I write to rebut Doug Keare's '56 letter ("Time for Dartmouth to move on," Sept. 27) that claims the petition trustees did not work cooperatively with the Alumni Governance Task Force on the new constitution, a statement also echoed in a story in The Dartmouth ("Trustees turn down requests for participation," Sept. 20).
Instead of throwing around more meaningless generalizations, I will quote directly from a series of four letters I sent directly to the AGTF leader, Joe Stevenson '57. These letters cover my objections to the new constitution, my efforts to work with the AGTF to reach an acceptable compromise, and my definition of what that compromise might entail.
In a Feb. 23, 2005 letter to AGTF, I made two short points about what should be avoided in a new constitution:
"First, I consider the most important responsibility of the Alumni Association to "nominate" (de facto, to elect) half the number of the Dartmouth trustees, the controlling body of the College. I would oppose adamantly and vocally any further weakening of that right, examples of which include weakening or emasculating the trustee petition process or eliminating all-media voting by all 65,000 Alumni Association members.
Second, I believe that the Alumni Association should be democratized to include the following features: all-media voting by all members, a process that allows petition candidates to run for the Executive Committee without prerequisites, (there is no prerequisite for petition trustees; why should there be one for the Executive Committee?), and the right of alumni to place items on the agenda of the Alumni Association's annual meeting. I will support any proposed constitution that moves from the current status quo towards these ideals, and adamantly oppose any constitution that reduces any of the current very-modest rights of Alumni Association members, either directly or by granting them to the Alumni Council."
In a letter to AGTF dated Sept. 23, 2005, I stated that I would support the efforts to create a new constitution unless it violated either of two fundamental principles: "not 'weakening or emasculating the Trustee petition process' and not reducing 'any of the current very-modest rights of Alumni Association members, either directly or by granting them to the Alumni Council.'"
In a letter mailed directly to Stevenson dated Oct. 10, 2005, I spoke to the prejudice of the new voting system to petition candidates:
"The AGTF has presented no evidence that the proposed voting system is superior to or less complicated in any way than the current system. Furthermore, once the possibility of strategic voting is considered, the revised system is almost certainly inferior.
"Finally, I was appalled to find out just last week that being forced to travel to Hanover to vote in an Alumni Association election is not a requirement of the current constitution. It seems the Alumni Association administration inflicts this pain on its voting members to keep voting limited, presumably to control elections. The lack of all-media voting was one of my primary reasons for even considering a new constitution. Why do we need to change the constitution to get something we already have?"
Of course, the AGTF is no longer considering strategic voting (instant-runoff voting) as a possibility. It is apparent that my criticisms were directly responsible for this change.
In a letter to Stevenson dated Nov. 8, 2005, I attempted once and for all to end any misunderstandings about my communications with him and with the AGTF. I stated specifically that:
"The views expressed [in all my communications] are my own, not the official position of the trustees.
"I will work with you on the new constitution to try to find an acceptable compromise solution.
"I have a right to speak publicly on the new constitution and I will continue to exercise that right, at my discretion.
"If, in my opinion, the final draft of the new constitution harms the petition trustee process or diminishes the rights of Alumni Association members, I will oppose its ratification."
I doubt any other trustee communicated formally with the AGTF as much as I did. I did refuse one meeting with AGTF member J.B. Daukus '84 because he asked to communicate with me secretly, which I chose not to do.
I also refused one other meeting with Stevenson and Keare, when -- at the 11th hour -- they asked to fly to California to interrupt my life "for as long as it takes" to negotiate the new constitution.
I did cooperate fully with every ethical and practical request of the AGTF -- in writing -- despite the claims to the opposite of Keare and Stevenson.
