Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism.
The Dartmouth
July 19, 2025 | Latest Issue
The Dartmouth

Second alumni suit dismissed by court

The Grafton County Superior Court dismissed the alumni lawsuit filed against the College's Board of Trustees, granting the College's motion of summary judgment dated Jan. 8. Representatives of both sides said they were made aware of the decision on Tuesday.

Judge Timothy Vaughan held that a prior lawsuit filed by the Association of Alumni and dismissed with prejudice barred a rehearing.

The lawsuit was the second legal challenge to the Board's September 2007 decision to end parity between alumni-elected and Board-selected trustees. The first lawsuit, filed by the Association in October 2007, was withdrawn by the Association's executive committee in June 2008 and dismissed with prejudice after the alumni body elected a new executive board to the Association, The Dartmouth previously reported.

The second lawsuit arguing the same point 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," under which legal claims cannot be filed in a case for which a judgment has already been passed or that entails the re-litigation of a matter between the same two parties.

In his judgment, Vaughan 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 new executive committee elected to the Association in the spring of 2008 ran on a platform opposing the lawsuit. This "unity" slate was elected by a 60 percent majority of voting alumni, according to previous reports.

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 violated 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 1891 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, the plaintiffs' lawyer said he takes 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 mis-impression 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," said Eugene Van Loan, a lawyer at Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C. who represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Van Loan added that he believes the documents filed by the plaintiffs argued the "opposite position."

Vaughan also used an "inappropriate extension" of the Bricker doctrine in this case, according to Van Loan. 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" withdrawal of the initial lawsuit with prejudice should place the current case outside the bounds of the Bricker doctrine.

Van Loan said he will file a motion to reconsider the decision in order to clarify some of the errors he believes the judge made in making the decision. The motion to reconsider must be filed by Jan. 25, Van Loan said.

Bob Donin, the College's general counsel, told The Dartmouth that "the College is pleased" with the decision, and said the defense hopes "that [Vaughan] would deny any request for reconsideration."

A third claim made by the plaintiffs 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 his judgment.

Only after the judge rules on the motion for reconsideration will the plaintiffs have to decide whether to seek an appeal in the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Van Loan said.

Donin said he would discourage the plaintiffs from appealing the decision because such an action "would only continue to drain resources" from the College at a time when it is "facing very serious financial challenges."

Several people involved on the plaintiffs' side of the case told The Dartmouth on Wednesday that they are "disappointed" by Vaughan's decision to dismiss the case.

"The bottom line is that the good people Dartmouth alumni lost," said John MacGovern '80, the founder of the Hanover Institute, which Van Loan said has paid the plaintiff's legal bills. "The Board of Trustees' power grab, for the moment, continues. My hope is, particularly given these difficult economic and financial times for Dartmouth, that good sense will prevail that parity will be restored."

Frank Gado '58, a former member of the Association's executive committee who has supported both lawsuits, said he found it "ironic" that those who support Vaughan's most recent ruling are the "same ones who negated his previous finding that there was ample' evidence that a contract existed."

John Mathias '69, current Association president and leader of the movement to withdraw the initial lawsuit, said he is "gratified" that Vaughan dismissed the lawsuit.

"I have always believed that litigation is not an appropriate means for Dartmouth alumni to resolve their political differences," Mathias said. "I favor civility, collegiality and persuasion as the way forward not lawsuits."

Both Morton Kondracke '60 and John Replogle '88, the two Alumni Council-nominated candidates for alumni-elected seats on the Board in the upcoming trustee election, said they approved of the lawsuit's dismissal because its continuation was draining College resources.

Both Replogle and Joe Asch '79, who announced his intention to run against Replogle as a petition candidate for the Board on Wednesday, said they feel the summary judgment would not affect their upcoming campaigns.