Mr. Zywicki would have us believe, because he is "not only a lawyer but a professor who has taught contract law for over a decade" that, unless we can compete with his credentials, we ought to sit down and shut up ("Honoring the 1891 Agreement," Aug. 3). He might have added that he is also an amateur propagandist and a selective quoter who is attempting to take advantage of the fact that most readers are not only not lawyers, they also do not have the 1891 Agreement available to them. What he writes is not exactly the "big lie," but it comes close. Furthermore, like many lawyers, Mr. Zywicki loves a good argument. For confirmation you only need go to his weblog, The Volokh Conspiracy (www.volokh.com).
I do have the 1891 Agreement in front of me and, because I am not burdened with a law degree, I simply can read it with the business experience of over five decades and with some common sense. What I read is that much of the 1891 Agreement has changed over the years, but I do not see in this agreement any wording that says the College has to elect an alumni trustee for every charter trustee. To be clear, I am very much in favor of the parity of trusteeships, and this is not an argument to change that relationship.
However, and I am a bore on this subject, I am concerned that the alumni trustee election process is in trouble because of a combination of low voter turnout, the voting system in place and the adversarial nature of elections introduced by a narrowly focused, special interest group, of which Mr. Zywicki is a part. Therefore, I think the Board of Trustees is well within its right to examine the governance issue, and this brings the 1891 Agreement into play.
Mr. Zywicki states in his opening paragraph that Board chairman Ed Haldeman questions the "validity of this longstanding Agreement." Not so. He simply asked that we read the words in the Agreement and not read into the agreement. He is not expressing "doubt"; he is requesting a factual examination.
The thrust of Mr. Zywicki's argument is that we ought to follow the 1891 Agreement. Okay, here is exactly what the Agreement says:
"1. Resolved; That the graduates of the College, the Thayer School and the Chandler School of at least five years standing, may nominate a suitable person for election to each of the give [sic, should be five] Trusteeships next becoming vacant on the Board of Trustees of the College (excepting those held by the Governor and President) and may so nominate for the election of his successors in such Trusteeship.
- And Resolved; That whenever any such vacancy shall occur in such Trusteeship or the succession thereto, the Trustees will take no action to fill the same until the expiration of three months after notice to the secretary of the alumni of the occurrence of such vacancy unless a nomination therefore shall be sooner presented by the alumni to said Trustees..."
These words are contained in the minutes of a meeting of the Association of Alumni of June 24, 1891, and the minutes of this meeting go on to say in the next paragraph:
"These resolves were adopted on the part of the Board with the clear understanding and assurance that three vacancies in the Board will be provided at once and two more before the next commencement in 1892. All to be filled as above provided and that the persons so nominated by the Alumni will be elected by the Board to such Trusteeships, and that the term of service of such Trustees shall be so arranged that ultimately there shall be an annual election of a Trustee at each commencement..."
Mr. Zywicki reads something into the agreement that was not stated or implied, but he conveniently ignores other parts of the resolution that are no longer in place. First, the Agreement says only graduates and only graduates of five years standing may vote for alumni trustees. Today, any Dartmouth alumnus may vote (I wish they did), graduate or not. Second, the resolution states that all alumni trustees must resign after one five year term. That limitation is no longer in effect.
Finally, in another section (Nine) of the Constitution not quoted here, a five-man Committee on Trustees is created to select the alumni trustee candidates. This was some twenty plus years before the creation of the Dartmouth Alumni Council, and the Council now nominates candidates for alumni trustees. Mr. Zwyicki is correct, therefore, that it was the intent of the Board and the Association to continue to elect alumni trustees, but he goes too far when he introduces the "parity" argument.
In his conclusion, Mr. Zywicki implores us to honor the 1891 Agreement that "promises the alumni body the right to elect half of the Board of Trustees." It does no such thing. However, if this argument serves to wake up the seventy to seventy-five percent of the alumni who take no interest in this process, then this and other debate will serve a useful purpose.
To quote a famous statesman, "Bring it on!"
