Monday, April 28, 2008

Trustee Peter Robinson on the Election

From NRO's the Corner, after the jump:

Which brings us back to the voting that begins today.

Now that the current officers of the Association of Alumni are approaching the ends of their terms, two slates of candidates are seeking to succeed them.

One slate stands for parity. If elected, this slate would continue the lawsuit. At the same time, it would open negotiations with the Board, seeking to preserve the longstanding parity between elected and unelected trustees.

The other slate supports the Board-packing plan. If elected, it would withdraw the lawsuit, permitting the Board-packing plan to take immediate effect.

My own views on the Board-packing plan are already public—an alumni trustee, I voted against the plan, then joined several other alumni trustees in submitting an amicus brief supporting the Association’s lawsuit. Here, however, I simply want to urge Dartmouth alumni to consider the arguments for and against the plan for themselves—and then vote.

Full post, here.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are we supposed to be impressed that Trustee Robinson is using his connections with a well-known right-wing publication to present the Association's case for a lawsuit against his own Board?

This is just another example of his irresponsibility.

dartmouth '06 said...

What do you mean well known connections? He frequently posts about varied subjects at the Corner.

Anonymous said...

Uh.

I guess that would make them well-known, no?

But 'well-known' seems to describe not his connections, but the NRO itself.

Either way... wha...?

dartmouth '06 said...

I guess I was asking why is it irresponsible to make his case on a blog that he frequently contributes to?

Anonymous said...

Because he shouldn't be publicly endorsing a lawsuit against his own Board, the Board to which he owes fiduciary duty.s

dartmouth '06 said...

I guess he already did that in the amicus brief though, didn't he?

Anonymous said...

Peter Robinson owes a duty to the Charter, to the original donors establishing that charter, and to current donors who have made gifts that that Chartered corporation: he is a member of the board.

He owes no "duty" to any member of the board or any majority of members, except for those contracts, oaths, or courtesies that exist.

He owes a "duty" to any counterparty in any agreement. We allege there is an agreement between the Association of Alumni and the Board of Trustees and thus, yes, he owes a "duty" to us and we to him. We owe him our promise to run elections and to abstain from reinstating the embargo on alumni donations.

He owes a duty as a member of the Association itself, as an alumnus. There are 60,000 or so of us in the Association - an unincorporated association that under common law is anciently construed as a partnership, a trust, a contractual group... As a life member, he owes a duty as we all do to uphold our agreement with the board. He owes the Association a moral duty to vote and participate in alumni affairs I suppose.

As a taxpayer he is owed some regulation by Dartmouth, which has tremendous tax subsidies as an American non-profit corporation.

He wears many hats as do we all.

Anonymous said...

Yes, apparently your understanding of "duty" wears many hats, as well.

Anonymous said...

Dartlog Observer says:

Trustee Robinson owes a fiduciary duty to take actions as he believes in the best interests of the organization on whose Board he serves. And that is exactly what he is doing. Fiduciary duty does not imply any obligation to be a yes man.

wha? said...

Robinson has a duty of loyalty to the corporation that cannot be interpreted in some morally relativistic way to allow him to side with the plaintiff against his own board.

In addition, Robinson's decision to let someone sign his name to the amicus brief violated the Trustees' Oath and the Statement of Governance and Trustee Responsibilities.

Alumni owe Robinson no duties. That idea is absurd. And forget about the taxpayer argument.

Anonymous said...

@wha?

If you are right, and the Board is doing its job, it should ask for his resignation. They have not. So either you are wrong or they are not doing so.

wha? said...

@ anon.:

The Board has not asked Robinson or the other three amici to resign. That should not be too hard to figure out.