Alumni will soon be asked to vote on a proposal to adopt a new constitution, as founding father George Mason was challenged with the United States Constitution before a Bill of Rights was added. Many complex issues have been addressed by the Alumni Governance Task Force in their proposal, and suggestions have been made that it should be passed as an improvement over what we have today, even if it is not perfect. It seems in deciding how to vote, individual alumni must regrettably chose between being "practical" and being "principled," a situation we often face in life. I believe no one of us can advise others how to make this most-personal decision, though there are some factors that may be considered:
1) This writer's guess is there will be overwhelming consensus that the proposed Assembly is an improvement over the existing Alumni Council, becoming broader and more open. The Association regains its historic oversight of the trustee Nominating Committee, previously delegated to the Council. Both the NomCom and the new Alumni Liaison Board are Association and not Assembly entities, and they have some number of alumni "at-large" members.
2) The ALB appears to be a well-intended effort to improve two-way communication between trustees and alumni. Why is there not better communication already between the trustees and the Council's standing committees on academics, student life, athletics and other ad hoc committees that should be formed as needs arise? Is the problem structural, or one of people and attitudes? Will the added complexity of inserting another body add or detract from direct communication between these committees and the trustees, and does it create the possibility of confused communication with alumni by creating parallel channels?
3) The Assembly, while more open, still cannot claim to be uniformly and equally representative for each individual alumnus/a. Claims of being democratic and representative will continue to invite ongoing controversy. The Assembly will possess considerable influence on trustee elections, arguably even more than the Council has today, and similarly it will have influence on the ALB. It is unclear if the "playing field" for trustee petition candidates is made more or less even relative to nominated candidates. Importantly, the Assembly gains significant new power regarding the makeup of the Association officers and the ability to amend the overall Association constitution; future changes not supported by the Assembly will be extremely difficult, if not effectively impossible.
If there is one strategic flaw in the proposal, it lies in the continued confusion between how alumni govern themselves, in structuring assemblies, advisory boards and committees that span various clubs and groups, and how alumni participate as individuals in giving direction, providing governance and demanding accountability of the College itself, through the nomination and election of trustees. Altering the former (how alumni organize) with a discussion of "representatives" and "constituents" threatens to politicize the work of volunteer service groups, while the latter (how trustees are selected) is potentially skewed by involving those same groups.
The AGTF has suggested that imperfections in the new governance structures can be ironed out over time, and that we can trust future Association officers and the Assembly leadership to "do the right thing." The callous disregard of democratic process by the current officials indicates otherwise -- ex post facto rulings on petition filings and non-recognition to date of constitutional requirements for upcoming elections being two examples -- and suggests more checks on incumbent officers and the Assembly should be built into the structure from the start.
One option is to spend more time exploring whether both a principled and practical alternative exists, and to decide if we collectively have the time and energy to do so. One tangible proposal has been made to the AGTF that would separate the issues of alumni and College governance, by removing the Assembly from a special place in the trustee selection process and requiring all groups or committees of trustee nominators to follow exactly the same petition rules. If the currently proposed constitution is passed, even with its built-in review mechanism, the chances for adopting this alternative in the future will be lessened.
How would George Mason vote, indeed.
