Dartmouth Sticks it to Alumni. Alumni Sue.

razorsharp · October 4, 2007, 11:08pm

<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/education/04brfs-DARTMOUTHALU_BRF.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/education/04brfs-DARTMOUTHALU_BRF.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a>
I wonder what the Board has against the graduates.

rightnotleft · October 4, 2007, 11:38pm

essentially it’s like this:

the administration and current board are trying to increase the amount of research undergone at the College, while Alumni are trying to get the College to hire more tenure-track professors to meet demand and keep the class sizes low, so that current students can experience the same sort of dedicated-to-undergrad-education that they experiences/D is known for.

The last four alumni-elected trustees have all won on platforms that harshly criticized the administration and the direction of the college. The Board, then, decided to add eight more members, none of them elected by the alumni, thus changing the proportion of alumni-elected to board-appointed members from 1:1 to 1:2.

There was a resolution made by the trustees in 1891 that first put the number of board-appointed and alumni-elected trustees at five apiece, and this equality has been maintained since then (now it’s 8-8). This is the legal point of the suit - the Assoc. of Alumni claim it’s a binding contract (supported by a NH court case in 1995, they claim), while the College claims it is not.

higherlead · October 5, 2007, 1:02am

Its always a mistake to allow a university president on the board. It almost inevitably becomes his creature when it happens and then nobody is overseeing him.

The alumni will lose the suit and Dartmouth will lose a lot of alumni financial support.

rightnotleft · October 5, 2007, 12:41pm

for a followup, here’s an email sent by the alumni association today.

Dear Dartmouth Students,
We are the executives of the Dartmouth Association of Alumni who are
seeking to prevent the Trustees from implementing their highly
controversial reorganization of the governance of the College. We owe
you an explanation, as we recognize how this affects you today and in
the future. At the moment, you are the most important people at
Dartmouth. In four years, all of you will be alumni and there will be
4,000 new undergraduates. Our goal in all of this is to protect the
core of the Dartmouth experience – and even the 11s already know
exactly what we mean by this – from administrative overreach and from
co-optation by a small (but, we readily admit, very wealthy) group of
alumni.
A brief bit of background. Dartmouths Board of Trustees hires, fires,
evaluates, and sets the salary of the president. Of course, they dont
decide, for example, which courses are offered in a given term –
faculty decides that – but they are charged with overseeing the entire
College and setting its strategic direction. Their decisions determine
what Dartmouth will become. For over a century, half of the Board has
been elected by former students of Dartmouth. The moment ones class
graduated, one earned the right to vote. 
Over the last four years, a remarkable series of events happened at
Dartmouth. T.J. Rodgers 70, the self-made CEO of Cypress Semiconductor
Corporation, ran for a Trusteeship and won. Why was that remarkable?
Because Dr. Rodgers did not have the administrations sanction. He used
a petition process long embedded, and usually ignored, in the election
rules. Dr. Rodgerss campaign explained all the good that had been done
at the College – and all the hard work still required. By contrast,
his opponents did not offer substantive opinions. Dr. Rodgers won an
astounding victory.
The next year, two seats were open. Two more petition candidates – law
professor Todd Zywicki 88 and author Peter Robinson 79 – ran and won.
They focused on issues of free speech (Dartmouth still had a red-light
speech code at the time, limiting freedom of speech), and support of
athletics (ask senior friends about the attempted cutting of the swim
team). Again, these petition candidates won.
As a matter of course, each of these three petition candidates found
themselves becoming even better informed in the details of the College
and sobered by what they learned. Their concerns have centered on
ensuring absolutely the best student experience, by eliminating
bureaucracy, increasing the numbers of the full-time faculty available
to students, and making sure that traditional out-of-class experiences
are not diminished. This made those in power uncomfortable. Instead
of addressing these issues head on, the administration became
defensive, as you can now see on the infamous Ask.Dartmouth.Edu
website. There was, and remains today, a sense that dissent is
disloyal. You can still hear some people claim that talking about where
Dartmouth needs to improve is akin to harming Dartmouth! 
Needless to say, this sort of argumentation – which echoes what we’ve
heard in Washington over the past few years – failed to convince many
people. The year after Messrs. Robinson and Zywicki were elected, a
brand new alumni governance constitution was proposed. Under the
guise of changes to the structure of alumni organizations, a few people
who feared having more petition trustees tried to change the rules to
make it much more difficult for future petition candidates to be
elected. The College spent a lot of money attempting to get the
document ratified – even hiring a public relations firm – and some
wealthy alumni hired a pollster to do telephone push polling. But it
failed. It needed 67% approval to pass, and it only got 49%.

The next year – and now we are talking about last Spring – another
petition candidate ran for a Trusteeship under the traditional rules.
He is Stephen Smith 88, a legal scholar. (You can still see his
website here: <a href=“http://www.stephensmithtrustee.com/page/1/[/url]”>http://www.stephensmithtrustee.com/page/1/</a>) He won by a
clear majority took his seat as the only African-American man on
Dartmouths Board. His campaign centered on bureaucratic bloat at our
College. He noted that the number of assistant deans and vice
presidents had ballooned in recent years, that Dartmouth was spending
a smaller and smaller fraction of its massive resources on the actual
classroom experience. Clearly, Mr. Smith said, there was an entrenched
bureaucracy problem. A separate College-commissioned report by the
McKinsey consulting firm said the same thing.
Probably you have already noticed this in dealing with the registrar,
ORL, the parking people, and a Safety & Security force that is now
bigger than the Hanover police department itself. But whether you have
noticed it or not, the bottom line is that a fat administration means a
lean faculty. Talk candidly with your professors – particularly those
in the government and economics departments – and they will tell you
that Dartmouth just plain needs more profs.
Mr. Smiths victory – and we apologize for the long blitz; it is
almost over – was the last straw. Asked by The D to comment on his
win, then-chairman Bill Neukom 64 said: We have a new Trustee. His
unwillingness to say any more, or anything positive, was just as strong
a condemnation of Mr. Smith as if he had said something negative. And
implicitly this was also a slap in the face to the Dartmouth community
which elected him.
Quickly after Stephen Smith took his seat, the Board announced that it
would conduct a study to see whether it should reorganize itself. Not
surprisingly, the Board decided that indeed it should reorganize itself.
This was after hearing from thousands of current and former Dartmouth
students – young, old, men, women, liberal, conservative – who told
the Trustees that they shouldnt try to change the rules for elections
just because they aren’t winning them.

But, in the midst of this serious debate about the direction of our
College, the Board did indeed change the rules – shutting down the
debate in violation of all the academic principles Dartmouth holds
dear.
Acting on the advice of its Governance Committee, the Board doubled the
size of the unelected part of the Board and kept the duly elected half
at the same size. Further the Board delivered a dictum that effective
immediately the College will take over the Trustee election process. In
effect, the College is now in the hands of a powerful few, and more
divorced from the desires of the community than ever.

This is just a short synopsis of what has been a years-long saga at our
small, well-loved College. It is the story of tens of thousands of
voices coming together yearly to ask for innovation, evolution, and
improvement; it is the story of personal politics getting in the way of
progress. More than anything, though, it is the story of Dartmouth
struggling to keep its special place in academia. You came to
Dartmouth, not Williams. And you came to Dartmouth, not Harvard. Some
are not so sure Dartmouth should stay Dartmouth. And some are eager to
use Harvards mediocrities as excuses for their own. 
In the end, that is what this present squabble is all about. The
Association of Alumni, the official organization whose members are all
68,000 living graduates, is not meddling in how to run Dartmouth;
instead we are asking for help (an injunction) to prevent the Board
from making these harmful and regressive changes.
So that you know exactly what the Association of Alumni is asking of
our legal system, here we quote from the official request for a
judicial opinion:

<pre><code> "The Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College respectfully prays
</code></pre>

for:

<pre><code> (a) a declaration of the Associations right to choose one-half
</code></pre>

of Dartmouths non-ex officio trustees through the Associations chosen
selection process;
(b) an injunction (i) barring the College from adding charter
trustees to its board, unless it seats an equal number of alumni
trustees chosen by the Association, and (ii) requiring the College to
continue seating alumni trustees chosen by the Association;
(c) an order that the College specifically perform its
contractual obligations and promises by seating equal numbers of
charter and alumni trustees chosen by the Association; and
(d) such other and further relief as the Court deems just."
Please ask yourself if these requests seem reasonable. You will be a
Dartmouth student for a very short while, and then a graduate for a
lifetime. The Association response, a last resort done with
considerable reluctance and deliberation, is intended to secure for
you, and for all alumni, the right to participate in defining what you
collectively think is best for our beloved Dartmouth.
Please do not hesitate to email us if you have any questions at all.

skiers-mom · October 5, 2007, 1:11pm

And here’s an email sent to Dartmouth parents

IN AN OCTOBER 3rd STATEMENT, PRESIDENT JAMES WRIGHT commented on a lawsuit that has been filed against the College. The President said:

You may have read in The Dartmouth this morning that the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni decided last night-by a divided vote-to file a lawsuit against the College concerning the governance changes adopted by the Board of Trustees earlier on September 8th, 2007, and to seek an injunction to prevent the Board from filling any of the new charter trustee seats authorized by the Board.

I am deeply disappointed that some members of the Association Executive Committee have decided to take this action, which can only harm the College. Although the Association’s formal legal complaint has not yet been served on the College, the College has been advised by its attorneys that the Board has full authority to enlarge the Board as it did and to make the other governance changes it authorized, and that there is no merit to the legal claims asserted by the Executive Committee members who voted to bring the suit. The College is well-prepared to respond to this legal action.

Ed Haldeman, Chair of the Dartmouth Board of Trustees, has asked me to share the following statement with all members of the College community:

“While I respect the many different views held by Dartmouth’s alumni on governance issues, I think it’s regrettable that a small group of individuals would cause the Alumni Association to file a lawsuit against the College, particularly when there is no legal basis for the suit. It’s certainly not in the best interest of the College or its students for Dartmouth to be tied up with costly and counterproductive litigation. I would hope instead that thoughtful alumni and friends of Dartmouth would come together in support of our common goal of continuing to build on Dartmouth’s world-class academic programs.”

While the action by some members of the Executive Committee to sue the College is ill-advised, I hope that it will not prove a distraction to the good work of the faculty, students, and staff. Dartmouth is in great shape and we need to continue to focus on continuing to provide the best experience possible for our students. That is the common goal that unites us all as members of the Dartmouth community.
<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/10/03.html[/url]”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/10/03.html</a>

PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ALUMNI WILLIAM HUTCHINSON '76 ISSUED the following statement:

As president of the association, I deplore this effort. I and two other members of the committee did not vote for it, tried our best to forestall it, and wish not to be associated with it in any way. On its way to what I am confident will be utter failure, it will do immeasurable harm to Dartmouth.

Like many other alumni, I lobbied the trustee governance committee for my point of view and for what I thought most alumni would like to see. I did not get everything that I wanted. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that, as a whole, the actions taken by the trustees are legal, logistically sound, and in the long-term best interests of the College. The misguided and wildly expensive legal actions being undertaken by some of my colleagues are the wrong way to go. I will continue to do the work of the association as best as I am able, and I call on all alumni to join me in working cooperatively with the Board and the administration to form a productive partnership that focuses on the real mission of the college.

WILLIAMSONS’ $20 MILLION GIFT IS LARGEST in DMS/DHMC history. Peter and Susan Williamson have made a $20 million gift commitment to Dartmouth Medical School (DMS) and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC). Their gift is the largest to the Medical School and the Medical Center, and will help support those institutions’ highest priorities. Peter Williamson, a professor of medicine in neurology at DMS and the founder and director of the Epilepsy Program at DHMC, is a member of the Class of 1958.
<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/09/28a.html[/url]”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/09/28a.html</a>

PRESIDENT WRIGHT WELCOMED THE Class of 2011 at Convocation, formally opening Dartmouth’s 238th academic year. The President told members of the incoming class and others, that “Dartmouth’s historic task and current mission is to educate young women and men who can create diverse communities with abundant social capital. No one should assume this will be an easy task. But this is the assignment of your time and of your generation.”

To read his entire speech and those of other Convocation speakers, visit:
<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/09/25.html[/url]”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2007/09/25.html</a>

DARTMOUTH EARNED ITS FIRST FOOTBALL IVY League opening win since 1997 as the Big Green defeated Penn 21-13 at Memorial Field on September 29.
<a href=“http://dartmouthsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=11600&ATCLID=1251931[/url]”>Football Holds off Penn, 21-13, to Earn First Win of the Season - Dartmouth College Athletics;

THE ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNING BOARDS HAS COMMENDED DARTMOUTH on its recent changes in governance. Richard Legon, the organization’s president, wrote in a September 17 letter to President James Wright: “Increasing the number of trustees demonstrates an understanding of the important (and changing) fiduciary responsibilities of governing boards in today’s higher education environment. The additional number of board members will provide Dartmouth with the opportunity to add to its board’s diversity, expertise, and philanthropic outreach.”

To read President’s Legon’s entire letter, visit:
<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/features/governance/AGB-091407.pdf[/url]”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/features/governance/AGB-091407.pdf</a>

For more information on the Board’s governance changes, visit:
<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/features/governance/[/url]”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/features/governance/</a>

THE TUCK SCHOOL OF BUSINESS WAS RANKED #1 BY THE Wall Street Journal in its national survey of business schools. Tuck has consistently held one of the top three spots in the seven years the Journal’s ranking has been published, and it has taken first place honors four times.
<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/~vox/0708/1001/tuckranked.html[/url]”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/~vox/0708/1001/tuckranked.html</a>

<hr>

OdysseyTigger · October 5, 2007, 3:55pm

and here’s what a Dartmouth Economics professor had to say in the D

"ExtraCurricular.
By Meir Kohn, Professor of Economics
Published on Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Editors Note: Professor Meir Kohns column is the first installment of ExtraCurricular, an occasional series of commentary by Dartmouth professors. Each column will approach a topic of the authors choice, highlighting issues of faculty interest and opening them up to response from our readers.

Governance is not a problem peculiar to Dartmouth. All large organizations business corporations and government agencies as well as nonprofits like Dartmouth are run by managers or administrators. Human nature being what it is, these managers or administrators tend to use the power delegated to them for their own advantage. Instead of simply performing the functions with which they are charged, they divert their efforts and the organizations resources to furthering their own interests. This is not because they are bad people; it is because they are perfectly normal people and so have difficulty resisting temptation. The problem of governance is the problem of limiting such undesirable behavior.

I am most familiar with governance in the context of business corporations a standard topic in my finance class. The ownership of most large corporations is dispersed among millions of small investors. These many owners cannot possibly manage the companies themselves, nor are they interested in doing so. So professional managers are hired to do the job for them. But, of course, rather than doing what is best for the shareholders, these managers do what is best for themselves.

The board of directors is a mechanism of corporate governance, designed to monitor managers and to protect the interests of the shareholders. However, this mechanism works poorly. While formally the directors are elected by the shareholders, in practice they are chosen by the managers, so their loyalty is more to the latter than to the former. So corporate managers are largely free to inflate their own compensation, to build business empires to boost their own status (even when this is unprofitable), and to hang on to their jobs even when they are incompetent.

The governance problems of nonprofits are similar in general, but they also differ in some respects. Administrative misbehavior takes somewhat different forms. For example, since nonprofit administrators cannot award themselves huge salaries and lavish stock options, they tend to take more in perks (houses, private jets, generous pensions). They also find other ways to use the institutions resources to their own benefit. For example, they promote political causes close to their own hearts even when these bear no relevance to the goals of the institution. These causes tend to be leftist, because most administrators are of the left. But conservative administrators would promote conservative causes. The issue is not one of politics but of governance.

A more important difference is the lack of external constraints on the misbehavior of nonprofit administrators. For corporations, SEC regulations require public disclosure of a great deal of information, making it easier to monitor managerial performance. Disclosure requirements for nonprofits (to the IRS) are much more modest. Not surprisingly, nonprofit administrators release as little information as they can to avoid having to account for their actions. Moreover, if corporate management performs badly enough, it faces the danger of being removed by a hostile takeover. But however bad things are at Harvard, its administrators need have no fear of a takeover by Yale.

It is in the context of the general problem of governance and of the particular problems of nonprofit governance that we should understand recent events at Dartmouth. It is not that administrative misbehavior is unusually bad at Dartmouth. What is unusual is the ability of Dartmouth alumni to elect to the board some trustees not hand-picked by the administration. This peculiarity offered a potential mechanism of governance, and a number of alumni were sufficiently public-spirited to try to turn this potential into reality. It is hardly surprising that the administration did not welcome this initiative. With remarkable brutality, the administration and its friends on the board have acted to neutralize it. Contrary to the pronouncements of the Ministry of Truth, the board did not vote to strengthen governance at Dartmouth: it voted to prevent it. With this avenue cut off, we remain without any effective mechanism of governance. There is therefore no constraint on the potential misbehavior of this or any future administration.

This is unfortunate for Dartmouth. But the impact is much wider than that. Had the alumni initiative succeeded here, it would have been imitated elsewhere, to the ultimate benefit of all institutions of higher education. That now seems unlikely."

OdysseyTigger · October 5, 2007, 3:59pm

and here’s what a Dartmouth senior had to say in the Dartmouth Independent

"Democracy goes down swinging
By Tatyana Liskovich
Posted September 10, 2007

To the Editor:

When an election doesn’t turn out in the way that you had hoped, appropriate recourse does not consist of ridding the system of elections. Al Gore did not lead a coalition supporting benevolent dictatorship after the 2000 loss, perhaps to the chagrin of those now insisting that Dartmouth needs to absolve alumni of voting privileges. For those who have ignored the entire debate on college governance, you are missing out on an amazing case study of power and politics. It is all the animosity, bickering, and pettiness of a typical Student Assembly showdown, with the key difference being that the results actually matter.

Some campus publications are insisting that the recent spring trustee elections were a veritable “insult” because the winning candidate, Stephen Smith, was not favored by a majority of current students. The Dartmouth Independent called the democratic election a “hostile takeover” and supposedly violated its self-imposed (and self-important) “absolute neutrality,” when it published an editorial opinion in support of Professor Kate Stith-Cabranes analysis of the now infamous 1891 resolution. The Board of Trustees is the governing body of the College and stops the buck on questions of financial, administrative and educational significance. In addition to the 16 open positions on the Board of Trustees, two ex officio seats are reserved for the College president and the New Hampshire governor. The recently contested 1891 resolution gave Dartmouth alumni the right to elect half of the members of the Board of Trustees, or eight trustees. The other eight seats have traditionally been held by major financial donors and other people that President James Wright calls “assets.”

The referenced article discusses the minutia requirements of a contractual agreement and deftly makes the case that the 1891 resolution does not qualify, in other words: it can be revoked, replaced, and forgotten. There is nothing specifically wrong with her argument, which blazes on the heels of Professor’s Todd Zywicki’s insistence to the contrary. But among the exciting novelty of seeing two lawyers disagree, it seems that everyone is asking the wrong question. The bigger issue upon which both arguments hinge their importance is masked by details of contractual law: Can the 1891 resolution be overturned is less important than the elephant in the room: Should the 1891 resolution be overturned?

Since the election of the school’s first petition candidate T.J. Rodgers '70 in 2004, three others have enthusiastically won the alumni vote, though not the formal alumni association’s nomination. They have sent out e-mails, set up websites, and raised the amount of signatures needed to run. All of them have been vocally critical of the current administration and are painted as either “Lone Pine” revolutionaries or in the words of former trustee Peter Fahey '68, the “radical minority cabal” that will bring about a “downward death spiral” for the institution. The idea that these elections represent a “minority” victory has been asserted throughout the discourse. Though none of the candidates received more than 50% of any given election votes, they did receive more support than the other candidates. In the last election, 18,186 alumni voted using the approval method, which allows you to vote for as many candidates as you want without ranking your preference among them; of the 32,941 votes cast in May, Stephen Smith received 9,984 of them. Perhaps instant-run off voting would have produced another result, but the election is far and away conclusive. Though technically correct, the charge of a “minority” win could indict most of the alumni elections, petition or not.

This June, the Board approved a governance review that will investigate the methods by which the trustees are currently elected. The conveniently well-timed concern to insure “Dartmouth’s tradition of excellence” is a veiled expression of the administration’s real concern: democracy has gotten out of hand. Recommendations from the 5-person subcommittee will undoubtedly include counterproposals to the 1891 resolution or other mechanisms by which petition candidates can be curbed. One of the official reasons behind the review is the scandal of electioneering in which candidates are purportedly spending thousands of dollars studying polls, writing out their platforms, and winning over their fellow alumni. This is somehow an example of a disgraceful low, in which dedication is translated into money that is not directly bankrolled into another Wenda Gu art installation. No wonder the administration and college executives are worried. The election is as open to conservative and liberals as it is to those who support or oppose the administration; let them run, campaign, and let the decision be settled in the ballot. However, it seems that you are allowed to love the school, but not enough to campaign during an election; instead, these feelings should be appropriately channeled in the form of a large check and the size of your talent and generous heart will then be considered for an opening among the chartered seats.

If you have been following closely, you may have already noticed the glaring inconsistencies among so-called “liberal” or “independent” publications. On one hand student-writers want their opinions to be reflected by board members, but at the same time, they support changes that might invalidate their future ability to participate in the appointment of those same trustees. On one hand young pundits flail valiantly against the determining influence of money in election outcomes, but in the same breath they support the reversal of the only democratic inroad through the Board of Trustees, in favor of a system in which all 16 seats could become the equivalent of graft or token sweetener for the highest bidder.

There is nothing wrong with financially supporting your alma mater and then having an interest in how that school is run, in fact that is the principle on which alumni participation is anchored. Until now, Dartmouth College has been commendably unique among peer institutions in the nature of its elected Board, the balance between democratic participation of alumni providing an independent check against executive control. This level of investment and post-graduation involvement is what has made the school not simply a four-year study-drink-study hurrah, but a community of which you are a part, for life. After all, it is “a small college…and yet there are those who love it,” let us not lose the right to vote our dedication. Not on our watch.

–Tatyana Liskovich"

interesteddad · October 5, 2007, 10:35pm

I’m not sure that we are getting the full story here.

There has been a concerted effort by some right-wing alumni groups to stack the board of Dartmouth College through the alumni elections. If I recall, the organized effort has already elected the last four members, steadily replacing women and minorities from the board. Specifically, these groups have been raising and spending signficant amounts of money campaigning for the board spots.

Part of their stated agenda has been to force the College to emphasize varsity athletics and reverse their attempts to reduce the outsized role of fraternities at Dartmouth.

I haven’t followed the bidding closely, but I suspect the College took the actions they did to dilute the ability of a small group of alumni to commandeer the Board.

OdysseyTigger · October 5, 2007, 11:30pm

These are the men you are demeaning… along with the 10,000 or so alumni that voted for them. … and by the way, Professor Smith is black.

Thurman J. Rodgers ’70
Founder, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director Cypress Semiconductor Corp.
Woodside, California
Elected 2004 (Alumni Trustee) A.B. Dartmouth College M.S., Ph.D. Stanford University

Todd J. Zywicki '88
Professor of Law George Mason University School of Law
Falls Church, Virginia
Elected 2005 (Alumni Trustee) A.B. Dartmouth College M.A. Clemson University J.D. University of Virginia
Todd J. Zywicki is a Professor of Law and a Senior Research Fellow of the James Buchanan Center, Program on Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at George Mason University School of Law.

Stephen F. Smith '88
Professor of Law John V. Ray Research Professor University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia
Elected 2007 (Alumni Trustee) A.B. Dartmouth College J.D. University of Virginia
Stephen F. Smith is a tenured professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

Peter M. Robinson '79
Fellow Hoover Institution Stanford University
Stanford, California
Elected 2005 (Alumni Trustee) A.B. Dartmouth College B.A. Oxford University M.B.A. Stanford University
Peter Robinson, an author, television host, and former White House speechwriter, is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution, the public policy research center at Stanford University.

higherlead · October 6, 2007, 4:27pm

Uh Oh! You just confirmed interesteddad’s worst fear - he saw Hoover Institution in one of those resumes and isn’t George Mason Law that goofy school where they actually require future lawyers to take economics courses in law school –> Egads it is a conspiracy of a rightwing cabal to seize seats from other rich white guys. Lord save us the next thing you know they will have Fox News on in the faculty lounge.

bluebayou · October 6, 2007, 4:47pm

Dartmouth College Alumni Council Statement Opposing Lawsuit

On October 3, 2007, 6 members of the 11-member Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College caused a lawsuit to be filed against the College in New Hampshire Superior Court. The lawsuit seeks to stop the Board of Trustees of the College from taking certain actions respecting the composition of the Board, and from making nomination to the Board by alumni more democratic. Historically, the sole responsibility of the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni has been to run the annual meeting of the Association and related elections. In contrast, the 100-member Alumni Council is the representative body of Dartmouth’s 68,000 alumni, constitutionally charged with being the “primary forum” for discussion of issues and concerns relative to the alumni body and the College, and the “principal spokesperson” of the alumni. The Alumni Council’s purpose is to “act in the best interests of Dartmouth College.”

As the principal spokesperson for Dartmouth College’s alumni, the Alumni Council opposes and calls for the immediate voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit. While the Alumni Council is aware that Dartmouth alumni have varying opinions on the desire for “parity,” the Council believes that the lawsuit is meritless, against the will of the majority of Dartmouth’s alumni, and harmful to the interests of the College and the alumni.

In the event, the lawsuit is still pending as of the time of the Alumni Council’s Fall Meeting, November 29-December 1, 2007, the Council will consider whether any further action is appropriate based on additional consultation with the alumni body.

higherlead · October 6, 2007, 6:42pm

Unspecified threats from an Alumni Council. The plot thinkens. Who was it who said the fights in academe were so vicious because the stakes were so small?

tommybill · October 8, 2007, 8:44am

QWho was it who said the fights in academe were so vicious because the stakes were so small?

AProf. Henry Kissinger

somemom · October 8, 2007, 4:15pm

TeeHee- until Odyssey posted I was unthinkingly impressed with the number of healthy active senior citizen’s from Dartmouth serving on the board and wondering what kind of great genetics they have going over there…now I see that 70, 88, 88, 79 are grad years not ages :D

OdysseyTigger · October 23, 2007, 4:27pm

FWIW: NH courts have apparently ALREADY ruled that the 1891 agreement is a contract between Dartmouth and the AoA. It would seem that the College will have some difficulty with the undisputed findings of fact in “Tell v Trustees of Dartmouth College” at least at the initial stages of this litigation if they want to argue that the 1891 agreement does not exist or that it is not legally binding, or that the parties to the agreement are not the BoT and the AoA. Having read through the papers, it would seem doing so would require the court to reverse - if they can get past the estoppel arguments. The College itself has argued in court that the agreement confers legal rights on the AoA.

Parsing the meaning of the agreement might be a different story, but the court did use the word “half” in describing the amount of trustees nominated by the alumni. It also covered the history of the agreement. Not really much different in basic concept to what exists today.

As for the Alumni Council? They have no say in this. Unelected, they have become much like the charter trustees - self perpetuating. Their power such that it exists derives FROM the AoA. They have no power OVER the AoA or its EC whose members are elected by a vote of the entire alumni body.

Dartmouth Sticks it to Alumni. Alumni Sue.

CONNECT WITH US