Defrauding Alumni (Again)

Collins's letter to alumni not only was published in the D, it was also sent at College expense to every alumnus with a postal address. I had demanded that my reply to Collins, which was also published in the D, get similar treatment. Instead, the presumptive Executive Committee has devised this method of reducing a serious debate over complex matters to the level of a chat room, and accessible to a considerably smaller percentage of the alumni.

Let's be candid: Collins's letter is disingenuous and dishonest. Though he claims to be acting in the interests of a more democratic means of doing the Association's business, his practice is exactly the opposite--and he must know it.

Shall we start with the call for the special meeting itself? According to an e-mail message sent to a few alumni on October 27th (four days after the election) that meeting was to be publicly announced on Nov 1. That announcement appeared on the Dartmouth website (which, like every alumnus, I check every day, right?) Another announcement appeared in the Jan/Feb number of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, where the amendment for which the meeting was being called was NOT stated. Instead, the brief mention only said that the February 12 meeting was being called to amend the constitution so as to allow off-site voting.
Those of us who have been fighting since 2001 for off-site voting in all elections, as well as other reforms to loosen the grip of a small group of insiders on the AoA, saw an opportunity, and we immediatley begin to circulate petitions for signatures. We soon had far more than the required number, but the College closed rather early for the Christmas holiday; as a result, I filed the petitions in Blunt on the very first day the College reopened, Jan 3, and said more would be coming.

To my astonishment, David Spalding, the VP for ALumni Relations, called me, either the next day or two days later, and informed me that whether the amendments I had filed would be allowed would be up to Collins and the Executive Committee. Why? Because the deadline had passed.

Although amendments proposed by the Executive Committee must be posted three months prior to the meeting, the "guidelines" issued by the Executive Committee require that petitions for amendments must be filed four months prior to the meeting. In other words, we would have had to have filed our amendments a month before the EC called the meeting--indeed, a month before the EC was "elected."

Had Collins and his EC really had genuine alumni participation at heart, there were two escapes from this Alice-in-Wonderland absurdity. The first is that these "guidelines," which have never been voted upon by AoA members (except, possibly, by the 11 members of the EC), specificlly refer to the ANNUAL MEETING, not to a special meeting.

The second escape hatch is in the very same guideline, for it allows the EC to waive the requirement in unusual circumstances--and I would think that the peculiar conditions they had created would certainly qualify.

But Collins's surfeit of democratic generosity could not stretch so far. No, "fairness" demanded nothing less than denying the petitioners their opportunity to vote their will. But that's an old story. It goes back to 2001--and every year since.

What have the Apostles of Inclusiveness wrought? "The sole item of business is an amendment to the constitution proposed by the Executive Committee to allow voting on all future amendments via either mail ballot or on the internet. ... This would end the existing requirement that alumni must be present in person in order to vote on constitutional amendments."

Collins tells us that the EC heard the "clamor" for off-site voting for amendments. His hearing must be much better than mine. The clamor I heard was for off-site voting in ALL elections--and particularly the election of the Executive Committee. But THAT clamor Collins does not want addressed. Not with one of the amendments we filed. Nor with the much simpler expedient of issuing a new guideline rescinding the present guideline. That simple solution would have taken less time than the decision to call a meeting.

There is much more to be said about the EC's amendment--a dangerous instrument. And much more to be said about fairness in the discussion of the proposed constitution. And, finally, still more to be said about that cumbersome, inequitable constitution that severely cripples the unique role of Dartmouth alumni in steering their College.
Stay tuned.