John Mathias '69's recent Opinion piece mentioned only once the key issue in the Association of Alumni election -- maintenance of alumni parity on the Board of Trustees -- but what he said was interesting: "Issues of alumni governance and 'parity' should be addressed in constructive dialogue with the trustees" ("Time For Alumni Unity," May 6).
There's a slight problem: Mathias also wrote that "I do not think that parity is a good idea at all" (according to a post attributed to him on the AoA blog, Nov. 16, 2007). So it's difficult to believe -- if the Mathias slate were to win the election -- how there would be any "constructive dialogue with the trustees," when both Mathias and the majority of the Board have dismissed Dartmouth's century-old practice of alumni parity as something that may now be ended. Also interesting is Mathias' claim that "the trustees welcome such dialogue." Has there been a battlefield conversion on the Board?
Last spring and summer, after 10 of the 11 members of the Association's executive committee presented a letter to the Board urging them not to abrogate the 1891 agreement, the committee's subsequent efforts to meet with the trustees were rebuffed. Yes, AoA President Bill Hutchinson '76 had dinner with Ed Haldeman '70 and Rick Silverman '81 of the Alumni Council on Aug. 20. And yes, about a week later, there was a telephone meeting with two trustees -- Haldeman and Christine Bucklin '84 -- but as for a serious, open-minded effort by the Board to meet with and listen to the executive committee majority -- it never happened.
To understand why, it helps to study the practical effects of the trustees ' proposed Board-packing plan. It's all about consolidating power.
For 117 years, parity has meant that half of the Board is elected in open, transparent elections where all alumni have the opportunity to vote. The other half of the Board, the charter trustees, is selected, in secret, by the five-person trustee Governance Committee.
What do Mathias and his slate want? Nothing less than an end to all effective oversight of the College by relegating alumni trustees to a permanent, one-third minority of the Board. Cloaking all this under the banner of "alumni unity" does not disguise the central, power-grabbing essence of the Board-packing scheme. Having glided right by the overwhelming issue in this election, alumni parity, without a single word about what might be wrong with Dartmouth's 117-year agreement with its alumni on Board parity, Mathias, like many of his supporters, changes the subject -- fast.
Again we are treated to the Dartmouth Undying version of the 'vast, right wing conspiracy.' He accuses our pro-parity slate of being willing to be influenced by people "with no accountability for the welfare of Dartmouth." Please. Demonizing your opponents is a tired tactic from the national political scene. Dartmouth alumni deserve better. Take another look at the biographies of the 11 women and men on our slate.
Can anyone possibly believe that these loyal alumni are now poised to become the willing tools of "anonymous, outside interests?" These diversionary charges are frequent and necessary because the Mathias slate finds it cannot defend the indefensible: an effort by a divided Board to tear up the unique agreement with alumni that helped make Dartmouth great.
Mathias, a trial lawyer, predicts that if our slate is elected, we will face litigation "possibly for years, as layers of trial and appellate courts issue ultimately unpredictable rulings." I'm not so sure. Having been soundly rebuffed in their effort to have the Association of Alumni's court action dismissed, the trustees -- were they to face another year with an Association executive committee dedicated to preserving alumni rights and a fair process for electing alumni trustees -- might find that a settlement that retains parity becomes a realistic, sensible choice.
This election is not about lawsuits, or negotiations that did or did not occur, or who is funding what group. It is about one simple question: Do we want Dartmouth's loyal alumni to continue to democratically elect half of the College's trustees? Or should the Board be controlled by moneyed insiders who will forevermore be insulated from the views of alumni?
As such, this is the most important election is Dartmouth's history. Please vote.
