Thursday, April 24, 2008

Letter Circulating Campus

The new form letter from Lam et. al. being sent out to the campus, after the jump.

Dear Dartmouth Community,

Attached is a petition written by several Dartmouth students in protest of the Association of Alumni (AoA) lawsuit that has been filed against the College. On April 28, alumni will begin voting to elect the new leadership of the AoA. The outcome of this election will determine the fate of the lawsuit.

The petition does not take a stand on the brewing debate over parity between alumni and charter trustees on the Board of Trustees. It simply seeks to communicate to the alumni electorate that current undergraduates want to see an end to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit has been sapping the resources of the College. The price tag of Dartmouth's legal costs will reach $2 million. The bad press has tarnished Dartmouth's name. And the lawsuit further polarizes the community of alumni.

The voice of the students can make the decisive difference in the upcoming AoA election. Let your voice be heard.

I encourage you to read the attached petition and urge you to sign it.

If you would like to sign it, please fill out, and blitz either back the following to Bonnie Lam BY MIDNIGHT TONIGHT!

"I ___(your name)____ have read and agree with the petition: "From Dartmouth Students to Alumni."

Thank you.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

What does the "attached petition" say, or is it the prior letter?

Anonymous said...

According to the letter, the College is willing to spend $2 million in order to reduce the number of alumni-elected Board seats from 50% to 33%.

According to today's D, the College plans to spend $12.8 million reducing the number of beds in New Hamp from 120 to 100.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry. One of the new charter trustees will give enough to build another dorm.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry. One of the new charter trustees will give enough to build another dorm.

Anonymous said...

Really Old Alum says:

Let's burn down Dartmouth Hall, rebuild it with alumni money, and fill the upper floor with cots and bunk beds for students. The faculty can live on the second floor and teach on the first. Isn't this longing for the good ol' days what the fight is all about?

At least this seems to be how the pro-administrative PR portrays dissident opinion.

Anonymous said...

"At least this seems to be how the pro-administrative PR portrays dissident opinion."

This is the heart of the problem.

Ratster said...

"According to the letter, the College is willing to spend $2 million in order to reduce the number of alumni-elected Board seats from 50% to 33%."

No, the College is willing to spend $2 million and more on self-defense and the preservation of its autonomy. Do not forget that the board is the defendant in a law suit by outsiders asking a state court to directly interfere with the board's legitimate conduct of its own business.

Anonymous said...

"Do not forget that the board is the defendant in a law suit by outsiders asking a state court to directly interfere with the board's legitimate conduct of its own business"

I think you're missing the point. It's not "legitimate conduct of its own business.

Winning on three counts in court upheld this.

Anonymous said...

Catster says:

Ratster is right... The College is not spending $2 million. The figure is actually higher. Mailing a 55 page document, remember- the one concluding that more elections by alumni to chose trustee nominees was harmful, to all 70,000 alumni must have cost at least $100 thousand. Not to mention airfares for all the sales roadshows.

Anon above is also right. The Court case is about the conduct of the Board in its business dealings with another entity.

ratster said...

Anon. 11:33, the Board conducts its business legitimately. Its vote to amend its bylaws regarding nominations for the new seats was completely proper. If someone claims otherwise, it is his job to try to prove it if he can.

The trial has not happened yet. You are buying into a myth if you think the AoA has won "on three counts in court." The AoA's complaint has, for the most part, survived a motion to dismiss it.

Anonymous said...

Ratster's right, except that I don't think that the "for the most part" qualifier is necessary or accurate. Did the court strike any of the counts in the complaint?

Ratster said...

The court dismissed the plaintiff's judicial estoppel claim. It always was a sickly child.