Campaign efforts in the Board of Trustees election, which concludes today, have been reminiscent in rhetoric and tactics to the campaign strategies used in the alumni trustee elections in 2005 and 2007, despite recent changes to the election structure. The campaigns all featured substantial spending, web sites critical of opposing candidates and the participation of secondary organizations and current trustees.
Despite the Association of Alumni's efforts to reform campaign regulations by limiting spending in 2009, the current trustee campaign has been marked by an overall adversarial tone between the constituencies of petition candidate Joe Asch 79 and Alumni Council-nominated candidates John Replogle 88 and Morton Kondracke 60. Kondracke is running uncontested for one of the trustee seats, while Asch and Replogle are facing off for the second.
The amendment to the Association constitution, passed in May 2009, called for a one-person, one-vote system for trustee elections, ending the use of an approval voting process in which alumni could vote for an unlimited number of candidates. The amendment allowed the Council to nominate only one or two candidates for the Board, as opposed to the three required in the past.
The Board first called for these changes in its September 2007 governance report.
Historically, three Council-nominated candidates have campaigned against one petition candidate in alumni trustee elections. Because Replogle only faced one opponent as a result of the rule change, he avoided the approval voting process' tendency to split the vote for Council candidates, putting them at a disadvantage against petition candidates. This may improve his odds of winning once voting concludes.
Kondracke's role in the current election as an uncontested candidate was a result of the same campaign changes.This left Kondracke as an uncontested candidate awaiting confirmation from the Board. Kondracke aligned his campaign with Replogle's and publicly criticized Asch's candidacy. Because Kondracke's election to the seat would likely not be jeopardized by negative campaigning, he often challenged Asch when Replogle could not.
"I was scolded by the moderator [at a Minneapolis alumni event] for making negative comments about someone else, but I think the contrast had to be made because [the election] is a choice," Kondracke said in a previous interview with The Dartmouth.
Statements in mailings and e-mails sent by Replogle and Kondracke, as well as on the candidates' web sites, have been openly critical of Asch, labeling him both a "micromanager" and a "nonstop critic" of the College.
Asch, who has claimed he has not engaged in negative campaigning, has criticized Kondracke and Replogle for negative campaigning through postings on the Dartblog web site, to which he is a frequent contributor.
The election rule changes have also subtly altered the dynamic of trustee campaigns. Bearing surface similarities to past campaigns, the current election featured many of the same tactics, but employed with a narrower focus and a more extensive effect, due to the one-on-one matchup between Asch and Replogle.
Supporters of both Replogle and Asch created web sites featuring direct criticism of the opposing candidates, although this is not the first time web sites have become important factors in trustee campaigns.
JoeVsDartmouth.com which included links to criticism about Asch as well as Asch's own commentary that was critical of the College in several media outlets was created by Chris Allen '07, the chief technical officer for the shared campaign between Kondracke and Replogle. The site went up on Feb. 9 and was taken down on March 13.
Another web site fairdartmouth.com, which was created anonymously features a list of 23 "facts" that are either critical of Replogle or supportive of Asch. All three candidates have criticized the web site for presenting false information as true.
All three candidates have claimed to have had no prior knowledge of the web sites' creations before their existence.
The creation of the web sites is reminiscent of the College's creation of the Ask Dartmouth web site during the 2007 trustee election that saw petition candidate Stephen Smith '88, who won the election, oppose Council-nominated candidates Richard "Sandy" Alderson '69, Sherri Oberg '82 Tu'86 and John Wolf '70.
The web site featured questions and answers about issues related to the College, including the administration, Board of Trustees and freedom of speech practices. Smith and his supporters criticized the site as an attack on Smith because much of the information was related to claims made by the petition candidate in his campaigning.
Throughout his campaigning, Smith criticized the College for shifting toward a university-style approach to education and away from the college model, arguing Dartmouth imposed limitations on free speech and employed an excessive number of administrators. In February 2007, then-College President James Wright publicly stated that he intended to "correct the record" if trustee candidates inaccurately portrayed Dartmouth. In March of that year, the College created the Ask Dartmouth web site.
The site continues to operate, although it focuses its responses on more general questions that are often unrelated to political criticisms.
Since the 2007 trustee election, campaign spending has become an important factor in trustee campaigns.
Although the Association sought campaign finance reform that would limit the candidates' spending in trustee and Association elections in Fall 2009, a controlling consensus about the reform could not be reached by politically active alumni. The reform efforts came after candidate spending reached over $100,000 in previous elections and resulted in a shortening of the voting period in trustee and Association elections from six to four weeks, as well as the raising of the word limit for trustee candidate statements on the College web site.
No actual limitation was imposed on spending, however, and the reforms have not stopped candidate spending in the current election.
Replogle has paid "about $30,000" from donations to fund a mailing to College alumni, while Asch spent "about $28,000" out of his own pocket on each of two mailings to thousands of College alumni, according to the candidates' estimates.
The trend of high campaign spending in trustee elections dates back to the 2007 trustee election. In Fall 2006, the Council approved unrestricted candidate campaigning in trustee elections for the first time, which allowed for the shift in election spending.
Smith spent $75,000 throughout his campaign, he wrote in a July 2007 column in The Dartmouth.
Some alumni over the past several years have criticized the spending habits of campaigns, arguing that the money would be better used as donations to the College.
Prior to the 2006 shift in campaign guidelines, trustee candidates were only allowed to send a maximum of two e-mails to alumni during the six-week voting period.
In a move that critics called a violation of campaign policy, a group of alumni and former trustees formed an organization called "Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth" that endorsed the four Council-nominated candidates over the two petition candidates in the 2005 trustee election. In that race, then-petition candidates Peter Robinson '79 and Todd Zywicki '88 were ultimately elected, defeating Council-nominated candidates Sheila Cheston '80, Gregg Engles '79, Richard Lewis '84 and Curtis Welling '71. The organization was criticized for engaging in illicit third-party campaigning.
In the most recent trustee election, the nonprofit organization Dartmouth Undying engaged in similar campaigning efforts, endorsing Replogle and Kondracke in three mailings costing about $30,000 each, according to the organization's president, Martha Beattie '76.
Although Replogle has suggested ties between Asch and a similar nonprofit organization, the Hanover Institute, Asch has denied receiving any support from the organization. John MacGovern '80, the institute's founder, has expressed support for Asch independently, however.
The Hanover Institute is funding the ongoing alumni lawsuit against the College over parity between alumni-elected and Board-selected trustees, and has endorsed the "Dartmouth United" Association petition slate.
According to the 2008 tax filings for both nonprofit organizations, each received about $500,000 in donations that year, much of which was used to fund campaigning for positions on the Association's executive board.
The role of current trustees in the trustee elections has also been a persistent issue in recent elections. Despite Alderson's claims during the 2007 election that petition trustees were funding Smith's campaign efforts, petition trustee T.J. Rodgers '70 said in a March 2007 guest column in The Dartmouth that he did not financially back Smith, although he did sign Smith's petition to file as a trustee candidate.
In a mailing to College alumni early in the current voting period, Asch included an endorsement letter from Rodgers, Robinson and Smith, the three sitting trustees who were elected as petition candidates.
Asch also funded a portion of a letter written by Smith sent to thousands of College alumni last week in which Smith endorsed Asch and criticizing Replogle. The letter was criticized by College President Jim Yong Kim and Replogle for including "Dartmouth College Board of Trustees" in the letter's heading, which Replogle described as potentially misleading. In a recent interview with The Dartmouth, Kim said that he "wouldn't at all be surprised" if the role of current trustees in the trustee elections were discussed at the upcoming April Board meeting.
With two alumni lawsuits filed against the College regarding parity on the Board since the last trustee election one of which is still ongoing the subject has become an important issue for trustee candidates. Asch has publicly stated his support of parity, but said he is not in favor of the second lawsuit. Neither Replogle nor Kondracke has made a declarative statement on their opinion of parity, although each has rejected any legal action by alumni against the College. The decision to not make a declarative statement on the matter has received criticism from certain alumni.
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 alumni elected a new slate to the Association executive board. The second lawsuit was subsequently filed by a group of independent alumni in November 2008.
Both lawsuits contest that the Board's September 2007 decision to include eight additional Board-selected members violates an 1891 agreement that guarantees parity between Board-selected and alumni-elected trustees. Both lawsuits also argued that this agreement is legally binding.
In December 2007, Rodgers, Zywicki, Robinson and Smith filed an amicus brief in support of the Association lawsuit. All four trustees won on campaigns that featured criticism of the College similar to Asch's current campaign positions.
Staff writer Madeline Sims contributed reporting to this article.
