Given the volume of dialogue that has raged in the pages of this and other publications for months over the Board of Trustees' expansion plan, it is increasingly hard to believe that any lack of communication precipitated the current state of affairs. Central to the debate is the assertion by members of the petition slate in the Association of Alumni executive committee election that the lawsuit against the College was filed as a last resort after all other lines of communication between the two parties had failed -- a dubious claim even in the particularly nebulous back-and-forth about who contacted whom and when.
As today's news article ("AoA members differ on dealings with Board") makes clear, the executive committee made only one official effort at a meeting with the Board to discuss the proposed governance changes before they were announced publicly. Even though pro-lawsuit members of the committee and their supporters have claimed that the committee persistently and seriously pursued the option of mediation, no resolution was ever passed on the matter.
But problems with communication, and even the insinuations and fabrications surrounding them, are peripheral to the larger issue here: The Board is in no way beholden to the will of the Association of Alumni. It is the Board's duty to govern Dartmouth as it sees fit.
The repeated assertion that Dartmouth is run by a cadre of wealthy 'insiders' with little care for the College beyond the honor and distinction of receiving a seat on its Board is ludicrous. Dartmouth is -- and should be -- governed by alumni with longstanding management experience who have made significant contributions to the College. Trustees are chosen based on both their past benefaction and the assumption of continued support -- let's not forget that few metrics can practically gauge the extent of one's dedication to an institution as well as the amount of money one donates.
Furthermore, if those alumni who make the largest donations to the College are denied influence, Dartmouth will unquestionably suffer. Given the recent surge in elections of petition candidates to the Board, that could very well happen if it does not expand or revise its election rules. Ironic, then, that those in favor of the suit continue to play to financial fears -- namely, that alumni would no longer donate if denied equal representation on the Board -- in their calls for parity.
It's hard to believe that those alumni committed to giving back to the College do so because of the mathematical makeup of its Board. But if we're going to play the money game, shouldn't the people who've made the biggest investments in the College wield the most control? That's how corporate and institutional governnance works -- surely the petitioners can acknowledge that fact.
