Recently, an organization of 2,000 Dartmouth alumni has been complaining about what they perceive to be an excessive number of administrators at the College.
The group, called the Hopkins Institute, charges that the College is wasting money on these unnecessary employees and that the resulting bureaucracy is cluttering the administration. The organization has apparently reached this conclusion by studying its own data, attained by roughly estimating the number of employees.
The College, on the other hand, asserts that the administration is as slim as it can possibly be. Lyn Hutton, vice-president and treasurer of Dartmouth, believes that the Institute's numbers are incorrect.
Of course, the battle goes back and forth with the monotony of a never-ending tennis match. The Institute has demanded that the administration supply it with accurate data on the size of its staff. The College retorts by saying that such numbers are ever-changing and unavailable.
The Hopkins Institute believes that the College has the information but is unwilling to provide it, and the College alleges that the Institute is operating behind a hidden agenda. This standstill has reduced both sides to squabbling, paranoid children.
Somehow, I would expect more from this fine institution's alumni and administration.
The Hopkins Institute, in my opinion, is being completely unreasonable. I agree that excessive bureaucracy is often detrimental, but, according to Hutton, the College has already eliminated 75 positions over the last three years.
The Institute should realize that operating an institution as complex as a college or university requires a certain number of administrators. If we wish to maintain the College's respected reputation of excellence, a body of administrators, and its resulting bureaucracy, are inevitable and necessary.
Additionally, the "head-count" method to which the Institute subscribes can be quite misleading. Because the College often replaces one high-paid worker with two lower-paid workers, and because certain employees are only hired for short-term projects, the "head-count" often proves nothing. Hutton argues that measuring costs is a much more efficient method, and by doing so, it becomes clear that the College is not wasting or losing money.
I would ask the members of the Hopkins Institute to take a look at a front page article from the May 11 issue of The Dartmouth, entitled "College bond rating jumps." The article reports that the College's credit rating has just been upped to triple-A, the highest rating possible.
The article explained that the triple-A rating is an excellent credit to the College's reputation, and it establishes Dartmouth as one the most financially sound institutions in the nation.
In the article, the College's Associate Treasurer Win Johnson was quoted as saying, "For all those critics that attack Dartmouth it's testimony to the fact that the College's management has been prudent."
From this evidence, it is quite clear that Dartmouth is financially safe and cannot reasonably be accused of wasting large amounts of money on excessive administrators. It seems apparent that the College's administrators have our financial affairs pretty well under control.
