Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Neukom to Take Control of Giants

One year ago yesterday William Neukom '64, then Chairman of the Board of Trustees, stood before the Alumni Council and announced the beginnings of the process that would lead to the current Board-packing scheme. So where does Mr. Neukom find himself one year later, having played out his role in the current controversy? In charge of a major league baseball team.

Let that be a lesson, things turn out well for those who abuse fair play.


Anonymous said...

You might mean "abuse" fair play. To "disabuse" is to free from a misconception. I think you think that Neukom harms fair play (?) rather than that he frees us from the mistaken notion that fair play exists or should be followed.

Anonymous said...

If it had only been the "beginning of the process."

As reported by the Council regarding the meeting last May (2007):

"Fielding numerous questions about the election process in their panel discussion, trustees Jose Fernandez ’77, Al Mulley Jr., MD, ’70, and chair Bill Neukom ’64 referred to the work of a governance committee on the board of trustees that has for the last year been studying what sort of board best serves Dartmouth’s interests in the 21st century, and how that board should be elected. The trustees said they anticipated a report from the committee at their June meeting."

The June meeting was one week after this announcement, so the report certainly must have been complete or nearly so. One wonders how that never-revealed report made in June differs from what was published later in September. One guesses the public report had references to a lot of additional input, but that the material recommendations were already pretty much set in stone.

Was the summer process a part of a sincere desire for input, and if so, why had the work gone on in secret for the prior year, or was it merely a disingenuous attempt to pre-sell alumni?

Anonymous said...

What board committees did any work in 2007 that was *not* secret?

How would alumni curiosity transform a board decision into a quasi-public process?

How would the public tell the difference between a board that rejected some public comments from a board that never took public comments, if the resulting report were the same?

Why would the difference matter?

Anonymous said...

> the difference between a board that rejected some public comments *and* a board that never took public comments <

A.S. Erickson said...

Quite right. I should have read it over before posting, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Notice how Neukom was a top Democrat liberal activist, and a statewide candidate in Washington (who failed in the Reagan landslide).

Funny how Dartmouth's administration and board never told us that it was College policy putting top Democrats in positions of power.

Dartmouth reaps what it sows. It politicized the school for decades with Democrat partisanship and now calls any cry for moderation or balance extremism.

Anonymous said...

What "cry for moderation"? Are you referring to the elections of Todd Zywicki and Stephen Smith? They are the least moderate people on the board of any stripe. What you are really asking for is not "moderation" but the election of people who share your beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Funny how Dartmouth's administration and board never told us that it was College policy putting top Democrats in positions of power

? Did you quit some kind of medication this morning, did you come over to Dartlog from Powerline, or is there some further information that you're not providing us?

Anonymous said...

No, this guy who thinks "Democrat" is the adjectival form has been here before.

Anonymous said...

The article itself defined former Chairman of the board as a liberal democrat.

It is your definition that he is a moderate.

You have defined recent petitioners as extremists aka conservative Republicans. Note that Rodgers is a libertarian.

Even if they were, that still means the board includes:

14 Liberal extremists
1 Libertarian
3 Conservative moderates

And you propose to add 8 more Liberal Extremists.

Thank you very little.

Anonymous said...

I saw the title and thought that this was going to be a fascinating post.

I was very disappointed to learn that William Neukom is the head of some baseball team and has not, in fact, recently acquired an army of behemoths compelled to do his bidding.

nibs said...

yes, i think the charter says you are limited to 11 liberal extremists