More Forum/Webcast Questions
1. Does the Constitution give alumni any assurance that class and club elections of their Assembly representatives will be done through open and competitive elections?
No. We believe clubs, classes and other groups should have the right to decide how their reps will be elected. We also believe this is more detail than we should go into in the constitution itself. The AGTF report that will accompany the constitution will strongly suggest that the Assembly create guidelines for electing its representatives in an open and democratic fashion.
2. An alumnus member of the Dartmouth Club of St. Louis will get an extra Assembly representative that an alumna Friend of the DOC will not get. Why?
Because we have to draw the line somewhere, and we believe classes, clubs and affiliate groups are broad enough to provide effective representation for all alumni.
3. Are there clear guidelines for new groups that seek Assembly membership but whose common interest is curricular or extra-curricular rather than ethnic or cultural?
No. We do not foresee adding representation for groups whose common interest is curricular or extra-curricular (see above), so we see no need for clear guidelines. If alumni sentiment in the future made this type of representation desirable, the constitution could be amended to make the necessary changes. At present, alumni who are, e.g., Friends of the DOC can select a member to run for an at-large seat.
4.Why does the College and not the Alumni Association define the rules that determine which groups get seats in the Association's representative body?
They don't. The College does decide some things, such as who qualifies for official College recognition as an affiliate group (based on specific published criteria); however, it is the AGTF (and, ultimately, the alumni body) that decides which groups - classes, clubs, affiliate groups - will have seats in the Assembly.
5. The Nominating Committee, initially having a majority of members coming from the Assembly, can elect chairmen in such a way that non-Assembly committee members, i.e. those elected at-large, may remain forever in a 7-6 or 8-6 minority. Why is it so structured?
While this is possible in theory, it is highly unlikely to happen in reality. We are virtually certain that NomCom members will function as free-thinking people intent on working together to put forward the best nominees they possibly can. Period. I'm willing to bet at least one non-Assembly member is elected chair of the NomCom during its first five years - my $50 to anyone else's $5 - that's 10-to-1 odds! Any takers?
6. In a case of two open trustee positions, the Nominating Committee has the power to set two very strong petition candidates against each other in a race for one seat, thus assuring that one of them will lose and that one of the Committee's own candidates, whom they believe best for Dartmouth, will gain the second seat. Should they have this power?
No, and they don't. Any petition candidate decides which seat he or she wants to run for, not the NomCom.
7. The Alumni Council is generally believed to be representative, and the Assembly is described as being even more representative. When the Council votes on the new constitution this spring, will the yea vs. nay votes of its individual members be published, and will future votes of each Assembly representative be disclosed to their constituents?
That's for the Alumni Council to decide, not the AGTF, but if there's a plan to identify and publish individual members' votes we haven't heard about it. There's certainly nothing in the new constitution calling for any kind of roll-call voting. Yes, to have such a provision would provide "greater accountability." It would also help create an atmosphere of on-going confrontation and contentiousness that would surely turn off a great many talented, dedicated alumni volunteers who would be unwilling to serve in the Assembly or on an Association committee in such an atmosphere. If someone would like to know how their representative has voted on any given issue, all they have to do is ask. We would be amazed if they were unable to get an answer.
8. The committee feels strongly about the advantages of clear electoral outcomes resulting from 2 candidate elections. Will the nominating committee, when presented with two petition candidates both having distinguished careers, a record of service to Dartmouth, and the requisite numbers of alumni signatures, put aside their own selections to insure a two-candidate race? During the meeting I believe someone said the Nominating Committee must put forth its own candidate as a third, but cannot and should not they choose one of the petitioners as their nominee?
There are criteria other than distinguished career, record of service and requisite signatures for selecting nominees for alumni trustee - open-mindedness and a willingness to work constructively with fellow trustees and College administrators in Dartmouth's best interest come quickly to mind. To answer your question, the constitution leaves the NomCom free to put one or more petition candidates forward as their nominee(s). Of course the petition candidate(s) would have to be willing to accept running as a nominated candidate.
posted by Bill Hutchinson at
11:19 AM
8 Comments:
Jim: Your clear responses are much appreciated. Thank You.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 1:31 PM, April 02, 2006
Jim answered:
"No. We do not foresee adding representation for groups whose common interest is curricular or extra-curricular (see above), so we see no need for clear guidelines. If alumni sentiment in the future made this type of representation desirable, the constitution could be amended to make the necessary changes. At present, alumni who are, e.g., Friends of the DOC can select a member to run for an at-large seat."
As pointed out in other threads, it will be virtually impossibly for alumni at large to amend the constitution given the very high petition signature requirement... 6,000+.
If 1,000 active alums (a pretty material group) wanted a representative to sit on the Assembly and its Academics committee, to encourage a reemphasis on Greek and Latin in the curriculum, they will unlikely be able to win an at-large seat (since they will only be in a 1/6th minority in at large elections and any class or club elections), and they will not be able to get an amendment placed before all alumni to consider them as a group.
People argue a group like this does not merit representation since this is a transitory issue, not a permanent condition like who people are ethnically. But how does this differ from the transitory arguments that it is no longer necessary to have Jewish group representation and that hopefully the need for other ethnic groups will also diminish over time.
I realize these one-issue situations are overly-simplistic in the real world. But they do illuminate the concerns that all alumni be represented equally.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 6:59 AM, April 03, 2006
Tim,
I think that 1,000 well organized alumni would have good luck at one of the 7 at large seats that will be available each year.
They can also contact their class or club or affiliated group representative to bring the issues forward. Or, contact the new ALB.
The need for affiliate groups does change over time and that is why the recognition policy can de-recognize groups for lack of activity. De-recognition would remove their seats from the Assembly. See: http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/groups/aapolicies.html
I for one hope that someday the groups will not be needed and society will change, but strongly feel that today they are needed.
Thanks
Trevor
By
Trevor Burgess '94, at 8:04 AM, April 03, 2006
Jim's response to the sixth question (petitioners and multiple trustee openings) is, for want of a better word, lacking.
Article VII of the proposed constitution doesn't give the power to determine the makeup of the ballots to anyone but the Nominating Committee; the only mention it has about multiple-opening elections is that all provisions of Article VII are to be applied to each opening independently. It doesn't say that the NomCom-provided petitions must differentiate between the two openings; nor does it prohibit someone from petitioning for both openings. Given this vagueness, the only logical interpretation is that the NomCom, not the petitioners, determines the final ballots.
Consider: Two trustee positions open up simultaneously. Now, either the NomCom provides petition forms that allow petitioners to designate one position or the other, or they don't. If the latter, then the only determination of who goes on which ballot is made by the NomCom. If the former, there is nothing in the constitution to prevent a petitioner from collecting signatures for both positions (additionally, they could conceivably be from the same signatories), in which case the petitioner would be on the ballots for both open positions. By the explicit logic in the constitution, if the petitioner garnered a majority of votes in both elections, he/she would be awarded both trusteeships, which is clearly a problem, so any decent Nominating Committee would do what it can to prevent this from arising--specifically, not release petition forms which allow for the designation of which open position the candidate is seeking, and thus we are returned to the latter option, which puts the power to determine which opening each candidate runs for in the hands of the NomCom, despite Jim's protestations to the contrary. (The only other option--preventing the candidate from presenting petitions for a second position--is not raised in the constitution; indeed, treating each position separately, as required, would prohibit such a prevention.)
By
David Gale '00, at 12:16 PM, April 03, 2006
As for Jim's answer to the seventh question, I would ask whether he feels that the fact that the US Congress posts its debates and role-call votes on the Library of Congress's website "create[s] an atmosphere of on-going confrontation and contentiousness that...turn[s] off a great many talented, dedicated" potential Congressmen? Not everyone checks these, true--but, if we want to know how someone has voted, or what their arguments have been, we can find out, without having to ask (and hope they answer).
Say, for instance, that a former Assembly member decides to run for the Assembly again after the nine-year window expires. His opponent wants to know how he voted while an Assembly member, in order to focus his campaign. There is no requirement for the former Assembly member to divulge this information; in fact, he'd be rewarded for not divulging it, by having a better chance to win based on promises, the fact that he's already served, and potentially empty platitudes.
Also, anyone who wants to believe that their representative isn't behaving in their best interest probably doesn't need the availability of a record to rail against them (witness the undergraduate who, at the webcast, alleged that Council members are specially flown in for votes); having an open record, however, enables the representative (and his backers) to defend against wild conspiracy theories.
By
David Gale '00, at 12:44 PM, April 03, 2006
Jim:
Recent discussions with a number of current Alumni Council members have caused me to rethink your response to Question #7 in this thread.
You said in part: “There's certainly nothing in the new constitution calling for any kind of roll-call voting. Yes, to have such a provision would provide "greater accountability." It would also help create an atmosphere of on-going confrontation and contentiousness that would surely turn off a great many talented, dedicated alumni volunteers who would be unwilling to serve in the Assembly or on an Association committee in such an atmosphere. If someone would like to know how their representative has voted on any given issue, all they have to do is ask. We would be amazed if they were unable to get an answer.”
None have told me how they intend to vote, a good thing if they are waiting to consider all inputs right up to their May meeting. I will be interested (“amazed”?), after that meeting and prior to the Association vote on the new constitution, to hear what they and their peers say when asked about their votes.
The important point here is this is that you are exactly right. If having votes published creates an atmosphere of discomfort (I won’t even go as far as “confrontation”), it will discourage people from volunteering. So will elections to become members in the first place, if such elections need to be “contended” against alternate candidates.
This is exactly the type of “politicization” that is detrimental to volunteer service (and social) organizations like classes, clubs, and affiliate groups. Yet it is unavoidable when one confronts differing opinions on what Dartmouth’s direction should be, which is exactly what trustee elections should be about. Therefore I believe you have substantiated the case that the Assembly should not be a part of Dartmouth governance and thus should have no role in how alumni trustee candidates are nominated and elected.
Most people hope for non-contentious elections most of the time, as hopefully alumni have a fairly common vision for the College. But it is exactly when there are important differences of opinion that alumni need a clear option to make desired change and prevent undesired change. Because Dartmouth is unique in many ways, there will often be multiple paths for her to take in the future, and certain pressures to follow easier ones trod by other institutions. Given the inevitability of debate (politics?), any constitution that provides the Assembly a dominant role in selecting trustees, and unevens the playing field against petition candidates is unacceptable. It will force requirements on Assembly members that may scare away good ones, and will seriously compromise the ability of alumni regarding not only Association governance, but their part in governance of Dartmouth herself.
I know you and the AGTF disagree with my conclusion, but thank you for providing the argument to make my case.
Another rationale for keeping the Assembly involved in trustee nominations is that not doing so may cause the Council, and not the “outsiders”, to reject the AGTF proposal… but this just confirms the power of the former (and its Assembly offspring) over the Association of (all) Alumni. I encourage you or any other task force members who may agree with me to have courage, remembering that while consensus is a good thing, compromise is sometimes not.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9:09 PM, April 08, 2006
Hoping to be constructive of mind, and not merely critical of eye, I am emailing to the AGTF the text of a possible amendment that will achieve the goal of separating the process of nominating and electing trustees from the activities of the Council/Assembly, preserving trustee selection rights for the Association while depoliticizing the Assembly.
Amazingly this can be accomplished by taking Article V of the current AoA constitution, eliminating almost ten percent of its 830 words, and adding only four new words.
It suggests specific alteration to the current AoA constitution, but is applicable in principle to the new AGTF draft as well.
I would post the suggested wording here, but it remains over 500 words in length and is best understood in the context of showing the deleted phrases.
Any others who are interested can let me know by email and I will send it to you.
tim.dreisbach.71@alum.dartmouth.org
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 8:04 AM, April 09, 2006
A member of the AGTF took the time (much appreciated) to review my specific words, which disconnects the Assembly from trustee selections by eliminating the nominating committee. (It can be retained for Association matters unrelated to trustees. Another alternative is to have a trustee nominating committee, but whose members are all elected at large.)
We have agreed to disagree.
We were in agreement that the nominating committee does an incredible amount of work, and the trustees they recommend are accomplished individuals. I am just not sure if it is necessary and do not believe it generates the best choices for alumni.
1. Petition candidates are also "recommended" in that often others consider who would make a good candidate and then ask that person to run. That is at least true for the current petition trustees... they did not decide on their own. Could not all the current trustees have been "nominated" by those who did bring them forward, but using the petition process?
2. I will trust the alumni to judge who is best, and believe the alumni overall are good enough to do that wisely.
3. For all the hard work of the nominating committee, I have found their candidates undistinguishable... they all seem to offer the same "bland" statements about Dartmouth and its excellence. This in no way is meant to disparage their abilities, past accomplishments and desire to serve Dartmouth.
4. The NomCom has said it looks for candidates that "add needed new perspectives", but does not want candidates that have an "agenda". To me, having a vision (perspective) and an agenda (thoughts on how to achieve it) are important. Who wants candidates that have no "platform", less pejorative than "agenda"? Alumni can then decide if they agree or not.
Trustees need a vision in order to direct the administration and insure administration policies are consistent with that vision. I want to understand the vision of candidates before voting on them, and these should be enough of a factor in getting on the ballot that a diversity of views is subsequently offered for a vote. Yes, trustees may change their thinking on details as they gain exposure after being seated, but their core beliefs on "mission" should not. Arguably, the nominating committee has not delivered such clear choices (Some of its members say they will not and other say they cannot).
In sum, I don't see what value all the work of the nominating committee adds, that those same individuals could not do as an independent group working to recommend trustees and get them on the ballot by petition.
By
Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5:34 AM, April 10, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home