AGTF Blog

Election Results

2006-11-02T14:31:00.000-08:00

Our proposed constitution was rejected, as were all of the petition amendments, so we have the status quo of two separate constitutions. 49% of voters approved the constitution, while 51% rejected it. Voter participation reached 38%, a record high for any alumni election at Dartmouth.

While disappointing, we are encouraged by the high turnout, and hope that there will continue to be a similar level of engagement in the affairs of the College.

Voting Begins

2006-09-15T09:22:00.000-07:00

The polls open today for voting on our proposed constitution. As volunteers, we have spent over two years listening, discussing, and debating issues surrounding how we, the Alumni of Dartmouth, organize ourselves. While not necessarily perfect for each and every one of us, this constitution is our best effort - born of a fierce love of the College, and a determination to bring many disparate views together civilly.

To those who prefer the status quo, we wonder as to your agenda.

To those who object to specific portions of it, we say: Bringing alumni governance into a single, more transparent structure sets the stage for future reforms, as it is easier to amend one constitution than two[1][2].

To those on the fence, we say: Read our report, see our rationale. There's a lot of spin out there; make up your own mind.

To those who, like us, think this is a step in the right direction, we say: THANK YOU!

Obviously, we would love for all Alumni to vote to accept our work. We also hope that all Alumni who care about the College will take the time to vote.

For Dartmouth,

Jim Adler '60, Anton Anderson '89,
Trevor Burgess '94, JB Daukas '84,
Kelley Fead '78, Martha Hennessey '76,
Bill Hutchinson '76, Joe Mandel '60,
Joe Stevenson '57 (Chair)
Dartmouth Alumni Governance Task Force

To read our report, click here.

To read more about the voting process, click here.

Dartmouth Board of Trustees Endorses Proposed Constitution

2006-09-10T23:24:00.000-07:00

The Board of Trustees voted to endorse the proposed new Alumni Association constitution during their annual planning retreat. The motion supported the new constitution's approach to "a more representative alumni governance structure, better communication channels with the trustees and College administration, a fair trustee nomination process, and modernized voting methods for election of (Alumni) Association officers and representatives."

In an accompanying message, Bill Neukom '64, Chairman, notes that if the proposed constitution is approved, the trustees look forward to working with the Alumni Liasion Board, saying it "would contribute materially" towards a goal of enhancing the level of engagement between the Board and Alumni.

Full text available here (Speaking of Dartmouth).

Comment on this here.

UPDATE (9/20/06): Click here to view the letter printed in the Dartmouth

Let's continue the conversation on the AOA Blog

2006-07-14T12:00:00.000-07:00

This blog was originally established by us within the AGTF to enable alumni/ae to provide input and ask questions while the Task Force was working to create a new alumni governance constitution. Since that process has now been completed, it is appropriate that the nature of this site be changed. It will continue to be available to anyone wishing to review past postings; however, since the proposed new constituion is now in final form, no new comments will be accepted. Future posts (if any) will be strictly for announcement or clarification purposes.

We encourage you to continue this important conversation on the Association of Alumni blog site (dartmouthaoa.blogspot.com), which will continue to accept comments.

Alumni seeking clarification from the AGTF on a specific constitutional matter may continue to do so by emailing us at AGTaskForce [at] alum [dot] dartmouth [dot] org, which will go to all of us, and we will respond to your email.

Thank you to everyone who gave us feedback! We hope that the civil, stick-to-the-issues tone prevalent during our comment-seeking period will carry over to the discussion and debate on the AOA Blog.

Sincerely,

UPDATE: Despite a certain blog that likes to spin things with little regard to the facts, we stand by our decision to close this blog to comments, referring readers to the AOA Blog. Conspiracy and titillation presumably drive links, which drive ad revenue, so we'll pass on linking to the accusing blogger's site. To reiterate, the comment-gathering phase of our work is complete, so it seems best to have a single conversation about this issue on the AOA blog, rather than separate ones. While we no longer allow comments to be posted (ironically, just like the blog damning us for it), our blog and archives[1] remain intact; as accessible to all as they have ever been. The search feature, conveniently cropped in the "reference" views posted by the accusing blogger, has been in place since day one. Everyone is also free to continue to email us.

Alumni Council Unanimously Approves AGTF Constitution

2006-05-22T09:36:00.000-07:00

"This new constitution gives Alumni a much stronger voice in the life of the College and greater participation in the choice of Alumni and College leadership."[1]
- Rick Routhier '73 Tu'76, Alumni Council President

During their May meeting, the Alumni Council voted unanimously to adopt the Constitution proposed by the AGTF, pending approval by the Association of Alumni. The Council represents a broad range of Alumni viewpoints, and we are deeply gratified by their endorsement of our work, which (combined with that of the Joint Committee) has been five years in the making.

There will be an Association-wide vote on the proposed constitution between September 15 through October 31, 2006. We encourage all Alumni to read our Executive Summary and well as the Constitution itself, to become better informed prior to the vote.

Dartmouth Proposed New Alumni Constitution (April 14 Version)

2006-04-18T09:00:00.000-07:00

Fellow Alumni,

The Alumni Governance Task Force (AGTF) has presented its proposed new alumni constitution (April 14 version) for public review, and it has been circulated to members of the Alumni Council for a discussion and vote at their May 19 meeting. View the proposed new constitution by visiting http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/leadership/ association/Apr14ProposedConstitution.pdf.

For an executive summary of the April 14 version and a side-by-side comparison of this version with the current constitution, visit the Association of Alumni home page, http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/ leadership/association.

Members of the AGTF are available to meet with you, your constituents, and alumni groups to answer questions about the proposal and to provide additional background or information. This is an important document--one that represents a broad range of alumni input gathered and incorporated over a five-year period--with the potential to strengthen alumni governance and give alumni a greater role in the life of the College. Should the Council choose to endorse it, it will be presented to all alumni for an all-media vote this year.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this process, or if the AGTF can help you address the needs of your members and classmates.

For Dartmouth,

Joe Stevenson '57 Tu'58

Chair
Alumni Governance Task Force

More Forum/Webcast Questions

2006-04-02T11:19:00.000-07:00

Some questions submitted at last Monday's forum and webcast did not get answered due to time constraints. We will try to answer them all, starting with several from Tim Dreisbach '71, with responses from AGTF member Jim Adler'60:

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.

Monday's Forum & Webcast

2006-03-29T16:07:00.000-08:00

On Monday, March 27th, there was a forum in Boston to discuss our proposed Constitution. This was organized by the Association of Alumni, and the Alumni Council, the two bodies that convened the AGTF, and asked us to make recommendations regarding Alumni governance. The AGTF members present (on the panel) were: Jim Adler '60, Trevor Burgess '92, John Daukas '84, Martha Hennessey '76, and Bill Hutchinson '76. All members of the audience received a copy of our latest draft of the constitution. The discussion lasted about 90 minutes, and was moderated by Rick Routhier '73, Alumni Council President. 136 Alumni participated in the forum; 89 in person in Boston, 47 online via live webcast. The Dartmouth covered the event; you may also view an archive of the forum webcast, by clicking here.

Let us know what you thought of the event and the webcast, including any follow-up questions you may have. Post a comment, or email us directly at agtaskforce[at]alum[dot]dartmouth[dot]org; all comments and emails are seen by the entire AGTF.

We will make available additional materials as soon as possible, including responses to questions that (for lack of time) were not covered during the forum.

Thanks for your continued participation,

the Alumni Governance Task Force

Proposed Trustee Nomination Process

2006-03-17T17:52:00.000-08:00

The following is an excerpt from a white paper we have created relating to the Trustee nomination process:

The Alumni Governance Task Force has discussed at length many issues concerning the process by which alumni nominate alumni trustees for Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees. Taking into account all of the comments that we have received, expert opinions from several voting experts with whom we have met, review of scholarly analyses, and the various options, we have proposed the following system found in the current draft constitution. This system includes the following changes:

A recast Nominating Committee that will be a committee of the Association of Alumni (not the Alumni Council), with half of its three-year term members elected by the alumni at large
Reducing the number of candidates proposed by the Nominating Committee from three to two (or one if there is a petition candidate), but requiring that the Nominating Committee ensure that two candidates always run for an open seat
Reducing the number of signatures necessary to run by petition in half, from 500 signatures to 250 signatures and reducing from two months to 30 days the time petition forms are available in order to make more equal the time that all candidates have to campaign
Changing the date on which petition candidates must submit their petition from two months after the Nominating Committee candidates are announced to immediately before the Nominating Committee announces its candidates, in order to allow the Nominating Committee to adjust the number of candidates it nominates so as to promote two-person, head-to-head races and thus promote the victory of candidates supported by a clear majority of voting alumni
Retaining the Approval method of voting when there are more than two candidates on the ballot, a change from the original recommendation to utilize the Instant Runoff method.

Essentially, this proposal is designed to encourage two-candidate races. By changing the date on which a petition candidate must submit his petition, we allow the Nominating Committee to decide whether to put up one or two candidates. If no petition candidate is running, then the Nominating Committee must put up two candidates. If a petition candidate is running, then the Nominating Committee may choose to put up only one candidate, and thus encourage a two-person race where the winner will obtain a majority of the vote.

In addition, we have received a number of complaints about perceived imbalances in the ability of nominated candidates and petition candidates to campaign. Under the proposed system, nominated candidates and any petition candidates would have a more equalized time in which to campaign, if they chose to do so.

In order to make it easier for petition candidates to run, we have cut in half the number of signatures necessary to run by petition.

The Alumni Governance Task Force had considered the argument that petition candidates need to know who the official candidates are before deciding whether to run. While this could be a weakness in the proposal, the Task Force believes, in reality, petition candidates have not decided to run for Trustee in reaction to specific individuals who have been nominated by the Nominating Committee, but instead have planned to run as petition candidates well in advance of the announcement of Nominating Committee candidates. Therefore, the problem does not seem to be a very real one, and, in any event, it is outweighed by the benefits flowing from two-person races.

Finally, the elections will be run by a reconfigured Balloting Committee, half of whose three-year term members will be elected by all alumni in alumni-wide voting. The constitution requires the Balloting Committee to “publish a set of guidelines for conducting a fair, transparent, and democratic election at the time it provides notice of any elections.”

We look forward to your comments and feedback on this, especially from those who take a moment to read the white paper on how we came to this proposal.

New Draft Constitution Released

2006-03-10T09:08:00.000-08:00

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 ‘60
Trevor 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

Better Representation

2006-02-07T06:00:00.000-08:00

The question has been raised about how the AGTF chose the make-up of the representative body of the Association of Alumni, which we named the Alumni Assembly, and whether or not other forms of governance were considered, including attempting to include representatives from a broader array of interest groups. I will launch into the subject and hope that others will join in.

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.

On Alumni-College Partnership

2005-11-30T16:13:00.000-08:00

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

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

Petition Candidate Timing

2005-11-30T16:09:00.000-08:00

Some alums have said that it is important to maintain the current practice of allowing potential Alumni Trustee petition candidates to first see who is nominated by the Nominating Committee and then decide if they want to enter the race. This point is well taken, and yet there are other considerations as well. Notification of intent timing, voting method, ballot size requirements, and campaigning regulations all intertwine. While seeking a level playing field and absolutely providing a sound and fair petition process, we think everyone would agree that the emphasis must be on the Nominating Committee's ability to effectively do its job over the long haul (attract and select top-flight candidates). Ultimately, their work will be responsible for the continued excellence of half of the Board of Trustees, and there are some real problems with the current system. We have tried to untie the hands of that committee while also making it potentially easier for a petition candidate to get on the ballot (and in a hopefully less divisive, confrontational manner). We also wondered how many petition candidates would actually base their decision to enter the race on the personalities involved (see who is running first and then throw their hat into the ring), although it certainly could be a consideration. Clearly, it was not the motivating factor in the last four petition efforts. Notifying the Nominating Committee in advance seemed like a mere formality, gave the candidate a possible leg up, and helped the Nom. Comm. minimize wasting top-flight candidates (the "churn and burn"). We also felt that because the new Association Nominating Committee would be largely elected by all alumni via all-media voting, perhaps the distrust some currently feel might become a thing of the past. Nevertheless, this issue has proven to be controversial and continues to be debated in the AGTF.

AOA Secretary

2005-11-30T16:06:00.000-08:00

Some folks have asked why the secretary position in the new Association of Alumni is slated to be a member of the college administration. The AGTF discussed this at length, and we felt it was an important choice. Why? Because, until such time as the Association is financially (and/or legally) independent, if it ever is, it will be dependent on the Alumni Relations Office for logistical and financial support. We envision that the function of Association Secretary (recording and printing of minutes, arranging and facilitating meetings and conference calls, publishing meeting notices, distributing printed materials, announcing Alumni Trustee Nominees, etc., etc.) will continue to be performed by someone from that office, whether or not they hold official status within the Association.

There is no need to create an empty, do-nothing officer position. More important is to make sure that there is an identified person in the AR office specifically responsible for those necessary functions and for maintaining the institutional memory and support structure for a leadership that is volunteer and constantly changing. It was clear to most of us that if we didn't already have such a person and the structure behind them that we would have to create them, essentially duplicating what currently exists (and we would have to pay for it!). At the same time, we prized what independence we do have and did not want a member of the administration, even if they were also an alum, to have undue influence. Thus, we made the position of Association Secretary non-voting. It is a support function. In assigning the secretary function to the Vice President of Alumni Relations, or his/her designee, we maintain a strong and appropriate link between the Association and the College and ensure the continued financial and logistical viability of the Association.

Affiliated Groups

2005-11-28T09:26:00.000-08:00

The AGTF has maintained the recommendation of the Joint Committee and Draft 15 to maintain the Alumni Council tradition of extending membership to the officially recognized Affiliated Groups (we did not want to take away their existing representation). Each officially recognized Affiliated Group would have two seats on the Assembly so long as they maintained official recognition by the College.

The bar is set high for official recognition: http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/groups/aapolicies.html and is limited to those groups of alumni who have been "historically marginalized."

As the makeup of the alumni body has changed, so too has the way that some alumni affiliate and interact with the College. Until the 1970's the student body was all male and predominantly white. As Dartmouth becomes increasingly diverse, we think it is important that we also encourage similar diversity of participation in our alumni governance organizations.

Since ALL alumni recognize that greater alumni involvement is one of the primary objectives in our efforts to strengthen all aspects of alumni governance, moving from four Affiliate Group representatives (as in the Alumni Council) to eight - just 7% of the proposed 122-member Assembly - seems both reasonable and appropriate, given that these groups have voiced a desire to have greater participation.

For some alumni, the class construct is just not relevant - and does not tug at the heartstrings. In a poll conducted by D-GALA, they found that 100% of those surveyed more closely affiliated with D-GALA than with their class. D-GALA was able to use this information to help the Dartmouth College Fund greatly increase its member's DCF participation through direct solicitation.

Affiliated Groups, like Clubs, Club officers, Class officers, District Enrolment Directors, etc., are just another way for Dartmouth's alumni to interact with the college they love.

UPDATE: Edited slightly to reflect the fact that the Affiliated Groups currently have seats on the Alumni Council.

Voting Systems

2005-10-25T08:40:00.000-07:00

There has already been a lot of discussion on the proposed change from the Approval voting system to Instant Run-off, but we thought that it deserved its own place on the blog and, hopefully, a little better focus. We will start by asking the question that we face in the AGTF:

What is the optimal system of voting (primarily for Alumni Trustee Nominee candidates, Association officers, and Association constitutional amendments, but also for other Association positions) when there are MORE THAN TWO candidates?

AGTF Materials Available Online

2005-10-24T22:44:00.000-07:00

Per our request, Alumni Relations has posted some of the printed handouts that were available at the October 23 meeting of the Association of Alumni online, on the AGTF Update page for view and as downloadable PDF* files. The FAQ will be posted soon...

*So you'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader, click here if you don't already have it...

Re: E-mail Being Circulated

2005-10-20T12:06:00.000-07:00

It has come to my attention that an e-mail I sent yesterday to local Dartmouth alumni/ae has been forwarded to various other parties (without my permission), and that some have taken offense to my language (see http://www.dartblog.com/data/004114.html).

I'm sorry that some of you were offended by my message, which I sent to a small group of alumni/ae in the Upper Valley from classes around my own (some of whose e-mail addresses I found on the Dartmouth website for Alumni/ae). Perhaps this is inevitable, as I have found many of the letters and comments directed at our efforts on the Alumni Governance Task Force (AGTF) offensive and disheartening, as well. I honestly don't know why you see what I wrote as "suggestive" or "vile", as some have stated. Is the petition slate NOT, by virtue of opposing the nominated slate, trying to seize control of the AOA, and some on the slate have made it clear that they plan to block the new constitution (the literature sent out by some alumni states just that). Those of us on the AGTF have been working very, very hard to hear from all sides, and I can say with certainty that we have been listening carefully and thoughtfully, when we have met on several occasions with those who have expressed skepticism and/or suspicions of our goals. I am personally very pleased that we seem to have found several areas of common concern among our areas of disagreement.

Our goal on the AGTF has been (and continues to be) to "strengthen alumni governance for all of us and to resolve the infighting" that I have described as the suspicions on all sides that build and solidify identities among groups of alumni. Who can disagree that these suspicions and (apparent) hostilities do not "serve any of us well"??

My apologies for making any Dartmouth alumni/ae "sad" and/or "angry", as that was certainly not my intent. My intent in sending the e-mail was to get people out to vote on Sunday and to tell them what the voting is about, from MY personal perspective (as others, including Zywicki and Rogers, have also done).

Some have (condescendingly) suggested that I should be "ashamed of myself", and I assure you that I am not; I take great pride in the efforts every member of the AGTF has made to listen, understand, and reconcile, in an effort to do what is best for our mutual alma mater. I appreciate the efforts many have made by joining our meetings over the past several months, so that we can hear all sides. What a step forward, to have us all in the same room!

Though recent blogs and personal messages referencing my e-mail do not appear to be asking for a response, I am posting this blog because I care deeply about all opinions, and I want to state that my opposition to the petition slate does not mean that I am not listening carefully to your views. I AM listening, the AGTF is listening, and we will continue to do so. My work with this committee has given me an entirely new perspective on alumni affairs We came together with different perspectives and some strong disagreements about where we were headed. The reason we have worked so well together is that we have always listened and treated each other with respect. It took some work to get over the suspicions, but it was well worth it. While we continue to have different notions on what is best for the College, we have developed a trust in each other, based on the clear knowledge that our passions come from a fierce love for Dartmouth. While we come from diverse backgrounds and can have opposing politics, agendas and visions, I hope that those alumni who are suspicious now of my motives can trust me when I say that I respect yours, and I will continue to listen. My strong hope is that you are also listening and that, while you may not agree with me, you can respect my motives, as well.

Martha S. Hennessey '76

Term lengths

2005-10-15T15:55:00.000-07:00

We got an e-mail from an alum who was concerned with the length of terms for officer positions. He wrote:

"I believe that the one year term of the President of the Alumni Council defeats any real possibility of success and value. The term should be a minimum of 3 years and 5 years if possible. Other key officers should serve a similar term. After being on the Executive Committee of our Class...For many years, Class President for 6 years, 25th Reunion Chair, and Alumni Councilor for 3 years, I know that there can be...[no] success without continuity and accountability."

I wrote back, saying:

"Thanks for your comments. Let me see if I can shed a little light on our thinking for you and see if it helps.

One concern we had when looking at length of terms of office was burn-out, of course, but also who the job might attract (or repel) if the terms were too long. Striking a balance between a broad candidate pool and ensuring experienced, effective leaders was important to us. As it stands now in the draft constitution we are circulating for comment, the leadership commitment is a minimum of four years. First, you have to be on the Assembly for at least a year before you can run for office. If you win, your first year as an officer of the Association (there would not be an Alumni Council anymore) would be as President-elect and Chair of the Assembly. In the next year you would be President of the Association, in charge of the whole thing, and also Chair of the Association Balloting Committee. Finally, in your last year you would serve as Immediate-past President, Chair of the Alumni Liaison Board (ALB), and Chair of the constitution Review Committee (if it were a year when such a group was formed, which we envision will happen no less that every five years).

The new Assembly will be important, but perhaps not nearly as important or powerful as the current Alumni Council (some of the functions of the current Council would be assumed by other parts of the new Association structure). Nonetheless, the AGTF had extensive discussions about how to ensure good leadership in this group. The one year eligibility requirement was a compromise. In all likelihood, winning candidates will have more than one year's experience (thus, making the length of service even longer). Many in our group also felt that it was important for the person running the whole show, the Association president, to have intimate knowledge of the workings of the Assembly, other Association committees, and alumni relations in general, and still be full of energy. That is one reason why the presidential year would come next. Finally, and perhaps most importantly in terms of the changing nature of alumni relations, we felt that the person chairing the ALB should have the most experience and have the most credibility with the administration and the trustees. Fulfilling the potential of the new ALB will be both critical and difficult, indeed. Thus, it is a job for the last year of the officer commitment, or as we call it, the Immediate-past President.

As you can see, the new Association would be served by officers at various stages of experience in what we on the AGTF like to call an arc. There would always be new blood entering and old hands counseling. There would be continuity and a fluid shift between important jobs, yet no one person or group would be able to monopolize the stage for very long. Stagnation would be unlikely; the possibility for fresh ideas would be only a year away.

Collectively, we on the AGTF felt that this was the right balance, but if you see another structure that would be more effective, we would surely like to hear your thoughts. We are trying our best to get this thing right, and your continued input is greatly appreciated."

The proposed officer "arc" is one of the most exciting parts of our proposal, at least we think so. I'd like to hear from others on this.

The AGTF Does Not Have Secret Information

2005-10-14T10:52:00.000-07:00

As to Ric Lewis' comment, I presume when he had lost his first election someone from the Administration said to him: "Ric, you only lost by a few votes." Which does not seem odd to me. I could see a reason to tell the losing candidates how they did, while at the same time not publishing the losers' vote counts for fear of unnecessarily embarrassing them. Moreover, the vote tallies of the winners have been disclosed in the last two elections -- so I do not see anything nefarious here.

On the other hand, the AGTF and I have nothing to do with all that, so you are just getting my opinion on the introduction to your question.

As to your question, I do not believe the AGTF is getting any secret information. I am not even sure what secret information might be out there to get that could be relevant to our efforts to draft a new constitution. I ask the other Task Force members to chime in if I am forgetting some category of information that we have received -- but I do not believe there is any.

The AGTF really has been operating independently of the College. We have had logistical support from the College, e.g. arranging our conference calls and meetings, but we have not been influenced by the trustees or administration. We really are an alumni committee that is pretty much willing to meet with, and has met with, alumni who have an interest in our efforts.

I hope you can attend the Association meeting October 23 in Hanover. If not, we would be happy to address any suggestions you want to send to us in writing.

John "J.B." Daukas '84

Dartmouth Alumni Governance Task Force (AGTF) Blog: We want to hear from you!

2005-10-11T09:04:00.000-07:00

If you have any questions for the Task Force - let us know. Post a question and we'll reply!

No lapdog!

2005-10-07T19:49:00.000-07:00

I've started this blog because I'm a little sick of people saying that I (and my fellow Task Force members) are under mind-control by the Dartmouth Administration. If you really believe in these sorts of conspiracy theories, click here for for some helpful (and oh-so-effective) protection...