It's really not that bad
To the Editors:
John MacGovern's recent letter to the editor (The Dartmouth, Dec. 5) included a number of alarmist statements that don't match the facts and echo comments made at the Association meeting in December. I have attended many of the open meetings held by the by the Joint Committee on Alumni Governance and Trustee Nominations, and I have read the proposed constitution through several drafts as they were posted for all comers on the Dartmouth web site.
The proposal does not "eliminate" the Association of Alumni. If anything, it expands the power of the Association by giving all the members the ability to elect at-large members of the Alumni Council by ballot. In addition, the redundant and almost powerless Association executive committee would be replaced with the more representative and influential Alumni Council.
Mr. MacGovern repeats a previously- heard accusation that only "anointed" alumni (members of the Alumni Council) are allowed to participate in the process, but many of the people I spoke to at recent Association meetings were not members of the Council and the Joint Committee held open meetings with alumni all over the country during the past year.
And what is wrong with the Alumni Council members participating anyway? These are loyal and dedicated alumni who give Dartmouth immense amounts of time and money because they love the school. Painting them as corrupt insiders who act only in their own interest is simply wrong.
Mr. Macgovern complains about the time and location of the meeting. A December weekend in Hanover isn't ideal, I agree. But this is exactly what the new constitution seeks to change. Right now the Association is limited to holding votes at a live meeting as the current constitution doesn't allow for voting by mail or online. The proposal by the Joint Committee changes that, and it seems to me that this also strengthens the Association and encourages more alumni to participate.
Reuniting the Association and the Council under a new constitution is a reasonable proposal by alumni, for alumni, and the rhetoric used to combat it resorts to dire predictions and scare tactics that are predicated on the suggestion that the leadership of the College is acting in bad faith. There is no evidence that this is the intent of the Trustees, the administration or the Alumni Council.
What is deeply troubling to me is that a small group of alumni who have a long history of expensive litigation with the College have been able to derail the process. I blame the leadership of the Association and Dartmouth Alumni Relations for this. The core goals of the proposal have not been well communicated to alumni. Something this important should have been a cover story in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine and the subject of a dozen articles in Dartmouth Life (just for starters). The open meetings were not well attended, and there needs to be a concerted effort to take this process "on the road" to every club, mini-reunion and alumni event possible to get the message out.
Instead, we have an information vacuum where many alumni are unaware of the process. This ignorance makes it possible for a few people to alarm others with misleading statements, and this brought many people to the Association meeting who voted out of fear rather than knowledge. This must be fixed before the next vote or there will be a similar outcome.
Sincerely,
Geoff Bronner '91
