None of the other four proposed amendments, which would also have required a two-thirds approval to pass, garnered more than 53 percent of the vote in their favor.
Alumni voter participation reached a record-breaking 38.5 percent, dwarfing the College's initial goal of 30 percent and voting rates in past elections. Voting started Sept. 15 and ended Oct. 31 at midnight, and the College announced the election's results Thursday afternoon.
Amendment 5, the fourth petition amendment to the current constitution ---- which would have permitted all-media voting for Association members in alternate year elections and was widely expected to pass ---- received 53 percent approval. All media voting would have permitted alumni to vote in person, by courier or postal mail or electronically. Amendment 2 yielded a 51 percent vote of support, while Amendments 3 and 4 earned votes of 52 percent and 50 percent, respectively.
Had the new constitution, which was presented as Amendment 1, passed, the current constitution and operations of the Association of Alumni and the Dartmouth Alumni Council would have merged to become the unified Alumni Association. The most contentious aspect of this change would have altered the trustee election process.
Association of Alumni First Vice President Merle Adelman '80 expressed regret over the constitution's failure even as she lauded the participation rate.
"I'm just disappointed that none of the reforms to the constitution passed," she said. "Clearly there were some changes that were needed and a lot of people put in a lot of hard work. But on the positive side we're extremely pleased with the participation."
Adelman attributed the results of the vote to confusion surrounding the issue as she hinted that the results are not fully representative of alumni desires.
"You really have to be careful when you mix things," she said of voting on petition amendments along with the constitution. "You have to keep it simple -- and not because Dartmouth alumni are dummies, because they're clearly not -- but six degrees of separation and you're going to take the sound byte."
John MacGovern '80, president of the Hanover Institute, which vocally opposed the constitution, disagreed. He pointed to alumni determination to figure out the issue as he praised the outcome of the vote.
"I'm delighted that rank-and-file Dartmouth alumni were able to see through the basically razzle-dazzle flim-flam in the stacked deck," he said. "[The College] did everything they could to stack the deck and it ran aground on the New Hampshire granite of stubborn facts and the good sense of Dartmouth alumni."
MacGovern also addressed what he sees as an inaccessible Alumni Council and Board of Trustees.
"These people are supposed to represent alumni," he said. "They clearly don't. Fourteen to three [on the Board of Trustees endorsing the constitution]? They don't. They don't represent alumni."
MacGovern added that should the Alumni Governance Task Force try to propose the constitution change again, it would not work.
"If they attempt to circle the wagon and try to get the message out again, if they are saying we just have to package it better, we'll just keep fighting it," he said. "Which they did last time, by the way -- I went to the meeting and they said we just got to make it look better, got to get a slicker package. If that's the case they're just going to keep losing."
He dismissed the idea that the Board and the Association will grow polarized as they recover from the debate over the constitution, which had grown heated at times.
"If the polarization is over the issue of democracy, then we're just going to keep fighting until its achieved," he said. "I think it's a great day."
Martha Hennessey '76, who worked on the Alumni Governance Task Force to craft the constitution, disagreed with MacGovern's characterization of Thursday's results.
"It's a sad day," she said. "I think it's a sad thing for Dartmouth."None of us expected the kind of attack that was brought against the constitution, especially because we had given everybody opportunities and even invitations to tell us how they felt about it," Hennessey continued. "[The opposition's] preferred method was to attack it once it was written and not to cooperate while it was being written. Their modus operandi is to be angry at the College and this is one of the ways they are doing that."
Although many alumni complained about the campaigning tactics of the pro-constitution Dartmouth Alumni for Common Sense, Hennessey said she does not think the organization's push-polling practices -- a tactic in which political operatives call voters asking for their opinions, but really aim to change their votes -- negatively affected the vote's outcome.
"If it weren't for the polling by DACS the turnout would be much smaller," she said. "I personally think that they did a good job and they had the College's best interests in mind. They probably lost some people but I think they gained more people than they lost."
Hennessey also criticized the way the national media seized the issue, saying national media outlets printed "misinformation" and "added to the noise" surrounding the issue.
"The opposition has the editor of The Wall Street Journal in their back pocket and how do you combat that?" she said. "It's inappropriate. It was unethical and it isn't the right media for that battle but anything else that would be put in would just be a reply to that. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation."
Hennessey did say that she doubts the Board and Association will remain polarized, even with such a divide in the vote. Chairman of the Board Bill Neukom '64 was unavailable for an interview at the time of publication, but released a statement.
"I will make every effort to help us put aside divisions in the joint pursuit of these larger goals we all share," he said.
The current system will remain as a result of the proposed constitution's failure to pass. The next alumni vote, unrelated to the constitution, will take place in April.
