Petition Candidate Timing
Some alums have said that it is important to maintain the current practice of allowing potential Alumni Trustee petition candidates to first see who is nominated by the Nominating Committee and then decide if they want to enter the race. This point is well taken, and yet there are other considerations as well. Notification of intent timing, voting method, ballot size requirements, and campaigning regulations all intertwine. While seeking a level playing field and absolutely providing a sound and fair petition process, we think everyone would agree that the emphasis must be on the Nominating Committee's ability to effectively do its job over the long haul (attract and select top-flight candidates). Ultimately, their work will be responsible for the continued excellence of half of the Board of Trustees, and there are some real problems with the current system. We have tried to untie the hands of that committee while also making it potentially easier for a petition candidate to get on the ballot (and in a hopefully less divisive, confrontational manner). We also wondered how many petition candidates would actually base their decision to enter the race on the personalities involved (see who is running first and then throw their hat into the ring), although it certainly could be a consideration. Clearly, it was not the motivating factor in the last four petition efforts. Notifying the Nominating Committee in advance seemed like a mere formality, gave the candidate a possible leg up, and helped the Nom. Comm. minimize wasting top-flight candidates (the "churn and burn"). We also felt that because the new Association Nominating Committee would be largely elected by all alumni via all-media voting, perhaps the distrust some currently feel might become a thing of the past. Nevertheless, this issue has proven to be controversial and continues to be debated in the AGTF.
posted by AGTF at
4:09 PM
5 Comments:
"We also wondered how many petition candidates would actually base their decision to enter the race on the personalities involved (see who is running first and then throw their hat into the ring), although it certainly could be a consideration."
I suspect most of them would, actually. If the nominating committee fails to nominate even one candidate that a large block of alumni would prefer to vote for, someone in that block might well decide to run--even if they wouldn't have considered it earlier--because of a feeling that that block was failed by the nominating committee. The committee will never be able to pick a candidate (or even two, or three candidates) who will be acceptable to all of the alumni, and the petition process needs to enable the alumni to respond and adapt when the committee fails (for whatever reason). Making the petition process start before the committee has made its announcement removes this ability to respond, and would require all interested alumni to behave as if they expect the nominating committee to fail to select a good candidate.
As you note, the last several petition efforts were not started in response to the specific candidates chosen by the committee--they were started because many alumni believed, going into the nomination process, that the nominating committee would not put forth the sort of candidates they want to vote for. And, given that the last three petition candidates for trusteeship won, this would appear to be a valid pessimism. Moving forward, however, we ought to strive to dispel that pessimistic attitude--and the worst way to do that is to remove the alumni body's ability to respond to a bad slate of candidates.
By
David Gale '00, at 9:57 AM, December 01, 2005
After giving it some more thought, a rather simple proposal occurred to me that would eliminate the timing issues, remove any concerns over who picks the people on the nominating committee, solve the issue of how many signatures petition candidates need to collect to get on the ballot, and should go a long way towards getting rid of the acrimony that has been noted in recent elections between the nominated slate of candidates and the petitioners.
Get rid of the nominating committee.
Yes, this would be a bold step, but it has many benefits. By requiring all candidates (whether endorsed by the executive board or not) to meet the same requirements, it doesn't matter if the standard is 500 signatures, or 1%, or whatever--the playing field is level. And, of course, anyone who wants to be elected starts campaigning when they choose to, rather than being forced to wait until someone else has started, or some such. Candidates would be free to seek or not seek endorsement by the executive board as they felt would best serve their interests, which would remove the current concern (expressed at the October meeting) that a petitioner might actually be picked by the nominating committee.
I'd also suggest requiring the executive board to not endorse any candidate until the deadline for all candidates to qualify, to keep the qualification playing field as level as possible.
(Most State and local elections follow this pattern--the candidate must get a certain number of signatures by a given deadline in order to be on the ballot--and it seems to work fairly well.)
By
david gale '00, at 6:01 PM, December 04, 2005
David,
As a current member and former chair of the Nominating Committee, I would appreciate if you would answer a few questions that I have based on your first post.
First, please expand on your definition of a "bad slate of candidates," and contrast that to what you would consider to be a "good slate of candidates". Is there ANY slate of candidates that bears the endorsement of the Alumni Council and its Nominating Committee that you would label as a "good slate"?
Second, as a corollary, what critera would you encourge alums to look for when they vote in a trustee election? How did the Alumni Council's slate fail to meet those criteria, and/or how did the petition candidates better meet those criteria?
As to your second post, I never noticed any acrimony between the candidates.
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful response,
Andrea Lordan '86
By
Andrea Lordan '86, at 6:54 PM, December 04, 2005
Andrea,
By "bad slate of candidates", I meant, simply, a slate of candidates that are not as acceptable to the majority of the alumni as other candidates who desire to run. That is, a slate which, under the current system, leads to the majority voting for petition candidates instead. Using this definition, any slate which includes candidates that do prevail over petition candidates would be a "good slate".
Your other questions seem to be about what sort of candidate I would personally prefer, and I don't really feel this is the appropriate place to discuss that (since it doesn't pertain to the purpose of the AGTF); if you'd like, send me an e-mail to my blitzmail account and we can discuss it offline.
By
David Gale '00, at 7:29 AM, December 05, 2005
Hi Andrea:
I am not sure if you or anyone is still reading this thread, so I hope you see this. Since you remain a member of the nominating committee, I would like to answer your second question to David, and suggest a reason why you thought it appropriate to ask, yet David did not think it appropriate to respond. It is because you and he have differing views on the role of the committee itself.
I have spoken with other committee members as well. My impression is that you (collectively) feel the charter is to recommend candidates who are intelligent, career-accomplished, of demonstrated service to the College, thoughtful, open to ideas from all sources, able to work with others, well-networked, and in general, use all of the above compentencies to make the best decisions as to what is "right for Dartmouth".
All the above are necessary, but IMHO they are not sufficient. Of Dartmouth's 66000 alumni, I image hundreds meet those standards. The Trustees have an incredible duty, and the power, to set Dartmouth's direction. Thus I would like to see more than just platitudes about Dartmouth's greatness. I would hope trustee candidates would be more specific about their vision for the College, (I recall TJRodgers actually drafting his own vision of the mission statement). Most importantly, they need to articulate what they believe makes Dartmouth unique and special from other excellent institutions. As Jere Danielle says "Dartmouth should simply be Dartmouth", I'd like candidates to articulate that and as best as they are able, describe how their vision is realized in the directions the board gives to the administration. They need to be specific about what Dartmouth does to strengthen, and certainly not weaken, those factors that make it different from its "competitors".
How about one example: Our stated focus is on undergraduate education, but to enhance that, students need to do "research" (I prefer the term "pro-active learning and scholarship"). Can that be done while keeping enough qualified faculty members who do not have grad students to assist the faculty with their personal research, different than the faculty assisting the research of undergrads? Williams says it can; we say no and have grad students. We promise graduate students (in the Arts and Sciences, not only the professional schools) a fine education, often on the path to their own higher-ed career; how can that promise be kept without giving them an opportunity to teach the undergrads? A contradiction of purposes. I'd like to see one trustee posit some specifics on a guiding philosophy for graduate students (again outside the professional schools), rather than the current position of "modest" but undefined growth.
But that is only one topic. The point is there are many differing views as to what Dartmouth should "be", and there are very real tangible, tactical implications for programs and policies. I'd like to see trustee candidates offer a diversity of views, with more specifics in support.
Then alumni would be able to truly have choices, and all this controversy over petition candidates could be eliminated.
So when you ask David, or any alum, what trustee candidate they'd like, you are really asking them for a very personal opinion as to Dartmouth's future direction. Give many views a voice by offering a greater diversity of candidates, backed by specifics.
I understand from Anton and others that the nominating committee spends incredible hours vetting candidates. Perhaps more time should be spent not "background checking", but exploring the pulse of the alumni at large and seeking out more real alternatives.
Tim D.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1:21 PM, March 17, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home