Perhaps Churchill's best observation was that democracy was the very worst system of government imaginable -- except for all the others that had ever been tried. We seem to be entering a period when this will prove true even in the limited context of alumni involvement in Dartmouth's governance.
I feel the mud plastering my face as I regard current developments, because, as a founding member of Dartmouth Alumni for Open Governance, I pushed and shoved in all possible ways to end the control of a limited group of carefully selected, safe (loyal without question) alums over whatever influence alums might have on the governance of our College -- including, but not limited to, the selection of alumni trustees.
Now we have succeeded in opening up the system -- so much so that I was asked to join the Nominating Committee for the Association of Alumni and participated in a process I would commend to anybody. This, I believe, resulted in an excellent and broadly representative nominated slate, which includes both long-time alumni volunteers and several members of DAOG who had stood as petition candidates in previous AOA elections. Besides the four officer candidates, the slate also provides a choice of 12 "politically" diverse candidates for the seven positions on the Executive Committee. (Perhaps the strongest evidence that the nominated slate succeeded is that the petitioners included one of the nominated candidates on their slate, as well.) This is the way it should be -- give alumni a wide choice, put all sides on the ballot, include disparate viewpoints as we run our alumni organizations and choose our trustee candidates. Things really are going in the right direction.
Nevertheless, this breakthrough in openness, inclusivity and healing was met with immediate opposition (indeed, almost before the nominated candidates were announced) by a slate which truly is a slate. Ironically, this Hanover-Insitute-supported, "opposition" petition slate is composed, in part, by people who had been consulted for their input regarding the make-up of the nominated slate and/or contacted for official consideration by the Nominating Committee. Not only did they not mention that they intended to foil the efforts of the Nominating Committee, but the speed with which the slate and their "platform" was announced can only lead one to believe that they had planned well in advance to do just that.
And to what end? The issues they have raised consist mostly of matters already advanced by the nominated candidates, mingled with favorite saws of the HI, such as Robert's Rules of Order. Yes, this is democracy, but it seems to me to actually be an effort to impose a different brand of rigid, closed governance on alumni, masked in rhetoric no democracy-loving alumna/us could possibly reject. Despite their slogans, their monolithic candidacy stands in direct opposition to the effort to bring all corners of the alumni body to the table and to establish a productive partnership with the trustees and administration. And yet, this slate, or many of its members, are quite likely to win. They have spent a lot of money and provided the necessary sound bites, successfully playing the evolving system. What a mess.
We have it within our power to avoid this train wreck and to enable the recently opened alumni governance processes to begin to produce better results for us all, especially in strengthening a resumed partnership with the trustees and administration, as alumni regain their appropriate role in the future of the College. I strongly urge everyone who has not done so already to vote for the nominated candidates and keep us on the right track.
