To the Editor:
In his recent column, David Glovsky '08 compares the nomination of Dartmouth alumni trustee candidates to the election of political representatives and calls for greater democracy and transparency in the election of trustees to the Board ("More Democracy in Trustee Elections," Jan. 4). He has overlooked several key issues.
Unlike elected public officials, the College's Board of Trustees plays a very different role in the oversight of the institution.
Of course the Board must be "a place of varying ideologies and opinions." In their deliberations, the 12 members of the Alumni Council Nominating and Trustee Search Committee carefully consider the experience or expertise a candidate would bring to the Board, whether the candidates has shown the ability to think independently at the highest levels, and whether the candidate would add a different or important perspective to the existing Board. They do not consider whether an alumnus supports the current administration, or if a nominee has a particular political agenda. We believe this would only serve to weaken the Board and Dartmouth.
In its recent editorial "Board Games" on November 27, 2006, the Wall Street Journal agreed, writing that "management and boards do not exist as antagonistic 'checks' on each other but are supposed to operate together to achieve business and financial success." The Journal's position is that well-functioning boards are critical to any institution's success, and that efforts to turn board rooms into political battlegrounds lead to "the balkanization of boards" and "director dysfunction--rival camps, leaks, obstruction ... distracting management and harming the company's public image."
Let's not turn Dartmouth into the next Hewlett-Packard.
