To the Editor:
Those who have read Al Collins's letter explaining why he and the other members of the presumptive Executive Committee (the legality of that election is currently being challenged) should consider the following:
Without much more time than it takes to have a cup of coffee after its election on Oct. 23, 2005, this Executive Committee called a special meeting for Feb. 12, specifically to amend the present constitution so that ratification of the new constitution proposed by the Alumni Governance Task Force (AGTF) might be made easier. Although announced on Nov. 1 on the Alumni Association website, most alumni first read of it on page 17 of the Jan.-Feb. Alumni Magazine where it advertises a meeting: "To consider a constitutional amendment that would allow voting via mail 'or other appropriate means.' This would nullify the existing constitutional requirement that votes be cast in person."
Those of us who oppose the new constitution saw this meeting as an opportunity to introduce other amendments to the present constitution, regarding off-site voting in elections (as well as for constitutional amendments) and the conduct of meetings by Robert's Rules. Given that all parties are now professing to favor off-site voting in elections and the evident advantage of substituting Robert's Rules for arbitrary rule from the chair, we wanted to insure immediate adoption of these changes if, as we fervidly hope, the proposed new constitution fails to gain approval. And so, in December, after much discussion via e-mail, we solicited the 50 required petitions for three amendments.
As soon as that number was reached, I tried to call the Alumni Relations Office to submit them, but, as often happens, there was no answer. Before I could call again, the College was on its Christmas break. On Jan. 3, the first day offices were again open, I left 75 petitions with Patricia Fisher's secretary. I also told her I had more at home and that they were still coming in. A day or two later, Alumni Relations Director David Spalding phoned me to say that the deadline had passed and that it would be up to the Executive Committee to waive it. As we now all know, he and his presumptive Executive Committee refused to do so, citing the necessity of observing Guidelines.
These Guidelines he invokes, which his predecessor had similarly invoked to bar off-site voting for the Oct. 23 election, have never been voted upon by the Association membership even though they are effectively constitutional amendments. Evidently, they were first issued by the Executive Committee in 2001. The latest date they bear is Oct. 17, 2005. They have no constitutional standing; the Executive Committee can add to them, rescind them or change them through nothing more complicated than a conference call.
Now let us examine the application of these non-constitutional Guidelines. They state that the Executive Committee may call a special meeting provided that such proposed amendments are identified and described on the Association's website no later than the first day of the third month preceding the next annual or special meeting. This, Collins and his group have done. But the same Guidelines also state that petitions for amendments must be filed "the first day of the fourth month preceding the next annual or special meeting." Given that the special meeting was announced for Feb. 12, the first day of the fourth month would be Oct. 1, 2005. Therefore, I would have had to file those petitions, not only a month before the meeting was called, but (given that the first fell on a weekend) 25 days before those who called it were elected.
In light of this absurdity, how can Collins justify his action by saying that we must follow all appropriate guidelines so that everyone knows and is governed by the same rules, but at the same time maintain an understanding flexibility, as some situations may be unique or unforeseen?
Who has written this script, Lewis Carroll or George Orwell?
