New Draft Constitution Released
To our fellow alumni:
The Dartmouth College Alumni Governance Task Force (AGTF) today is releasing a new draft of a proposed alumni constitution that incorporates many of the changes that you and other alumni have suggested in the past six months.
We have received hundreds of comments via email, mail, blogs, phone calls, and face-to-face meetings. In this way, you have helped make the governance structure envisioned by this draft constitution more open and transparent. We thank you and look forward to hearing more from you about our new draft.
Here’s a bit of background on the five-year effort to bring you this document. The AGTF was created by the Association of Alumni and the Alumni Council in January 2004 to carry on the work of the Joint Committee on Alumni Governance and Trustee Nominations, whose proposed constitution narrowly failed in a December 2003 vote in Hanover. The goal for the AGTF was to build on that earlier draft and seek rapprochement among groups of alumni with widely differing views to create a constitution of accord and power for all.
Overall, our proposal would bring the roles of both the council and the association under the association’s aegis, creating new structures to improve communications between alumni and the College and better engage alumni through leadership, service. and voting opportunities. Some 66,500-members strong, the association would provide a bully pulpit for alumni to speak their minds as well as create a representative advisory and service body open to anyone through class, club, at-large, or other elections.
Under the new draft, dated March 10, one of the association’s most important duties—nominating nearly half of the 18-member Board of Trustees—would be simplified and made fairer for all. The new draft would promote one-person, one-vote balloting; halve the current number of signatures required for petitioners seeking to be trustees; and allow all trustee candidates substantially the same amount of time for campaigning. In cases where a vote involving three or more candidates was necessary, the draft would keep the current approval method of voting in which alumni may vote for any and all candidates.
To make sure that no one has an inside track to leadership, the draft also would remove service requirements for those wishing to lead the association and its component parts, leaving decisions about candidates’ qualifications to the voters.
After making any last changes based on the feedback you provide over the next four weeks, we will present the final proposed constitution to the Alumni Council for approval at its May 19 meeting in Hanover. If the council votes to accept the new constitution, it will then be sent to the entire alumni body for a vote through Internet or mail balloting this summer. For the constitution to be enacted, it must be passed by two-thirds of those voting in the council and association.
We invite you to attend a public forum on the proposed new constitution that will be held in Boston on March 27 or log on to a simultaneous Webcast of the meeting. More information is available at http://webcast.dartmouth.edu.
You also are welcome to join the discussion about the proposed new constitution that is taking place in the blogosphere at http://dartmouthaoa.blogspot.com (the Association of Alumni blog) and http://dartagtf.blogspot.com/ (the AGTF forum - [right here!]).
The proposed new constitution is available online at http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/leadership/association/new_constitution.html and through the Dartmouth College Office of Alumni Relations at (603) 646-3929. Comments and questions may be emailed to agtaskforce [at] alum.dartmouth.org or mailed to the Alumni Governance Task Force, 6068 Blunt Alumni Center, Hanover, NH 03755-3590.
We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for participating in this process.
Sincerely,
Jim Adler ‘60Trevor Burgess ‘94
J.B. Daukas ‘84
Kelley Fead ‘78
Joe Stevenson ’57 (Chairman)
Martha Hennessey ‘76
Bill Hutchinson ‘76
Joe Mandel ‘60
Anton Anderson ‘89
posted by AGTF at
9:08 AM
20 Comments:
I spent a significant portion of the weekend going over the new proposal, and, while some of the changes are very welcome (such as the retention of approval voting), there are several others which are not.
One of my big concerns is the process for approval of new constitutional amendments. On February 12th this year, the Alumni Association modified its constitution such that all proposed amendments will be voted on by all alumni, rather than those able to be present at a meeting in Hanover. Article XI of the new proposal requires that any new amendment be approved by a majority of the Assembly before the alumni can vote on it; if it fails to garner such a majority, five percent of the voting members have to petition for it to be brought to a vote. Currently, that's over 3,325 petitioners--3,075 more than required to petition as a Trustee candidate! This is a very high bar, and is probably impossible to meet in any reasonable time-frame.
Given the 2/12 amendment's passage (by over 85% of the vote), why does the AGTF proposal revert to having constitutional amendments controlled solely by the Assembly? Even before the 2/12 amendment, any alum who wanted to vote on an amendment was able to by being in Hanover; under the AGTF proposal, alumni will only be able to vote if a majority of the Assembly decides to allow it. How is this an improvement?
By
David Gale '00, at 12:14 PM, March 13, 2006
Readers:
I strongly encourage you to reread and consider David's preceding post. He makes a very important point, in how individual alumni may be disenfranchised.
For example, if one wanted a very simple future amendment, like requiring Roberts Rules of order at the annual meeting, that might be objected to by the Association Officers (who have their origins primarily in the Assembly), he or she would face an almost impossible task in getting such a proposal put before fellow alumni.
It is not at all clear that a majority of the Assembly will represent a majority of the alumni at large, and it is crystal clear that if any proposal is unpopular with the Assembly, the chance of even having its case presented to the alumni at large is effectively non-existent.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1:02 PM, March 13, 2006
Bill,
Per your suggestion, I'm responding in this thread, though I feel the make-up of the nominating and ballotting committees, both in the transition period and afterwards, perhaps merits its own thread. (For anyone who sees this post but hasn't seen what has gone before, I recommend following the above link and reading my comment immediately preceding Bill's as well.)
I don't mean to impugn the Alumni Council members; my complaint is that, simply, they are not elected by the alumni. Some may be elected by the group they represent, while others are appointed; there's no control of that (nor should there be). The nominating and ballotting committes are supposed to be composed of half democratically elected members, half elected by the Assembly--but the transition process established in 12.6.1 (and, to a lesser extent, 12.7.1) precludes that. Sections 12.3.1 and 12.4.1 allow the alumni to elect all of the democratically electable members of the Assembly and the ALB, respectively, with the staggering chosen by lot after the election; why is this not sufficient for the Nominating and Balloting Committees?
You also state that stacking the Nominating Committee with non-democratically elected members is possible, but would "fly in the face of what was intended". Frankly, intentions and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. It doesn't matter what's intended, only what's written and how it's interpreted by those who are in power.
I'm not advocating barring Council members from the Committees--I think the elected positions ought to be elected from the beginning (as in 12.3.1 and 12.4.1), rather than appointed. If they are the best choices, let them run and convince the alumni of that!
The 13th and 14th member options in section 4.4.1.2 are still very difficult for me. My read is that a committee member may be elected to be chair for the year after he completes his normal three-year service, and that he would then serve a fifth year as past chair. You state that this is a current practice; however, the current Council Constitution isn't clear on that point. (Frankly, it's not clear, period--it has specific provisions for the Nominating Committee chair's term as a Council member expiring while he's chair, though when he is elected, he must have at least two years remaining--one to serve as vice-chair, and one as chair; it also doesn't indicate the Council membership status of the past chair, for instance.) And, regardless of whether it's current practice or not, we must ask whether it makes sense and is democratic. I contend that it is neither.
By
David Gale '00, at 11:59 AM, March 15, 2006
David-
If I understand you, your question can be distilled down to: "why are the initial members of Nom. Com. and Balloting Com. selected rather than elected in Article XII?"
Note that we're only talking about transitions here...
The whole intent behind getting the Nom. Com and Balloting Com up and running right away is so that elections of all the various positions can be held within the (then) current Association year, spring of 2007. To me, it seems logistically impractical to have an interim election immediately following the adoption of the Constitution, not to mention costly.
How would it play out? Let's say that the AGTF Constitution goes in effect in Oct 2006. To do what I think you're suggesting, you'd have to immediately notice the alumni of another election, presumably in Jan/Feb 2007; allow a couple months for voting; the newly elected people wouldn't be seated until Mar/April. This would be about the time (probably in early March) when the main election cycle is ramping up. So, three elections during one year, two of them potentially overlapping. Seems like chaos to me...
The version of Article XII in the Penultimate Draft (as a side note, know that transition provisions and writing our report are the two big things we're focused upon in the AGTF right now) has the NomCom immediately taking on half its membership from the wider Alumni body. On top of that, the newly remade NomCom will have some of its members only serve for a year, hardly time to get up to speed, and new people (1/3 of of NomCom) would come on in Spring '07. Our draft tries to balance bringing in new faces with allowing their work to continue smoothly. The NomCom's task is far from trivial, and is very labor-intensive for a volunteer; they have multi-year lead times for some of the vetting they do regarding Trustees, and at times meet monthly. From what they (current NomCom folks) tell me, it's tough to find volunteers willing to take on that sort of commitment, and they need to be up and running right away, especially if there's a Trustee vacancy; if I recall correctly, their current process for finalizing Trustee nominations begins in the fall of the academic year.
The Balloting Committee faces similar challenges, and they too need to be up and running right away.
How would you get these committees up to speed immediately AND have a smooth transition?
I'm eager to hear your suggestions, and specifically how they'd play out in a calendar. Keep in mind you have to not bust the budget for Alumni Relations, not confuse (or annoy) people with too many elections, and yet maintain a level of continuity in these important committees. Also, don't forget, these are all volunteers- you can't soak up too much of their time, and you don't want to snub the good-faith efforts of those currently serving...
-Anton Anderson '89
By
Anton Anderson, at 10:57 AM, March 16, 2006
Anton,
Thanks for your reply. Most of your points make sense, and answer my question. (In other words, I'll withdraw my request that "the elected positions...be elected from the beginning", as you've pointed out that that just wouldn't be practical.)
However, I do take issue with your statement that, "The version of Article XII in the Penultimate Draft...has the NomCom immediately taking on half its membership from the wider Alumni body." This isn't true. 12.6.1 says that six of the members of the NomCom are chosen from the Council's NomCom, and the other "six shall be other Association members." 12.7.1 limits the members of the Balloting Committee so that "no more than three [members]...shall be members of the Alumni Council..." There's no such language in 12.6.1, so the initial NomCom could consist of the ten current members of the Council's NomCom, and two other Councilmen, rather than having half come from "the wider Alumni body". I strongly urge the AGTF to rewrite 12.6.1 in the mold of 12.7.1.
I do still take issue with section 4.4.1.2, but that's a different complaint.
By
David Gale '00, at 2:05 PM, March 16, 2006
Also, why has no one from the AGTF responded to my initial comment, questioning the merits of section 11.3's impossibly high 5% petition rate, especially in light of the 2/12 amendment?
By
David Gale '00, at 2:07 PM, March 16, 2006
Still no response from the AGTF on my initial question of why the Assembly gets an almost-impossible-to-override veto over any constitutional amendment (a concern I've been asking about since February 20th, when I asked for a new post addressing it)? Since the Alumni Association just voted to require all-alumni votes for all proposed amendments, isn't requiring a vote by the Assembly a step backwards?
Also, since even trustee candidates only need to collect 250 signatures to petition onto a ballot, why must amendments collect 1% (about 650, currently) to be considered by the Assembly, and 5% (about 3,250) to over-ride the Assembly in the case of that body's not liking the proposal? Aren't those limits ridiculously high?
By
David Gale '00, at 7:57 AM, March 22, 2006
David:
You should restate and send your last question (re the Assembly effectively having veto power) to the webcast email address. It is my understanding following the webcast, all questions will be posted, with answers, even those that time may not permit to be covered during the live event.
My belief is most people will see no danger in the Assembly having this "veto-level" of control, because they have been repeatedly told it is "even more representative" of alumni than the Council, and therefore represents the wishes of most alums. They are mistaken, as I once was. The Assembly is "inclusive" of some(e.g. affinity groups) but not "open" to all (St.Louis alums get a rep, but Friends of the DOC do not). As stated before, it does not provide a "fair and equal" voice for every alum, and with no rules for club/group election requirements, is not even guaranteed to be "representative".
People are building in "checks-and-balances" against a hihacking by a disaffected minority of alumni, but there appears no "check-and-balance" against Assembly interests. You must have faith they will represent what they believe is best for Dartmouth (which I believe they will), even though it may not represent what you and other alumni at large believe.
All of my personal acquaintances on the Council... please speak up.
Tim
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12:51 PM, March 22, 2006
David-
Thanks for bringing this back up. As a reminder, all the AGTF members are volunteers; we've been given a pretty full plate already, so nobody is scrubbing the blog to make sure each and every thing someone brings up is addressed. If something is important to you, do exactly what you did (and don't forget to be nice, this isn't the AOA blog), and bring it up again. That being said, also know that we may defer responding, and/or elaborate further (and to a wider audience) in our final report.
To answer your original question, regarding the constitution amendment process, let me first state my personal opinion. I feel constitutions should be hard to change; they should not be subject to the political whims of the day.
Our proposed constitution has many checks and balances. For amendments to the constitution, the 5% override is meant as a safety-valve. The Assembly will be a forum, with broad sampling of the various viewpoints from the spectrum of the Dartmouth community, for information-exchange, discussion, and debate. If, after a fulsome debate in the Assembly, a proposed amendment can't get a simple majority (down from 2/3 in our prior draft), then it probably isn't an idea with wide support. Nonetheless, if somehow the Assembly is out-of-step with the mainstream of Alumni sentiment, there is a remedy. Yes, it's a high bar; indeed, higher than petitioning for Trustee. A Trustee is only in office between 4 and 8 years, and if a "bad Trustee" (I'm not sure I could ever buy into such a characterization) comes along, they'd be out-voted by the rest of the board. If a poorly-formed or flavor-of-the-month constitutional amendment is passed, it's much harder to fix, especially in a volunteer-based organization. To me, the path of least resistance for an amendment should be through the Assembly, if an idea has legs (i.e.: broad appeal), it should be able to get a majority to agree. If it doesn't have that appeal, or if it looks good on its face, but turns out to be logistically impractical, then the Assembly discussion will ferret those issues out, and it will be either reworked and presented again, or it will fail, saving the average alum (who isn't up to speed on any of this) from the annoyance of having to deal with it on the ballot. Now before you rail against my last statement, let me tell you that I speak from personal experience.
I live in California, where the initiative process[1] has threatened to make (and some say it's already made) our state constitution an incomprehensible and self-contradicting mess. Poorly written, and competing measures have been put on the ballot (click here to see the current crop awaiting us); there have been times when two measures are so similar [2],[3] that even the pundits have a tough time clearly distinguishing between them. Despite millions poured into campaign ads by the advocates (and opponents), plus additional millions spent by the state to get materials out, there is widespread confusion among the voters EVERY ELECTION. I try to be a conscientious voter, and take the time to read all the stuff; each time, I come away wondering what happened to the state legislature, and why aren't they doing their job of hammering this all out before holding a referendum on an issue.
Back to Dartmouth, first of all, my hope is that constitutional amendments will be few and far between. Our proposed constitution is deliberately vague in places, deferring to committee-based guidelines, so that the structure can be flexible and adapt with the times. My expectation is that the Assembly will have a thorough discussion of proposed amendments; I trust those alumni who have agreed to make the commitment of service to Dartmouth in this way to engage and become informed about the issues surrounding such an amendment, more so than the average alum, far from Hanover, will be. Generally, I will trust the results of that debate, however I'm not willing to give them a total veto. Our constitution does not preclude an item from coming up repeatedly as an amendment; if a significant portion of the alumni body feel something is important and are aware that 2/3 will be needed to pass, getting the signatures from 5% shouldn't be a problem, and therby override the Assembly- check and balance.
-Anton
By
Anton Anderson, at 7:10 PM, March 22, 2006
Thanks to those who have posted questions - we will try to get to each one, as Anton mentioned either here or in our final report.
I would like to reiterate that we have worked hard with multiple constituencies to reach compromise - but not lowest denominator sort of compromise - we strived for the sort of compromise where everyone could walk away and be supportive of the overall outcome.
One point I’d like to make is that the Assembly and participation on the assembly will be helpful if not critical (in my mind) to productive work on the nominating committee - I for one was in favor of all members of the nominating committee coming from the Assembly. If an “outsider” ever wanted to get on the Assembly we have made it so much easier to do so via the - now open to petition - at large seats.
Being on the Council I learned so much about the Dartmouth of today - I did not just need to hear what the administration had to say (which I sometimes disagreed with) - but I could go to a fraternity or to a class or talk to students and become informed and engaged.
Service on the Assembly is a good thing and should be encouraged. Being on the nominating committee without having become educated about the Dartmouth of today I think does a disservice - but I’ve compromised. Yes, I know that alumni can become educated through other means than the Assembly - but the Assembly sure is a great way to do so…
But again, I’ve compromised and I’m happy that the overall package is so much better than the option we have today.
By
Trevor Burgess '94, at 7:14 AM, March 23, 2006
Sorry, Anton, if my previous post was overly aggreived. You're right, this isn't the AoA blog, and I shouldn't let my frustrations with the non-responsiveness there color my comments here.
To the matter at hand: if, hypothetically, the alumni feel that the Assembly has too much power under the new constitution, and there is a desire to amend it to remedy the situation, there is little chance that such an amendment would be put forth by the Assembly itself, much less pass the majority vote requirement. The petition process is the only route available for such an amendment. Without access to the alumni mailing address, collecting the requisite 3,250+ signatures is an extremely daunting task, which would probably take quite a while to complete (if it ever could be completed).
In the last trustee election, in which materials were sent to every possible alumn(us/a), just over 24%--15,334--of the alumni voted; the top vote winner got 7,376 votes--roughly twice the number of signatures needed to override the Assembly. Without the ability to globally canvas all alumni in this manner, it would be amzing to actually collect over 3,000 valid signatures in favor of any single position. (By the way, who validates the signatures? The constitution isn't clear, and validating 3,000 signatures would take a while.)
Every other instance in the constitution for petitions requires either 50 or 250 signatures; constitutional amendments already have a significantly heavier (250% greater than Trustee petitions) support burden to even be considered by the Assembly; the burden to override the Assembly (1300% of Trustee petitions) is beyond heavy to impossible.
Yes, the September draft failed to include any provision for over-ruling the Assembly at all, and so the current proposal is an improvement--but given the impossibility of raising sufficient signatures, this is a token improvement at best. "A difference which makes no difference is no difference." I don't argue that the constitution should be easy to amend--in fact, on the AoA blog, I once posted, "To my mind, constitutions should be stable things, changing only when there is a large need perceived and agreed upon by the vast majority." But I do contend that there should not be any group capable of thwarting the express will of the vast majority of the alumni (whether that's the Assembly as a whole, or one of the subcommittees, or any other group); putting the threshhold as impossibly high as 5% enables the Assembly to do just that.
A counter-proposal: Why not set the bar for petition amendments at 250 votes (same as Trustees), and over-riding a negative vote by the Assembly at 1%--a high, yet acheivable goal? The ballot is already required to indicate that the Assembly voted against it, which I'm sure would factor into the final vote, so only amendments which enjoy very strong support would be able to pass even this set of requirements.
By
David Gale '00, at 9:16 AM, March 23, 2006
To Bill H and Jim A:
I appreciate the time you and other panel members took during this evening's meeting and webcast. I want to make sure I did not misunderstand your answers to my question (repeated below).
Bill: I believe you said that there is a need to ensure a balance of perspectives on the nominating committee... e.g. there might over time develop a predominance of LA attorneys (yes, we understand this statement in its metaphoric sense)... having Assembly members on the committee will provide a check against such situations.
This implies the alumni at large cannot be trusted to discern this and prevent it themselves? Is this what you mean? If so, please say so more directly. It may be true.
What if the majority of alums, voting at large, thinks a particular committee composition is a good thing? Why should Assembly members be able to check that if they disagree?
Jim: You took exception to my distinction between an Assembly member acting as an individual and in their "member role" (which is to be a representative of their constituents). If there is no distinction in your view, why the need to allocate the Assembly distinct seats instead of having all NomCom positions be seated from individuals voted at large?
The original question:
"Why does the AGTF feel the Assembly, comprised of class,
club and affilate groups, needs to be involved, "to insure
the nominating committee is not dominated by special
interests"? Are members of the Assembly, acting in their
member roles and not as individual alumni, better
qualified to select nominators than all the alumni voting
at large?
"The mechanisms for at-large election of nominating
committee members will already exist, and nothing would
preclude a well-qualified Assembly member from running as
an individual. What justifies the guarantee of NomCom
seats to the Assembly, as this relates to trustee
selection and thus impacts governance of Dartmouth itself?"
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 7:41 PM, March 27, 2006
Tim,
For me it all boils down to whether we are talking about an ideal situation or the real world. In crafting an improved alumni organizational structure, we on the AGTF have tried to blend both, to balance our belief in the promise and possibility of alumni while keeping an eye on history and current reality. I would guess that that is what most authors of constitutions try to do, and it ultimately becomes a question of where you draw the line between your hope for the future and your sense of how things will actually play out.
So, what about the Nominating Committee? The difference between the alumni body as a whole and those alumni who happen to serve on the Assembly will, in many respects, be one of involvement and information. It is not a level playing field. If all alumni could somehow be as interested, engaged, and informed as (one hopes) your average Assembly member is, then we could populate committees without concerns about balance. In other words, wouldn't it be great if we could gather all 66,ooo alumni in one room, give them the same (hopefully unbiased) information, and then let them debate the issues before making up their own minds and voting? This is hardly the case now, and is unlikely to happen anytime soon. That is why a great many alums feel that important work should only be left to those who have a clue about what is going on (i.e. the current system of a NomComm made up entirely of Council members).
BUT, that ignores the many alumni who are, in fact, interested and concerned in their own way about alumni governance (and other issues) and have the ability to provide fresh perspective and vigor to a set-up that has the potential to become too insulated, hide-bound, and unresponsive (it's an interesting question whether or not the rise in activity and engagement in the alumni body is a new phenomenon, but it is clearly evident, nonetheless). Especially given recent technological advances, it is possible for many alumni to become involved in a very significant way (e.g you and me). Including their voices now is critical and, in my opinion, is a crucial element in fostering an increase in alumni participation and engagement across the board.
But drawing NomComm members, or the membership of any important group at this stage, soley from the general body of alumni has its own dangers. The sad truth is that the vast majority of alumni are not even interested in this stuff, let alone informed about it. Every time the Alumni Relations Office sends out mass mailings or e-mails about these "important" issues, they get a slew of complaints from alumni who don't want to be bothered with this "junk." Even those with a middling interest are very susceptible to propaganda (from all sides) or may vote in a totally uninformed manner. Those are precisely the alumni we are saying we now trust to make some of the critical decisions for Dartmouth's future. What some might see as a half-measure, others see as a dangerous experiment.
Regardless, the AGTF has felt that a leap into more direct democracy is the thing to do. We have deep faith in the alumni body as a whole and their ability to help chart Dartmouth's future. Irrespective of whether or not the AGTF proposal passes, we are moving into an era when it will be possible for a great many more alumni to participate, often outside of the traditional alumni groups, like clubs, class officer positions, etc.. Our proposal demands it, simply by asking all alumni to vote on a host of new positions, including the Nominating Committee. Clearly, the task going forward will be to ensure that alumni are adequately informed, thereby better able to make sound, considered choices. That pressure will be enormous.
So, will the average alum be able to discern that the NomComm is lurching too far one way or another? Perhaps. But, ideally, I think most of us would feel a lot more confident in our future if that alum were given adequate information beforehand and had the opportunity to discuss things with many others in order to form a solid, defensible opinion. As we move toward that ideal, isn't that exactly what will happen now in the Assembly?
By
Bill Hutchinson '76, at 8:15 AM, March 29, 2006
Bill,
You said, "But drawing NomComm members, or the membership of any important group at this stage, soley from the general body of alumni has its own dangers. The sad truth is that the vast majority of alumni are not even interested in this stuff, let alone informed about it." And those alumni would not run for membership in those groups. I don't see the problem here.
Even if we adopt Tim's suggestion, and make the entire Nominating Committee democratically elected, it will still be composed entirely of alumni who are active, informed, and who want to be on the NomCom, simply because those who aren't won't run. Electing from the alumni body is not the same as chosing randomly from it; the argument you put forward seems to be based on the opinion that it is.
And, of course, there's the simple fact that Assembly members are also Association members; there's no bar in Tim's proposal preventing an Assembly member from running for the NomCom, if they desire. In fact, they'd probably be able to use their involvement as a campaign advantage!
Finally, you mention alumni being susceptible to propaganda from all sides; even if we accept such a bleak view of our fellow alumni, surely the answer is educating them of all details, allowing them to make informed choices, rather than denying them the chance to vote at all? Denying someone the right to vote based on a presumption of their inability to understand the issues has been tried before, and is pretty soundly rejected throughout the US today (witness "education tests" in the South after the Civil War); do we really want to base the new constitution on such an attitude?
By
David Gale '00, at 8:49 AM, March 29, 2006
David and Bill:
Bill: I agree with your assessment of the "real world", regarding the amount of knowledge and involvement ( or more precisely lack thereof) by most alums, because they have other priorities and are willing to leave decisions to those who are involved. It is indeed a real problem. Hopefully modern technology will allow more to be involved; then again modern lifestyles may see less involvement.
While agreeing on the challenges of the alumni body overall, I'm just not sure I am comfortable with addressing this by giving "powers" to an "inside" group. (I really do not like this categorization, but have been unable to formulate a better word.)
I am in general cautious about any "incumbency", and thus have a watchful eye for any comments that suggest those on the Assembly "have a clue about what is going on", and that those who are not are clueless. It smacks of elite arrogance to me.
David: I presume your reference to denying people the right to vote is related to NomCom seats that cannot be filled nor voted upon by all alumni. My guess is the concern about non-Assembly people being inactive and ill-informed gets confused with non-Assembly people who are indeed active, yet arguably remain ill-informed because they have reached different conclusions. It is certainly true many people hear only what they want to, but I am uncomfortable ascribing that behaviour to any of the parties here, more than to others. For all of its "openess", academia in general avoids confrontation when it becomes uncomfortable, and this seems to carry over to alumni bodies.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 10:22 AM, March 29, 2006
David-
I'm surprised you would try, with a straight face, to make such a hyperbolic claim as to accuse us of presuming the Alumni as having an "inability to understand the issues", when you know that is clearly not the case. We are active in trying to get Alumni informed and engaged. Our proposed constitution (as Bill mentioned) insists that all Alumni become more involved and informed, though it certainly doesn't require it, due to the increased number of decisions all Alumni will be asked to make. Your sensationalistic analogy does not hold water. Nobody loses their right to vote if they're uninformed; there's no test you have to take before you get a ballot.
You and I have both lamented the lack of engagement by the Alumni. Even on one of the most important decisions we can make as Alums, voting for Trustee, barely one out of four bother to make any choice. While we hope that our efforts will engage more of the Alumni body, it's naive to expect that they'll care about this more than they care about voting for Trustee. Before you accuse me of being jaded, know that I hope I'm wrong about this. It is my fervent hope that our efforts and, frankly, your vocal opposition (right or wrong), will get more people to be involved and informed about the issues. While there are blogs and other forums out there that are putting out a sophomoric fear-mongering spin on things, I personally expect those Alumni who come to care about this issue to read our work for themselves and make up their own mind.
Getting (at last!) to the issue of the NomCom, let's look at what's in place now. The current Nominating Committee consists entirely of Alumni Council members, elected solely by the Council itself. There are plenty of good arguments that have been presented to us for keeping it the way it is; it will remain as is should our constitution fail. To echo Bill's comments, we feel it is critical to have other voices to come to the table, bringing fresh perspectives alongside with those who might be a little too close to the trees to see the whole forest. Our proposal strives to strike a balance, since both viewpoints are needed.
You might respond (as you have), saying that Assembly members could jump into the fray and campaign in an all at-large scenario. I'm not convinced that the very best people are always willing to endure a campaign process. If you have been a tireless, thoughtful, but shy, member of the Assembly, I think that the NomCom should be able to (as we have proposed) nominate you to stand for election by your Assembly "peers"; such an election (and yes, there are elections, as there are in the Alumni Council now) would not likely be so fraught with campaigning, blogs, etc., and would be able to encourage those "creative loners" among us to participate as well, bringing what would otherwise be a drowned-out voice into the mix. Again, balance.
-Anton
By
Anton Anderson, at 12:26 PM, March 29, 2006
Anton,
I used the phrase "inability to understand the issues" in response to Bill's statement that some alumni are "very susceptible to propaganda". What is susceptibility to propaganda other than an inability to understand the issues? If someone fully understands an issue, they will recognize propaganda as such, and dismiss it--there's no susceptibility. I was merely re-stating what Bill said, rather than introducing extra hyperbole. If my logic is flawed, then my apologies; however, I cannot see any way for someone who understands the issues at stake to fall prey to propaganda.
You claim that, "Nobody loses their right to vote if they're uninformed; there's no test you have to take before you get a ballot." While this is true for the minority of seats which are popularly elected, it isn't for at least half of seats on the nominating and ballotting committees, for which, as you know, the "test" is whether or not you're on the Assembly. True, this is a test of being in the select few who are deemed priveleged enough to vote, rather than a direct test of being informed or not; however, Bill described Assembly members as "interested, engaged, and informed", and, later, describe Council members as "those who have a clue about what is going on", implying that whether or not someone is on the Assembly/Council is, in fact, a very good indication of how informed he or she is. This implication I find disgusting. Yes, Assembly/Council members are generally more involved, and they may be as informed, but there's no guarantee of this, especially since the proposed constitution doesn't address how most of the members of the Assembly (class reps, etc.) are to be elected.
Yes, the AGTF-proposed NomCom is more representative than the current Council-controlled one, but that doesn't mean it's ideal (or even the best realistically possible), just an improvement.
As for the "creative loners"--your argument could be just as true about alumni who have been actively engaged in their class/regional club, but who have not become Assembly members (in fact, I would argue it's more likely). And there's no requirement that they need to lead their own campaign--if they're as good as you imply, and have won over several friends, surely those friends would be willing to campaign on the loner's behalf?
By
David Gale '00, at 2:13 PM, March 29, 2006
David-
Thanks for clarifying; I hope our discussions can be relatively free from hype, since we want as much constructive feedback as possible.
I stand by the assertion that, on average, people serving on the Assembly are likely to be more informed about the goings on at the College and among Alumni than the average alum is likely to be. The logic is simple: if you spend more time in front of a larger pool of information, you will likely be more informed than someone who spends less time before a smaller pool of information.
Have you ever attended an Alumni Council meeting, David? I attended my first in December; I was elected to the Council by the Club Officers' Association last year to be one of their three representatives. I consider myself to be a pretty "interested, informed, and engaged" alum, don't you think? Yet, coming away from that meeting, I was amazed at how much I did not know; there are areas where I had only scratched the surface. On this blog, we have spent much time talking about the Assembly's role with regards to voting, etc., but assuming it runs similar to the Council (which is what we expect), a significant portion of the time over the 2 days of Assembly meetings is educational. On Council, we hear from students, faculty, staff, deans, Trustees, and the President of the College[1]. Even if you were one of the privileged alums who live close to Hanover, and happened to have nothing but time on your hands, you would have to work awfully hard to get the kind of information and access given to the Councilors when they're in session.
The members of the Assembly will have access to more information, and will have spent more time with it (if the meetings are like the Council's, it's 2-3 very full days, twice a year) than the average alum; they will likely be more informed. Where is the problem with that? In fact, to me, it plays into your idea of reducing susceptibility to "propaganda". Despite those that see conspiracy at every turn, the College hasn't managed to brainwash everyone that presents to the Alumni Council. They certainly weren't successful (if they attempted it at all) at mass-hypnosis of everyone in Hanover when I was at the AC meeting in Dec- I heard from people with all sorts of perspectives. The information and awareness I received was certainly worth the investment of time and money I put in to be able to participate (despite the misinformed student's claim on Monday, the College does not fly us in). You could easily make an argument that putting "some skin in the game" by serving should be a requirement for important posts such as NomCom, or taking on the increased responsibilities we've given the AOA President. As a side note, the latter issue (service requirements to be AOA Prez) has been the topic of some of the most heated conversations within the AGTF.
What disgusts ME is that these very dedicated alums (taking time away from their careers and family in service to Dartmouth College) are slapped with the label of "insider", and are considered by some to be pawns of the Administration. Anyone who bothers to actually talk to any of the people on the Alumni Council will quickly find that not to be the case.
Obviously, being on the Assembly is not the only way to serve Dartmouth, nor is it the only way to "get a clue" about what is going on, and what issues are relevant, though it will be a very good avenue. With regards to NomCom, I think it being all-Assembly isn't a good idea; I also think it being all at-large isn't a good idea. In either extreme, there's an increased chance of having a very narrow set of perspectives, which means NomCom will not be as capable of fulfilling its charge to try to find the best candidates from the whole of the Alumni body. I am beginning to think I sound like a broken record (or looped MP3, for those who've never seen vinyl used outside a DJ's booth); our proposed constitution is trying to build a balance of perspectives.
If it turns out that tech-geeks, like myself, are able to wage the most effective 21st-century campaigns (perhaps by being good bloggers), and come to dominate the NomCom, that's not good for Dartmouth, in my opinion. Our proposal provides for checks and balances; in my hypothetical "revenge of the nerds" scenario, the Assembly would likely elect some non-techie types (maybe even one of the rare alums who became an attorney or I-banker) to throw into the mix. To me, that ability to balance things out is a good thing, and an unexpected benefit of our efforts to open things up to a wider array of views.
One last quick point: I don't think it's in the purview of the constitution to micromanage the bodies sending representatives to the Assembly. How would you do that? How would you enforce it?
-Anton
By
Anton Anderson, at 10:37 PM, March 29, 2006
Anton,
As I hope I've made clear, my problem with the Alumni Council, the Association Executive Committee, and the proposed Assembly, ALB, and related committees, is not that they're "insiders", mass-hypnotized, or under the imperious thumb of the College administration--it's that they are small groups that are not representative of the alumni body at large. Trevor has posted a comment lamenting that the current Council is populated almost entirely with white men, decrying the fact that that's not representative of the alumni (this was in defense of Affiliated Group representation). This is one of the few areas it seems he and I agree upon. Although the Assembly is larger than the Council, it's not clear that it will be any more representative; women, probably the largest minority group in the alumni, don't have any guarantee of representation, while blacks, latinos, and gays are guaranteed two seats each, despite the disparity in their respective groups' sizes. There's no indication that the class "representatives" will be any less white or male than they are now. I've stated elsewhere that the new constitution is correct in not dictating how representatives are chosen, even though that means that there is even less guarantee that Assembly members will be representative of their "constituents"--different clubs and classes will want to pick their representatives in different methods; we should not force a club to politicize itself if it does not want to.
So, given that the Assembly will be, at best, only marginally more representative of the alumni body than the Council currently is, how can we trust it to reflect the will of the alumni body? The simple answer is that we can't; I would argue that we shouldn't, either, and the AGTF seems to agree, at least in part--witness all of the provisions for all-alumni votes. So, if the Assembly is not representative of the alumni body, then the purpose of the Assembly members cannot be primarily to be representative of their constituents, and they should not be given power to over-rule the will of the alumni body; instead, I would submit that their primary purpose should be the collection and dissemination of information--they ought to listen to the college administration, faculty, students, and trustees, and inform their constituents of what they learn, something which current Council members are sadly not doing, from my experience. To facilitate this, meetings should be open to the media (the Dartmouth, the Alumni Magazine, the Review, and any other news organization that choses to cover it), which has not been the case for Association meetings, at least. If the members of the Council/Assembly fulfilled this role, then your arguments in favor of granting the Assembly special controls over the Nominating and Balloting committees lose their power--everyone, regardless of whether or not they are on the Assembly, should be able to become as informed as they need to be.
By
David Gale '00, at 6:59 AM, March 30, 2006
Anton:
No one can dispute that, “in general” members of the Assembly will be better informed than alumni at large (though I know examples of very well-informed people who have never been on the Alumni Council and current Council members who are not even aware they will be voting on the constitution this spring, let alone the issues we are discussing). Having knowledgeable legislators is why the US founding fathers chose a representative government over a pure democracy.
Arguably our government would be even better if we distinguished between residents, and more informed “citizens” who would pass a test on civics, current events, economics, and meet some minimal level of community service. All residents could vote for half the members of Congress, and the elite citizens would get extra representation by being able to vote for the other half. If governance is better when only informed, involved citizens are allowed to vote, why don’t we do it?
In my opinion, the AGTF is confusing two subtly-different issues. One is the alumni relations function, wherein we want to engage as many alums as possible, and bring as many voices as possible to the table providing service work and “advice” for the College. The other is the governance of the College itself, wherein ALL alums collectively and EQUALLY as individuals have a say in Dartmouth’s direction, through the selection of trustees.
I think the AGTF has done a wonderful job defining an Assembly that will be more open, engage others through common interests (e.g. affiliate groups), and thus form a working group that is more “representative OF” a diversity of alumni opinions. Clearly an improvement over the existing Council. At the same time, it does not provide for fair and equal representation of alumni regarding trustee selection. This is a case where Assembly members have a duty to serve as “representatives FOR” constituent alumni. Some constituents get more representatives, and others get less.
I have heard that counting the number of Assembly reps per alum is not important. Because those reps will have their votes counted, as to NomCom makeup among other things, the numbers do matter. If the goal is to maximize the number of differing voices, you should loosen the rules for affiliated group qualification (e.g. if they can show enough members, give the Hanover Institute a seat, and bring them “inside”) and have 10 groups rather than giving 2 votes to only 5 groups. All the effort to redefine representation (one rep/class, less reps/smaller[older] classes, two reps/affiliate) are attempts to balance voting powers, not to maximize the diversity of views. If it is impossible to get a fair balance across all possible groups, there should be no guarantee of a voting seat to any group.
If the new constitution does not give all alumni (informed or not) an equal influence on the trustees, it is flawed. Further you should not assume that the “informed” are in a better position to debate Dartmouth’s direction. Core beliefs as to the mission and long-term future of this enduring institution will presumably not be changed simply because of what one learns sitting in the Assembly. If the Assembly cannot be reformed to provide equal representation for all alumni, and there are no requirements that alumni can chose their representatives in open and competitive elections, then it should have no place in the trustee nominating process. By keeping it so involved, the AGTF risks some people voting against the constitution even though liking the Council-to-Assembly changes.
Of late I have heard the phrase “choose the good over the (unattainable) perfect”. I agree. But if improving the Assembly through a constitutional change also means trustee petition candidates are put at a disadvantage (even with at-large members on the nominating committee), it may not be so “good” after all.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8:57 AM, March 30, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home