying to do.

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 1:05 PM, December 02, 2005  

  • David-

    Thank you for your feedback on this, as well as the other topics we've posted recently. We're not trying to be misleading; nine of the fifteen members of the ALB will consist of people who have been selected via an alumni-wide vote; six directly, and three by virtue of their elected leadership role.

    To me, ex officio membership on the ALB is one of the enhancements in responsibility and relevance we are proposing to bring to the office of AOA President. While they may not be an end unto themselves, we hope (if our proposed constitution is adopted) that alums will take these sorts of new duties in mind when electing the AOA President, or running for that position.

    Please, continue to share your thoughts with us, and encourage others to join in.

    Thanks again,

    -Anton Anderson '89

    By Blogger Anton Anderson, at 1:42 PM, December 02, 2005  

  • Yes, thanks David. You are adding quite a bit to the discussion.

    I am certainly not trying to cloak anything here. My "majority" statement was intended to distinguish between those on the ALB who will be elected in alumni-wide all-media voting, as opposed to those who will be selected from and voted in by the representative Alumni Assembly (this is in stark contrast to the current situation in both the Alumni Council Nominating Committee and the Alumni Council's College Relations Group (CRG), which are comprised exclusively of Council members, none of whom are elected by all alumni for membership on either the Council itself or the respective committees). You are correct in saying that only six people will be elected exclusively for membership on the ALB by an alumni-wide all-media vote. But, three more will be ALB members by virtue of their also having been elected by an alumni-wide all-media vote, albeit a separate one for Association president. Naturally, it will be important, and should be a simple matter, to spell out what the officer position responsibilities are so that alumni will have a clear understanding of the significance of their vote when the time comes. But my bigger point is that not only will this be a huge leap toward greater democracy in our alumni organizations, but also that the resulting bodies will have some gravitas with both alumni and the College by virtue of their having most of their members elected by all alumni (one way or another).

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 10:56 AM, December 03, 2005  

  • Bill,

    If having some members directly elected by the alumni improves democracy and adds "gravitas with both alumni and the College", as you put it (and I absolutely agree!), why not allow the alumni to vote for all of the members of the ALB? What value is added by having 40% of the ALB chosen by the Assembly?

    And, thanks for both your comments and Anton's about my feedback. Sometimes it's easy to feel as if one is throwing their ideas out into the void, and the simple acknowledgement goes a long way to dispelling that!

    By Anonymous david gale '00, at 6:10 PM, December 04, 2005  

  • I'd like to wish all of my fellow alumni a happy new year, and express my hope that this last month's lack of activity on this blog is simply an effect of the AGTF focusing on spending the holidays with their families and friends, rather than a sign of a lagging desire to reach out to their fellow alumni for comments throughout the process of developing a new proposed constitution.

    Looking forward to the next update, as always.

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 5:26 PM, December 31, 2005  

  • That's it exactly, David. We will be gearing back up this coming week after a short hiatus for the holidays. Thanks to you and to all alums who have given us their thoughts and continue to be involved in this important endeavor. More soon.

    A very Happy New Year to all.

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 6:09 PM, December 31, 2005  

  • I was involved with the first iteration of the committee appointed to review the college's alumni organization and constitution. I am not a member of the current committee and have not been involved with it at all. However, I applaud the committee's efforts and particularly the product. I understand the strength of the competing interests going into this project, and the emotions that went along with them, and I marvel that such a wonderful compromise became possible. This new structure will make the Dartmouth alumni organizational structure much more logical and responsive to both alumni and the college. I hope everyone can put aside any minor quibbles with this proposal and support it so that we can finally move on to greater participation by alumni and forging a stronger alumni-college partnership.

    By Anonymous philippa m. guthrie '82, at 8:16 AM, January 11, 2006  

  • Thank you, Philippa. We hope the same thing, too. This work is very important, but there are a host of other critical issues facing the college and many unknowns just over the horizon that will need our collective attention and energies. The idea is that a new constitution and a more democratic and effective alumni organization will be the foundation for a greatly improved relationship between various parts of the alumni body and between alumni and the college, all of which will surely translate into a much stronger and vibrant institution that is better able to rise to the challenges ahead.

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 9:08 AM, January 12, 2006  

  • Bill,

    You haven't yet answered the question I posed in comment #4, about what value is added by having 40% of the ALB chosen by the Assembly, rather than having all members of the ALB elected by the alumni at large. I'm still very curious as to the AGTF's reasoning behind this decision; can you help me understand it?

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 4:20 AM, January 13, 2006  

  • David, I am happy to give you my personal take on it, which may not be the same as anyone else's.

    Like a great many other provisions in our constitution proposal, this an attempt at balance. In addition to the aforementioned hypothesis about what might increase the group's gravitas, factors to consider here include candidate pool (would we be able to find enough really great people to run for open seats), voter fatigue (too many elections and/or too many choices to evaluate in a meaningful way), breadth of opinion (trying to get as many different viewpoints as possible on a relatively small committee), and what I will call "vibrant stability" (a mix of people with experience in the alumni arena alongside fresh faces with new ideas).

    While it is difficult to imbue a group with certain qualities from its make-up alone, drawing people out of both the Assembly and the alumni body as a whole seemed to be the best bet. If necessary, each can act as a check and balance on the other. As an example of what I mean, imagine that the Assembly saw that the at-large ALB members were (for whatever reason) all from older classes or mostly women rugby players (or all or mostly anything). They could then (in their collective wisdom) vote in some younger classes or some men rugby players. Of course, the same would be true for the alumni as a whole, who, if they were irked by the kind of people being voted onto the ALB by the Assembly, could then choose (in their collective wisdom) to impanel those who might strike a better balance.

    Remember, too, that the ALB's job is to communicate with and between the alumni and the college administration/Board of Trustees. It will be a huge and critical undertaking. Having a blend of what you might call the well-connected and the vox populi would conceivably be a big asset. We also recognized that needs change, and, while it is tempting to think that the Assembly-elected members of the ALB might only come from the ranks of club officers, or class presidents (and the like), it would be entirely possible for them to come from the ranks of the eighteen at-large Assembly members (elected by all alumni), making the percentage of all-alumni elected ALB members even greater (even 100%).

    We on the AGTF have spent a great many hours considering a host of "what if" scenarios and tried to cover as many bases as we possibly could. While our crystal balls may not be any clearer than anyone else's and our conclusions may not meet with universal huzzahs, we feel strongly that ideas like the blended make-up of the ALB are grounded in careful consideration and have a very good chance of success. The last word, of course, is that we have tried to create a flexible document, and if down the road things don't work out quite like we had hoped, alumni can, and certainly will, change it.

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 12:35 PM, January 14, 2006  

  • Bill,

    Thanks for your response. Below, I'd like to respond to each of the reasons you listed.

    Candidate Pool: Assuming there's no explicit bar to prevent someone from being on both the Assembly & the ALB, this shouldn't be a concern. That is, if the expectation is that, each year, at least two alumni will want to run for the open seats, and at least two Assembly members will want to run for the seats specifically 'ear-marked' for Assembly members, then surely those four people would be willing to run even without these 'ear-marked' seats, right?

    Voter Fatigue: Yes, I can see this being a valid concern. Just look at all of the candidates for all the open positions on a local ballot each election year--how many people actually base their votes for town dogcatcher (or similar small role) on anything other than party affiliation? If this is a primary concern, perhaps the size of the ALB is too large, or else there are too many different committees, etc., in general (I lean towards the latter, but that's at least partly because I don't like bureaucracy).

    Breadth of Opinion: Frankly, I'm not sure how electing Assembly members helps this need. You seem to feel that the Assembly would put members on the ALB that the alumni would not find generally acceptable. The alumni body is, by definition, more diverse than the Assembly (or any subset) can be--do you really think it possible that the alumni as a whole would arbitrarily favor one particular group of candidates over another, or that if such favoritism does occur and is not arbitrary, that the will of the alumni should be over-ruled by the Assembly? If the alumni as a whole feel that it's best for members of the ALB to have several years of life experience outside of college, should the Assembly really have the power to stack the ALB with recent graduates? Do we really want to tell our fellow alumni that we think so little of their collective wisdom?

    "Vibrant Stability": Again, I'm not sure that a) I understand the worth of this, and b) that it's worth overruling the express will of the voting alumni. Could you please explain further?

    Naturally, I understand the difficulty the AGTF faces in drafting a new constitution that will be acceptable to the majority of the alumni; you may remember that, at the last annual meeting, I proposed presenting the changes to the alumni individually, rather than as one lump package, so that we could vote in the changes we like, while rejecting the ones that are unpalatable. The special session to vote on changing how constitutional amendments occur is a good example of this happening, and I would continue to strongly encourage the AGTF to consider adopting this approach for all of the proposed changes--or are there specific changes the AGTF desires, but fears the alumni would reject?

    Incidentally, while looking through the proposed constitution in preparing this response, I was unable to determine whether or not ALB members elected by the alumni (in section 6.2.1) would be voting members in the Assembly; section 5.2.1.10 just addresses ALB members from section 6.2.2. Do they fall under 5.2.1 (voting members), or 5.2.2 (non-voting members)? This really ought to be clarified.

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 11:20 AM, January 18, 2006  

  • David, Sorry for the slow response.

    Candidate pool: I'm not sure what you're getting at, but we have tried to be mindful of how any proposed structure affects the likely pool of candidates. Given the way we have set things up (the ALB, the Assembly, the Association Nominating and Balloting Committees, and the three-year officer arc), there will be a great many positions to fill with very active and interested alumni. Nonetheless, we do not feel that there will be any shortage of candidates. On the contrary, our hope is that once those positions are more available that more alumni will become involved and participate.

    Voter fatigue: Our new structure will ask more of alumni than has been the case in the past (with more openness and direct democracy comes more responsibility). There will certainly be more people to evaluate and vote for and perhaps more issues to ponder, but we feel that the alumni body (generally a pretty bright bunch) is up to the challenge. After careful consideration, we are comfortable with the size of the various groups and the numbers of elected positions in each, but we are also well aware that what we propose is new and will need to be revisited down the road (see the provision for a constitutional review committee no less frequently than every five years). Of course, greater and more effective communication will be an important element in lessening voter apathy and burn-out. Care to join in?

    Breadth of opinion: There is a lot to consider here. One aspect is that lately some alumni are of the opinion that those who have been nominated to serve on the Alumni Council and other alumni organizations must certainly be "insiders" and too closely aligned with the college administration, while anyone elected by all alumni would surely be independent and reflect the will and collective wisdom (as you put it) of the majority of alumni (the vox populi, if you will). It's the Hanover version of "inside the Beltway" vs. the rest of the country. It is clearly not that simple (to say the very least), and even if it were, there are solid arguments to be made on both sides of the question of which group knows what is really going on at the college and which is better positioned to make informed, sound decisions in the name of all alumni. The short answer is that neither group is infallible and each has a great deal to contribute. To the extent possible, having both groups represented (with some checks and balances) makes a lot of sense to the AGTF. But having Assembly members on the ALB goes far beyond responding to this perceived dichotomy in the alumni ranks. In addition to those "outsiders" who would be elected from and by all alumni (and, in theory, expressing their will), having some representation on the ALB from some of the major alumni groups (like clubs, classes, affiliated groups, etc.) could prove invaluable. Those groups can be massive information gathering and dispensing machines that speak to a solid segment of alumni who remain active, and are tools that the ALB will not want to be without. If they weren't already there by virtue of being elected by all alumni, having a few key leaders come over from the Assembly would add enormously to the effectiveness and over-all strength of the ALB.

    "Vibrant stability": See above. The best path is somewhere in the middle, with the extremes contributing and being heard. Balance. The very point is that no group should be able to overrule another.

    Piecemeal approach vs. a package deal: What may not be immediately evident is the degree to which many parts of the AGTF proposal (and many of the constitutional issues we have wrestled with) are intertwined and interdependent. In addition, many provisions are the product of intense negotiation and compromise. Few stand alone with no effect on the others. While it is tempting to consider adopting only those parts you like and tossing out the others, that approach has the potential to unravel some of the constitution’s important reforms and bring stalemate to the reform process. We don’t fear rejection by alumni (as if they were a monolith) in the way you mention. What is true is that there are some things that one group will grumble about that another group thinks are just super. On the next page there might be something that the latter group winces at, but the former thinks is critical to any new constitution. Even if you tried the piecemeal approach, the chances are that you would ultimately duplicate much of what has transpired in the AGTF (we should write a book!) and the constitution would very much resemble what we are proposing. No reform proposal is going to be perfect. We know that there will be some things that some people will not embrace, and those things will vary depending on which group you talk to, but ultimately we hope that we have put enough very positive things into our proposal, and considered the opinions of a sufficiently wide variety of groups, such that a vast majority will see the package as a huge step forward and worthy of their support.

    ALB voting members of the Assembly?: Yes. We’ll make sure that is clear in future drafts.

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 8:11 AM, January 23, 2006  

  • Bill,

    I hardly count five days a "slow response"; rather, given the challenge of the issues, I think it appropriate for us to take time to think about our comments.

    My point with the candidate pool was that I don't think electing members of the Assembly increases the size of the candidate pool, which I thought was the reason you brought up the candidate pool (in response to my query about why all of the seats aren't open to all alumni). Members of the Assembly are, by definition, also members of the alumni body; if they want to run for a position, they can. Now, you seem to be agreeing with me--that there won't be a shortage of interested candidates--which makes me wonder still more about whether or not this is a valid concern. If the expectation is that there will be enough good candidates, then candidate pool isn't a good reason to elect some members of the ALB from the Assembly.

    As for voter fatigue, you again had brought it up as a reason to not elect all members of the ALB from the alumni body as a whole. Now, you state that you feel "the alumni body...is up to the challenge." If we're up to the challenge, then this, too, isn't a valid reason to pick members of the Assembly to fill seats on the ALB.

    On breadth of opinion, I agree with your "inside the beltway" summarization of some alumni's opinions. If you'll remember, the framers of the Constitution of the United States struggled with this same concern; their answer was the bicameral nature of Congress, and the fact that each State elects its own representatives, rather than voting for "national" representatives. This is fairly close to our electing representatives from each class (section 5.2.1.4). I wouldn't mind it if the constitution was more explicit about how the classes chose their representatives, but I understand the need for flexibility. Regardless, the difference between Representatives and Senators in Congress is one of term length, rather than the manner in which they are chosen; perhaps this would be a better manner of creating the "vibrant stability" you want.

    You also mention the possibility of having Assembly members from the "major alumni groups" on the ALB. I'm sure you realize this is a fairly controversial item in and of itself (look at the comments on the 11/28/05 post, "Affiliated Groups", for instance; 5 commenters against, 1 from the AGTF in favor). I will simply note that you said these members could speak "to" a large segment of alumni (which anyone with a mailing list can), rather than "for"--which many, myself included, would contend they can't. I also disagree with the idea of giving arbitrary groups of alumni more representation than other groups on a purely democratic basis, though, again, that's more what we were raising in the other thread.

    On the piecemeal vs. package deal approach, I understand that the current proposal is a compromise. But it's a compromise which has been worked out by a few alumni, with only minimal input from the alumni body as a whole. Presenting the proposed changes--all of them, whether "conservative" or "liberal"--individually, or, at least, in smaller blocks, would allow the alumni to arrive at a "natural" compromise, rather than feel that they'd had one dictated to them. It would also, to my mind, bring a greater chance of the changes being adopted; if the compromise package the AGTF comes up with isn't acceptable as a whole to the majority of the alumni, we will have no choice but to reject it as a whole. However, the chances are that some will vote against it because it is too liberal, others because it is too conservative; there are probably many parts--maybe even all of them--which, when taken individually, would be acceptable to the majority, and which would therefore pass if voted on individually.

    An example: if a third of the alumni feel section A's presence is a show-stopper, and a different third won't accept section B, and yet a third section hates section C, a package of A+B+C would be voted down strongly, while the individual packages would each pass with a comfortable margin. Note that alumni body in this example is not a "monolith"; it's actually fairly fractured--much as our real-life alumni body is. And, also, note that it doesn't matter that each group would find two-thirds of the package deal acceptable--there's a third that they cannot bring themselves to vote for, and so they have to reject the entire package. I expect the same to be true when the new constitution is voted on--some will vote against it simply because of one or two provisions, rather than just "grumble" about them while voting in favor--the real concern is how many such groups there are; if more than a third of the voting alumni fall into that category, all proposed changes will be thrown out. Thus, I would argue that the "package" approach is more likely to "bring stalemate to the reform process" than doing things "piecemeal".

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 11:36 AM, January 23, 2006  

  • Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I am a latecomer to this blog, and have only peripherally observed the hard work of the AGTF group. And we think James Madison and Paul Bremer had tough jobs getting new constitutions in place.

    Some points behind my forthcoming questions:
    Dartmouth is blessed by having alums who remain emotionally attached to the institution; they care.
    Therefore they want insight, and input, into its direction.
    This has lead to all the controversy about trustee nominations and elections, alumni representation and therefore governance, etc.
    There seems to be unanimous consent among all, "insiders" and "insurgents" alike, that we can do a better job of representation and communication... hence the long efforts by many leading up to proposed constitutional changes.
    It seems the real sticking point, which many seem afraid to face squarely, is how to best represent alumni individually and collectively. Representation of special groups, whether a geographic club or an affinity group, offend many who believe in "one person/one vote". Only allowing one form of representation (e.g. class structure) disenfranchises those people whose affinities lie elsewhere and frankly are unlikely to ever be represented by a class-aligned majority.

    The founding fathers of the US solved this dilemna with a bicameral representative body... a house of reprentatives for the "vox populi" (I'm quoting Bill's comment about the ALB representing both the alumni at large and "insiders" active on the Alumni Council) and a senate to represent communities of common interest, which 200 years ago were primarily geographic in nature.

    Two asides:
    1. It is nice that any Dartmouth alum can become an "insider" simply by taking the time to get involved, constructively.
    2. We are facing a similar governance issue in the US and beyond as modern communications now bind collective groups of common interest much more strongly than "I'm a Virginian" geography, yet there is no form of non-geographic legislator representation. So we are left with lobbyists only for those groups in a position to afford them.

    So my first question:
    Did the AGTF consider a bicameral form of alumni representation? One body composed of representatives, with the number of seats per class determined by class size; and a second body to represent ALL qualifying interest/affinity groups. Or is it thought that the proposed mix of group reps and at large reps satisfies this need.

    Second question: (Which I beleive others have asked) Why the decision to represent geographic groups (the clubs) and ethnic affinity groups, but not others of common interest, like the rugby club, glee club, or friends of the canoe club? The guidelines for insuring an affinity club has "staying power" before they can be recognized and gain representation are understandable. But why not apply the same to others who may not be ethnic, but also have a common interest in Dartmouth that is nowhere else representated.

    Another aside: If they could demonstrate enough members and an organization with staying power, would alumni from the Choates and River Cluster dorms be considered a "historically marginalized" group that would want to have ongoing involvement with the Trustees re building planning and its impact on student life.

    I really believe if the Exec Committe and the AGTF would tackle this issue more head on, we could productively get a new constitution passed with an overwhelming majority and move beyond all the petty arguments going on. If people really believe their interests will be represented, whether individually or in common with people of like mind, then there will be much less fear of control by either "insiders" or "insurgents". New governance could be put in place with much broader support, and people could focus on what really matters... Dartmouth.

    By Blogger Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12:53 PM, February 04, 2006  

  • Tim,

    Re: your question about residents of the Choates and the River dorms being "historically marginalized". As a former resident of North Hall, I feel that those of us who've lived there have been even more marginalized--at least most students have heard of the Choates and the River dorms! The standard response I got when I told people I was in North was, "North What?"

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 1:21 PM, February 06, 2006  

  • David: Thanks for your fun note about the dorms, but I hope my somewhat tongue-in-check aside and your response does not distract from my request for comments on bicameral representation and a senate that does not represent "upper house lords", but rather communities of common interest (i.e. historically states in the US).

    In juxtapostion to your comment that length of terms and not manner of election, is what separates congressmen and senators, I am sure you are aware that was not how our country was founded. House members are elected directly by the people, in proportion to population. But senators used to be elected BY THE STATES, and not by individual people within those states. This was so they truly represented the specific interests of individual states as decided by state government.

    I am very interested in hearing the thinking of AGTF drafters re the need to represent groups, why some are and others are not to be included, how memberships in the groups are defined, and how individuals within the groups are envisioned selecting their representatives. What I have read so far has not presented a consistent logic.

    Looking forward to answers/comments from others on both of my two prior questions...

    TAD

    ps Bill H. I believe you are the site administrator... How to you suggest we organize postings when one forum thread crosses to another and then back?

    By Blogger Tim Dreisbach '71, at 6:24 PM, February 06, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home