Association of Alumni President Bill Hutchinson '76 criticized a letter sent to alumni by a majority of the Association's executive committee that heralds the success of the Association's lawsuit. Hutchinson denounced the letter for being sent without the authorization of the entire committee and for containing many "falsehoods." Hutchinson, through the College, sent an e-mail to alumni on April 21 to "clarify" the source of the letter and express his opposition to the lawsuit.
"[The majority] went ahead and did a communication on the Association letterhead, and it confused a great deal of people," Hutchinson said in an interview. "[Alumni] thought it was from the Association or the College."
Alumni received the letter from the six-member majority of the executive committee at the end of March. The document, titled "Legal Action to Maintain Parity on the Board of Trustees: A Report to Alumni," explained the events leading up to the Association's suit against the College. The suit followed the Board of Trustees' September decision to add eight seats to the Board, ending the parity between the number of alumni-elected and Board-selected trustees.
After the failure of its motion to dismiss the case, the College postponed indefinitely its decision to add the new trustees. The case is scheduled for trial in November, although it could be withdrawn by a vote of the new Association executive committee. Elections for the committee begin Monday and continue through June 5.
The letter states that the "Board-packing plan reflected the Administration's tendency to change the rules when the debate isn't going its way."
The letter also claims that the 1891 Board resolution at the heart of the case is a "genuine" agreement that requires the Board to maintain parity.
"We made the difficult decision to file the suit in search of a single end: to maintain parity on the Board of Trustees, a principle enshrined by over a century of practice," the letter reads. "To abandon it for the sake of politics would shortchange Dartmouth students, today and tomorrow."
Hutchinson, in his e-mail to alumni, criticized the majority for sending the letter on Association stationery without a vote by the entire committee.
"It was a communication from them and them alone," Hutchinson said. "It was a propaganda piece supporting their position."
Hutchinson admitted, though, that the letter would still have been sent if the matter had been brought to a vote.
He disagreed with the majority's assertion that the executive committee was not given the opportunity to meet with the Board prior to the trustees' September governance decision, citing a conference call between the committee and at least two trustees.
"The executive committee only once formally requested to meet with the Board before their September decision," Hutchinson said in an interview. "We had a call back within hours agreeing to meet the next business day by phone."
Frank Gado '58, a member of the committee who supports the suit, said the majority decided to send the letter to "set the record straight."
"Especially in the light of so much misinformation that was out there and the fact that the College had not reported in a balanced way the decision that was rendered by the Superior Court of Grafton," Gado said, referring to the rejection of the College's motion to dismiss. "We decided that as responsible members of the executive committee, we owed it to our constituency to tell them what we did and what consequent actions occurred."
Gado said Hutchinson's claim that the trustees answered the Association's request to meet with the Board, particularly within one hour, was "nonsense."
There is evidence that some kind of communication between the Association and the Board occurred, however, as the Board's governance report references a survey commissioned by the Association majority prior to the Board's September announcement. The Association informed the Board of the survey's results for the first time during the meeting, according to David Spalding '76, vice president for alumni relations at the College and a member of the executive committee who voted against the suit.
Gado, in an interview, argued that the majority's decision to send the letter without consulting the other members of the committee was not improper.
"So what?" he said. "We are the majority that voted for the lawsuit. A congressman should be able to use a Congress letterhead when he responds to constituents."
He said the majority indicated that the letter was not sent on behalf of the entire committee by signing their names at the end.
"Concerned alumni" provided financial support for the letter, Gado said. He would not comment on its total cost, although previous mailings of this nature have required upwards of $30,000.
