We are disheartened by the election of Stephen Smith '88. Not only was he tapped to run by current petition trustees, but he also refused to disclose the sources of his funding and mailing lists during his campaign. Through his partisan origins and opaque campaign, Smith has undermined the democratic merits of the electoral process and perpetuated the notion that faceless kingmakers puppeteered his campaign all along.
A lack of transparency limits the alumni body's ability to make an informed decision. If Smith had disclosed the close-knit nature of his cadre, some alumni who voted for him may not have done so. In addition, although Smith's victory implies that a significant portion of alumni were not troubled by his disingenuous stance -- claiming independence while concealing the sources of his support -- they may have been troubled by his potential affiliation with an outspoken interest group. Petition candidates would increase their legitimacy by making their funding and mailing list sources public.
Most likely, the increase in transparency will not come from the petition candidates voluntarily; the rules must be codified in order for the system to change. The Alumni Council made a grave error by not implementing regulations when they began allowing campaigning. It is up to them to change the system by the next election. And the changes must require candidates to disclose the sources of both their funding and mailing lists.
The bottom line is that Stephen Smith won. He may very well turn out to be a stellar steward of the College, especially if he comes through on his promise not to stay beholden to those who initiated and to those who financed his campaign. But unless candidates are forced to disclose their sources of support, voters will never be able to make informed decisions.
Stephen Smith has made it clear that he cares more about winning than about transparency. His de facto political party's patriarchs, T.J. Rodgers '70, Peter Robinson '79 and Todd Zywicki '88, demonstrated the same zeal for victory when they refused to provide their input on the fall's doomed alumni constitution. Set against this backdrop, Smith's and his party's tactics become the most troubling aspect of his campaign. He represents a group of alumni who are not primarily interested in maintaining the democratic nature of the electoral process. But the Alumni Council can combat this. A good first step would be to enact campaign regulations that would eliminate uncertainty regarding candidates' stances and supporters in future elections.
