In his guest column of September 29, Joe Asch '79 suggests that the Alumni Governance Task Force (AGTF) is a pawn of the College administration, using it to manipulate alumni trustee election results. As chair of the AGTF, I can categorically say that this is completely false.
The AGTF is made up of independent voices, including those who voted for recent petition candidates. It was commissioned by and is accountable to the Association of Alumni and the Alumni Council, not the president of the College. In its twenty months of analysis and deliberation, the AGTF has not been influenced by the College Administration or by the Board of Trustees in any way.
Discussions about how alumni nominate trustees have been going on for years, ever since the multi-candidate balloting system was instituted in 1990. For fifteen years, many alumni have complained that the balloting process is so confusing that they simply don't participate. They feel that the balloting system doesn't allow them to state a preference for a candidate and that there are too many candidates for them to evaluate effectively. This call for change isn't new, and to characterize it as a Machiavellian maneuver on the part of Dartmouth President Jim Wright to "petulantly re-jigger election rules" is preposterous.
The Task Force's shaping of its proposals, contained in the draft constitution, was done before the successful bids of Peter Robinson and Todd Zywicki as petition candidates for the Board, not as a reaction to them.
It is also simply not true, as Joe Asch suggests, that the alumni constitution is a "decades-old" document " presumably sacrosanct, rigid and unchanged. Like the United States constitution, it has been amended over time in response to the body it serves, the most recent changes having taken place in the 1980s and 1990s. It is not a static document. For instance, the 1916 constitution required in-person voting for alumni trustees with votes being tabulated on the spot; how could such an archaic voting process possibly be permitted today?
The proposed changes to the alumni constitution were made in part because the current system puts multiple names (at least three per trustee position, with no limits) on the ballot, a system that confuses and reduces voter participation and is widely viewed to be unfair. The current system allows petition candidates to collect signatures two months ahead of the balloting, while restricting communications from the Alumni Council-nominated candidates, effectively allowing petitioners to campaign while nominated candidates must remain silent. Is it fair to allow some candidates to promote themselves before others can do so? This is not an issue of politics, but of equity.
Joe Asch's argument that the proposed new constitution makes it more difficult for petition candidates to run also is inaccurate. In fact, under the new proposal, it is arguably easier for a petitioner to get on the ballot. Petition candidates will notify the Alumni Association Nominating Committee -- half of which is directly and democratically elected by all alumni " of their intention to run and may be placed on the ballot without having to go out and get signatures. This would occur if the Nominating Committee endorses their candidacy. If the Nominating Committee does not endorse their candidacy, petitioners can still collect signatures and appear on the ballot.
Finally, it should be stated emphatically that the process leading to the vote on a new constitution is in the discussion phase and is far from being a "done deal." We have produced a draft that should be questioned, criticized, and/or supported by as many alumni as possible. The AGTF does not feel that final positions should be taken at this point. Although we believe the draft is a first-rate proposal, it is a work in progress.
The AGTF wants to use all available media and schedule as many alumni meetings on the subject as possible. In fact, we had such a meeting with leaders of DAOG (Dartmouth Alumni for Open Governance) during Class Officers Weekend. The Task Force does not think a vote on the proposal will be possible or appropriate until the spring of 2006. I hope that all alumni will keep an open mind about this constitution and not take a stand on its merits, up or down, until they have examined all of these issues carefully.
