Better Representation
First of all, thanks to Tim Dreisbach '71 for the inquiry. And thanks for putting us in the same league as Madison and Bremer (a bit of hyperbole is sometimes good for the ego).
I think it is important to understand the challenges that the AGTF has faced, especially at its inception in January 2004. Charged with the job of picking up the pieces after the narrow defeat of the Joint Committee constitution proposal and of taking a fresh look at alumni governance, the AGTF had to quickly prioritize its efforts. In a nutshell, we kept much of what had been previously proposed that was not being widely contested or was not considered controversial and focused our energies on ironing out the areas of major disagreement. That was a big enough job for anybody. We understood that we had free rein to create entirely new structures and procedures, but we also didn't want to waste time re-inventing the wheel.
So, we looked at the parts of alumni governance that were working pretty well and at those that could easily use some improvement. Clearly, one group that fell into both categories was the current representative body, the Alumni Council.
Our attempt at a fix did several things. Two critical areas of Council responsibility were split off: the Nominating Committee became an Association committee with at-large, all-alumni elected members, and the all-important communication function was largely invested in a separate, new entity, the Alumni Liaison Board (ALB), with a healthy portion of it membership elected at-large by all alumni.
The remaining group was greatly strengthened by increasing representation in several ares. Perhaps most important was ensuring that each class (up to the 50th reunion year) had its own representative, but also, by request, more seats were added for both the post-50th reunion year classes and for affiliated groups. Significantly, the twenty-one at-large seats would hence be elected by all alumni (either directly or by virtue of their being elected as at-large members of the ALB), greatly increasing the ability for a wide variety of voices to get in the game.
We stopped there. Not only was the group getting fairly large (120+ people), but looking at things more broadly did not reveal any other major omissions. Also, I think that it is safe to say that we did not want to stir things up any more than that. However, what we did leave in place is a structure that can change over time to better suit the needs of alumni and the College. I, for one, have stated elsewhere that I think it would be great if other groups worked their way onto the Assembly in the future. How alumni relate to their alma mater changes, and the body that represents alumni should change accordingly. The AGTF has, in my opinion, greatly improved the make-up of that body, but it is really only a starting point. Great things to come, let's hope.
As we have pointed out elsewhere, how representatives are selected from many of the constituent groups is beyond the control of the Association. We can only strongly suggest, to the classes for example, that their reps be elected in as democratic a manner as possible. However, while we can not, and should not, try to micro-manage that aspect, I personally see that there is enough danger of stagnation and erosion of effective representation to warrant continued vigilance and continued pressure from the Association on other alumni organizations to improve the process they use to select reps to the Assembly.
Our proposed system does not, nor need not, mirror the U.S. constitution. It has, however, provisions that are anchored in effective past practices and innovations that correct many shortcomings and energize the organization for the future. Perfect? Hardly. But a very good next step, to be sure.
posted by Bill Hutchinson at
6:00 AM
10 Comments:
Bill Thanks for putting this thread up. I realize it may redundantly cover ground already considered by the AGTF, but it will be helpful for many alums who have not been personally involved in the drafting considerations, and indeed, might offer some fresh new insights. I look forward to reading people's thoughts. Those people who wish to come up to speed should first review recent comments on the alumni/college thread.
Tim
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9:13 AM, February 07, 2006
Bill H wrote:
"what we did leave in place is a structure that can change over time to better suit the needs of alumni and the College"
This is an explicit recognition that any first step towards new governance, such as the AGTF-proposed constitution, will need further modification.
That said, the new constitution needs to have a very explicit section describing the process for how both representative/council amendments and also petition amendments are made and voted upon.
The proposed amendment to the current constitution specifically does not do this!
It would a shame if the upcoming amendment to the current constitution, which lowers the bar for new amendments (and indeed new constitutions) both enables and sets a precedent for a new constitution with the same premise, namely that the process for petition amendments is not spelled out but left open to the control of a committee.
We need a constitution that does not change with every whim, but we also need one in which changes desired by many cannot be bottled up and not even brought to a vote if unpopluar with a small incumbent group.
Hence my concern, as also expressed by David G, as to whether the current amendment is not so obviously a good thing as it first appears.
If people find this all confusing, and or have doubts, the prudent approach might not be to think "well others are smarter than I; vote yes", but to conclude "this takes careful thought; vote no for now".
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 2:51 PM, February 07, 2006
Tim makes some excellent points and highlights several concerns that the AGTF has grappled with over the many months.
One primary concern has been how to strike a balance between stipulating every little process and having a document that is simple, concise, comprehensible, and, most importantly, flexible over time. We have gotten feedback from alumni urging us to go in both directions. For example, one comment that was repeated several times at the annual meeting in October was that our proposal was "too long" (while the AGTF is very sensitive to that concern and is working to make our proposal as concise as possible, I couldn't help but think of that part of the movie "Amadeus" where Mozart's patron criticizes one of his works as having "too many notes"). Later, an alumnus submitted some suggested wording about one specific aspect of governance that would take a minimum of a full page to include in the constitution. And so it goes.
I hope that Tim and others agree with us that there has to be enough flexiblility built into the system so that alumni will not have to amend the constitution every time they want to get something done. Guidelines created by the current leadership which can more easily change to suit the times will always be with us. Some have lamented the lack of control the alumni body as a whole has over these sorts of governance rules. It's a valid point, and one that is sure to become more complicated as we step away from voting in person in Hanover and move into conducting our business largely over the internet. One important way that the AGTF has answered that concern is to make the governing bodies that will be making such guidelines in the future more representative and more democratically elected, thereby increasing both the trust in our institutions and the ability of the average alum to effect change. That's our hope, anyway.
Lastly (for now), I can understand a reluctance to approve the AOA Executive Committee amendment proposal on 2/12 without a lot of these questions being answered, but it may be of comfort (to some, anyway) to know that the next thing to come before alumni in all likelyhood will be the final AGTF proposal. It is a comprehensive package of reforms hammered out by a diverse group that got input from a wide spectrum of alumni. Many of these arcane governance issues have been deliberated at great length, and hopefully alumni will appreciate and approve of the balance that it strikes.
By
Bill Hutchinson '76, at 3:14 AM, February 08, 2006
Bill,
Many are concerned precisely because the next amendment we're likely to consider is the AGTF proposal. The concern I've heard expressed (and which I can not disprove) is that the 2/12 amendment is an attempt to ensure passage of the AGTF constitution. Yes, it introduces all-alumni voting for amendments, which is a good thing--but the proposed constitution already required that before it would be effective. The end effect of the 2/12 amendment on the AGTF proposal is the removal of one of the three steps for ratification (approval by the Council, approval by the Association by 75% of those present, and final approval by the alumni as a whole, by a 2/3 majority).
Given that the 2/12 amendment undeniably makes passage of the AGTF proposal easier, and that (according to this post) the AGTF proposal is likely to be the only amendment voted on under the 2/12 amendment (assuming both pass), is it any wonder that there's a strong concern that the 2/12 amendment is simply a disengenuous attempt to ensure the passage of the AGTF proposal?
By
David Gale '00, at 10:07 AM, February 08, 2006
Please note my recent post related to "better representation" on the "affiliate group" thread. It applies to a discussion of all groups, not just the ethnically "affiliated" ones.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12:40 PM, February 09, 2006
AGTF MEMBERS-- PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
Are we all on a well-intended, but misguided path with long-term negative consequences? The goal of the AGTF has been to create a more “representative” structure for alumni governance… not only for alumni themselves, but for the enduring institution that is Dartmouth.
Some claim that “alumni are not shareholders and it is not their place to run Dartmouth”. If not, then who… the administration? No, clearly they are directed by the Trustees. But to whom are the Trustees responsible? Given Dartmouth’s unique history, its alumni have not only a right, but indeed an obligation (!) to act as stewards for its future, given their responsibilities to nominate and elect trustees, both those done directly and those chosen indirectly through already-seated trustees. While 99.9% of the time, decisions are indeed best made by those closest to the action (i.e. the administration), proper governance must clearly allow for the very rare but important occasions when there is strategic disagreement.
So how best to do this? The AGTF is a well-intended effort to improve representation. Nevertheless there is a grave danger it may have terrible unintended consequences. The problem is caused by confusing institutional governance by alumni, individually and collectively, with the alumni relations function of the College, including its outreach to various groups… the classes, the regional clubs, and more recently ethnic affiliate groups.
As background, readers are encourage to review posts on the “We Want to Hear from You” thread by Trevor Burgess, Bill Hutchinson, and “KB”, as well as posts by Trevor, David Gale, and myself on the “Affiliated Group” thread. I understand the arguments of those who want explicit representation of minority groups. Indeed, without such and presuming a uniform distribution across class and geography, minority representatives will not be chosen at the “local” unit level, and thus have NO representation overall. Thus the drive to have specific representation of groups, and my earlier question on why some but not all get such representation.
But here’s the real rub. By adopting any constitution that involves group representatives in nominating and electing trustees (versus having ONLY petition candidates and alumni-wide voting), we will politicize the entire process of alumni service involvement. How can the Black Alumni be involved when their constitution (correctly in my view) forbids their involvement in politics; surely the same logic that applies to influencing public direction should be applicable for College governance.
Dartmouth’s alumni groups exist as service organizations… to serve their members and to serve the College. Their leaders either volunteer to serve, or are asked to. Indeed, most organizations that even have “elections” do so more as a formality, since there are not completing slates with differing policy platforms. Having personally been involved in both class exec committees and on regional clubs boards, I have never questioned the views of “my Council representatives” (either class rep or club president) on the direction of the College, as a consideration of their representing my views at Council meetings, especially important if they find themselves on the Nominating or Balloting Committees. Since there are alumni, even if in a minority, who care about their stewardship responsibilities, there is a great danger their only recourse will be to politicize the groups and thus undermine the service missions.
This argues for going back to a system wherein “governance”, i.e. trustee nomination and election, remain alumni-wide and independent in all ways from a collective body of “service group” representatives, exemplified by both the current Council and the proposed Assembly structures. The proposed AGTF may in fact be going in the wrong direction.
Thoughts welcome, especially by AGTF members. If the new constitution is adopted, is it expected that individual alumni will need to increase their questioning of regional club presidents, class assembly representatives, etc. as to what positions those individuals hold vis-à-vis overall college direction and the closely-linked nomination and election of trustees? If so, what a shame? If not, what alternative will caring alumni have? What will ethnic alumni do if they find themselves in disagreement with more activist leaders of “their” group? Etc. Etc.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1:43 PM, February 17, 2006
Tim,
I agree with you that nominating and voting on Trustees ought to be handled purely on an alumni-wide basis (see my second post in the "Petition Candidate Timing" thread, which seems to have gone unnoticed by everyone, including the AGTF; no one has responded to it to defend the existence of a nominating committee).
Eliminating the nominating committee would, in my opinion (and in addition to the benefits I listed in my orginial post presenting the idea), address many concerns expressed on this blog--the Assembly would have fewer responsibilities, and could thus take on the role assigned to the ALB (fostering communication between alumni, the college, and the trustees); since the Assembly would have less political clout, it wouldn't matter as much if different alumni had different numbers of representatives; and, with the reduction of the political role, members of regional groups wouldn't demand their leadership adhere to a specific political position--which seems to be your primary concern at this point.
Of course, I would advocate further changes in the Assembly's power structure, such as removing the requirement that constitutional amendments pass at least a majority vote of the Assembly before the alumni can vote on it (in the light of the 2/12 amendment and its surrounding debate, I cannot fathom why the AGTF proposal takes us back to requiring the central governing structure to approve potential amendments), and instead requiring all amendments to follow the same procedure as trustee nominations--garner enough petition signatures, and then get voted on by the alumni as a whole. If the Assembly choses to endorse an amendment, well and good, but the alumni should be able to change the constitution against the will of the Assembly if they so desire. However, those changes are not directly related to this post, so I'll leave them to the side for now (I would appreciate it if the AGTF would open a thread where we could discuss the proposed constitution's amendment process, especially in relation to the amendment passed on 2/12).
By
David Gale '00, at 11:51 AM, February 20, 2006
Some of you may have seen my article in today's D, too long for here. How does one insert a link?
They edited out the full title and preamble...
Dartmouth and Her Alumni: TOGETHER an Enduring Institution
It is a small College, and we who love it (insiders/outsiders/special interests/insurgents/administrators) had better not screw it up.
With that piece as backgound, please consider:
Open Letter to My Class and Regional Club “Representatives”:
I would appreciate your answers to the following questions:
1. Will you begin providing us with regular written summaries of what you learn about Dartmouth during Assembly meetings, and the issues the Assembly is addressing?
2. Is there some reason we have not received such summaries, as we did get from some past representatives?
3. If you are engaged in Assembly work on any committees, can you please inform us what recommendations those committees are making to the Assembly at large, or to Dartmouth trustees or administrators?
4. How do you solicit input from members of our class (or club) to help inform you as you go about representing us?
5. Have you voted for members to the Trustee nominating committee? Have you had to pick between two or more candidates, and if so, what criteria did you use?
6A. Some people have expressed concern that only “credible” people sitting on the nominating committee can select “credible” candidates for alumni trustee elections. What criteria do you use to determine “credibility” and have you ever voted against someone because they would not be credible on the committee?
6B. Are persons less credible if they, while being respectful of others, have taken unpopular stands? Are people more credible due to either a long tenure or a collegial style, even if they show a disposition to predefined ends by providing rationales for decisions, when the logic of their own rationale in fact leads to a different conclusion? Do you feel your service on the Assembly has made you a better judge of “credibility” than we alumni at large?
7. Do you feel in hindsight that the nominating committee (which you helped elect) would have done a more “credible” job if it had offered at least one candidate among its four that had appeal to those considerable number of alumni who ultimately voted for the petition candidates? Will this affect your vote for future committee members?
8. When you vote, not as an individual member of the Association of Alumni, but as an Assembly representative, will you inform us of how you are voting and why? This includes any vote by the current Council on the new proposed constitution.
9. Are any of the above questions inappropriate to ask of my representative? Is it unreasonable to expect a reply?
10. If such questions are appropriate, is responding a burden that will cause you (and your peers) distraction? With repeated questions from our class (club), will it discourage you (or others) from wanting to serve us?
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful response.
Do we want our Assembly volunteers to be so burdened?
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 2:07 PM, February 23, 2006
Oh boy... my blog verification word is "daangr".
For those who have read the second installment in today's "D" regarding trustee nomination, some additional input:
1. The mechanisms for alumni to select trustee candidates directly or through a nominating committee whose members are elected on an alumni-wide basis will already be in place, being the same as that needed to elect at-large members to the Assembly.
2. The experience and expertise of an Assembly representative need not be excluded from a nominating committee; they can stand for alumni-wide election just like any other individual.
3. As to Assembly members being more qualified to choose "credible" committee members... that's not going to be a productive discussion.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 7:41 AM, February 24, 2006
Vox Clamantis in Deserto
Judging from the lack of posts here (though I hope AGTF members are reading), I take it few people
believe there will be a problem with the "politicization" of Alumni organizations, a consequence if their Assembly representatives are involved in electing Nominating Committee members.
Having read the comment of one former Committee member and discussed this concern with a current member, I believe their goal is to avoid "politics";
that is Ok if one defines "politics" as left/right,
Republican/Democrat,liberal/conservative.
But I use the word "politics" relative to alumni participation (thru trustee election) in determining the best course for Dartmouth College. We are done a
disservice if the nominated candidates are incredibly
career-distinguished but offer only "bland" platitudes regarding Dartmouth excellence. We need
more candidates who are very clear about what, in their individual opinions, makes the College special, what are the tangible differentiators that separate
it from other excellent institutions, and what are
their visions for insuring the uniqueness is strengthened, not weakened.
When there are areas that impact the above (major, like increasing the number of Art&Sciences grad
students, or minor, like whether to have freshman-only dorms), and significantly-sized blocks of alumni have opinions on both sides of an issue, they should be given choice in whom they vote for Trustee. Either candidates need to come ONLY from a petition process (as proposed by some), or from a nominating committee that takes the most significant of such concerns into account and offers a diversity of candidates with differing visions.
While we certainly want our Trustees to be thoughtful and open-minded as they gain information and insight after being seated, we should also want them to have some core belief in Dartmouth's mission and a guiding philosphy that is known when we elect them.
So logic requires either:
1. Keep differing opinions about Dartmouth's governance out of the nomination process, in which case alumni desires on such can only be represented by petition candidates... so we may as well eliminate the committee process entirely.
Or
2. Have the nominating committee explicitly take such opinions into consideration, selecting candidates that permit real choice in actual trustee elections... and in this case, keep such "politics"
out of alumni club/class/group activities by only having nominating committee members be elected at-large without the involvement of organization Assembly representatives.
Or
3. Have College governance not be a concern (or "right" or obligation) of the alumni at large, and let the institution's course be determined by the
Administration and a perpetually "self-selecting" group of Trustees.
Which do we want? Arguably not having #3 is one of
Dartmouth's differentiators, so we are left with choosing #1 or #2.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 6:37 AM, March 04, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home