The Grafton County Superior Court dismissed the alumni lawsuit filed against the College's Board of Trustees in a judgment dated Jan. 8. In the judgment, Judge Timothy Vaughan granted the College's motion of summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that a prior lawsuit filed by the Association of Alumni barred a rehearing.
The lawsuit was the second legal challenge to the Board's decision to end parity, which was passed in September 2007. The first lawsuit, filed by the Association in October 2007, was withdrawn by the Association's executive committee in June 2008, and dismissed with prejudice. The withdrawal occurred after the alumni body elected a new executive board to the Association. The second lawsuit was subsequently filed by a group of independent alumni in November 2008. College counselors moved for a summary judgment on the second lawsuit this past December in a hearing, arguing that the case was already settled by the first legal proceeding, The Dartmouth previously reported.
Vaughan based his decision on the grounds of the legal doctrine of "res judicata," by which any legal claims cannot be filed in a case for which a judgment has already been reached or that entails the re-litigation of a matter between the same two parties. In his judgment, Vaughn said the court was limited in its ability to review the Association's internal affairs, refusing to "look behind the Association's reasons for entering into the stipulation" of dismissal with prejudice.
The lawsuit was withdrawn by the Association following the election of a new executive committee who had run on a platform opposing the lawsuit. This "unity" slate was elected by a 60 percent majority.
The plaintiffs in the second lawsuit B.V. Brooks '47, John Steel '54, Kenneth Clark, Jr. '67, Marisa DeAngelis Kane '83, John Plunkett '57, Douglas Raichle '66 and Robert Reed '49 alleged that the Board's decision to increase the number of Board-selected members is a violation of an 1891 Board resolution which they say legally requires parity between the number of Board-selected and alumni-elected trustees.
In the summary judgment, Vaughan also ruled that individual College alumni are not "third-party beneficiaries" to the agreement to maintain parity because the alumni body is represented by the Association. The plaintiffs admitted that the Association's executive committee has the ability to end the alleged agreement to maintain parity, Vaughan wrote.
"The petitioners' claim that they are intended third-party beneficiaries is belied by their admission that the members of the Association could vote to empower the executive committee to end the alleged parity agreement," Vaughan wrote.
Despite the judge's findings, some of the plaintiffs have said they take issue with specific grounds on which Vaughan made his decision.
"I would say the most obvious problem with [the decision] is that the judge apparently had some kind of misimpression that the plaintiffs had conceded he called it admitted that the rights of the alumni with respect to parity could be cut off by a vote of the body of alumni, and although that is an issue relevant to the case, there is no such concession in that regard," Eugene Van Loan, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said. Van Loan, a lawyer at Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C., added that he believes the documents filed by the plaintiffs argued the "opposite position."
Van Loan also said that Vaughan used an "inappropriate extension" of the Bricker doctrine in this case. According to the Bricker doctrine, courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of unincorporated associations except in cases involving injustice or legal action. Van Loan said that the Association's "secret" execution and withdrawal from the initial lawsuit with prejudice should not be considered under the Bricker doctrine.
Van Loan will file a "motion for reconsideration" of the decision in order to clarify some of the errors he believes the judge made in making the decision, he said. The motion to reconsider must be filed by Jan 25, ten days after the release of the court's decision, Van Loan said.
Bob Donin, the College's general counsel, told The Dartmouth the defense hopes "that [Judge Vaughan] would deny any request for reconsideration."
A third claim that the 1891 agreement constituted a binding promise to alumni, and that its reversal was barred by the doctrine of "promissory estoppel" was also barred by res judicata, Vaughan said in the judgment.
Only after the judge rules on the motion for reconsideration will the plaintiffs have to decide if they will seek an appeal in the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Van Loan said.
Donin said that he would discourage the plaintiffs from appealing the decision because such action "would only continue to drain resources" from the College at a time when it is "facing very serious financial challenges."
