Wednesday, June 11, 2008

'Unity' slate sweeps executive committee seats

From the horse's mouth:

HANOVER, NH - The Dartmouth College Office of Alumni Relations today announced that a record number of Dartmouth alumni voted to elect new leadership of the Association of Alumni (AoA) committed to ending a lawsuit against the College.

Every member of the "Unity" slate of candidates for the eleven-member executive committee was elected with approximately 60 percent of the votes cast. With 24,940 ballots cast, a record number of Dartmouth College's more than 60,000 alumni participated in the election, approximately 38 percent.

"Dartmouth alumni have expressed their support for ending the lawsuit against the College and pursuing a more collaborative and productive approach to governance," said David Spalding, Dartmouth's Vice President for Alumni Relations, who was reelected secretary-treasurer of the Association."The unprecedented participation in this year's AoA election reflects the great passion alumni have for Dartmouth and their strong commitment to doing what's best for its students."

A great example of democracy killing itself. Thanks alumni!

73 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ed Haldeman is always right.

Anonymous said...

The alumni body overwhelming voted that we'd rather defeat the devil we know in lieu of worrying about the devil that might appear in the future.

It wasn't a question of the lesser of the two evils so much a question of evil now versus the potential for evil later. Had the petition candidates done a better job of explaining their goals, position, sources of funding, etc., the election could have gone in a very different direction. Instead, they took umbridge to the Unity slate's implication that they were a shadowy cabal with outside funding, but only refuted this with rhetoric, not evidence.

Anonymous said...

Democracy didn't kill "itself," it killed a lawsuit.

The petition candidates could not have done a better job of explaining their goal of continuing the lawsuit in an attempt to block a board decision.

Alumni voted against this goal, whether because they know that the lawsuit had no chance of success (even the "best chance" of attaining an extremely unlikely result may be worthless); because they dislike the disloyalty inherent in suing the board; because they do not think the board's decision was a bad one on its own terms, regardless of the ability of alumni to do a single thing about it; or because they dislike the secrecy, involvement with outside groups, untrustworthiness, biliousness, or support for harmful legislation exhibited by some slate members.

Anonymous said...

A great example of democracy killing itself. Thanks alumni!

You're welcome.

If you're going to misuse terms like "democracy," you might want to take a government class or 2 before you graduate, or at least ask some of your Review colleagues. It means something more specific than "a bunch of people voting" and it's not synonymous with generic "good."

The only "democratic" aspect of this whole dispute is the right of alumni to elect their own leaders--i.e. the AoA leaders. The old leaders weren't doing what the alumni wanted, so in the next election the alumni voted the bums out. It sounds to me like how democracy is actually supposed to work.

DartBored said...

Ouch! The result proves that the alumni shouldn't be voting for anything related to Dartmouth.

Anonymous said...

@DartBored: You are right.

If alumni were understanding of the issues behind the lawsuit, they would have voted otherwise. Such intelligence would have been consistent with not diminishing the role of alumni in Dartmouth governance.

The vote as it was proves the trustees correct in their belief that alumni are not discerning enough to be given such powers.

OUCH.

The implication is that Dartmouth, with a belief that best practices are found elsewhere, will relegate itself to a permanent position of being a second-rate follower in fact while those in power praise her glories.

So where else do we in the minority go with our time and money?

Anonymous said...

It's true.

The alumni voted for fear this time, where in the past they voted (vetoed) in anger.

The petition candidates let their victories in pushing (angry) propaganda at alumni go to their heads.

When the Dartmouth College establishment chose to use its legal tricks and disenfranchisement and media propaganda and public relations to paint the Dartmouth Review-set at the "other" and something to fear: the insiders won.

Alumni feared losing what they had (#10) more than they were angry at taking away their rights to (50%) of Trustee voting power.

It's over.
Go home.

.

One fact giving solace is that as petition candidacies become less frequent, the dysfunctional toadies on the Alumni Council will no longer have as many seats to play with, and that the 2/3 Charter Trustees on the board may prove to be unpredictable (and unaccountable) in 20 years, 30 years, or 40 years.

Anonymous said...

"So where else do we in the minority go with our time and money?"

1. Become a "toady" on the Alumni Council. The AC is supposed to be encouraging open elections.
2. Contact the Alumni Liaison Committee - ALC@alum.dartmouth.org. It is going to be gathering alumni opinion and communicating with the Board.
3. Contact Trustees directly. Since there will be more of them, they'll be able to handle more mail.
4. Keep writing letters in the D.

100 discerning alumni with an understanding of the issues can do more than 15,000 clapping seals.

Anonymous said...

Ed "teflon" Haldeman, the great maestro!

MOOSE123 said...

Let's be frank. The vote was as honest as could be had. It pitted about 10,000 (and that's all there are)hard-core and zealous anti-establishment alumni/ae against about 56,000 until-now passive ones. In their eagerness to control, the zealous group over-reached themselves and aroused 15,000 of the heretofore passive ones. My only hope is that the zealous group are as contrite in defeat as they were exuberant in victory. Let's get together, everyone, and let Dartmouth be, with no more contentious bickering, what it has earned - a status as the best liberal arts college in the country! No more expensive and divisive activity - please!

Anonymous said...

@ 7:38: Of course whoever disagrees with you does not understand the issues! Reasonably intelligent people could not read the flood of propaganda from both sides and become understanding of the issues? Give me a break.


"The vote as it was proves the trustees correct in their belief that alumni are not discerning enough to be given such powers."

The trustees do not have that belief, and the vote proves alumni are discerning enough to see through the lies and know that the lawsuit always exceeded the mandate of the small band of radicals who perpetrated it on behalf of groups outside the Association.

"So where else do we in the minority go with our time and money?"

Anywhere you want, as long as you stop bothering us with your lawsuits.

@ 7:53: What are the "legal tricks" by the establishment? The lawsuit was not brought by the establishment, it was brought by the radicals and gadflies.

The insiders lost this election. The Hanover Institute set, by misleading alumni, attained a brief moment of power and then proceeded to abuse the hell out of it. They knew the voters never voted for a lawsuit and they would never be trusted to run the association again, so they had to make the most of it.

Anonymous said...

The insiders used legal tricks to change the rules.

The lawsuit was to undo the legal tricks, stupid.

Anonymous said...

amen @ 8:37

Anonymous said...

My, my.

If one failed to vote for the AoA petition candidates, one is:

a) lacking discernment
b) stupid
c) lacking in understanding and intelligence
d) interested only in Dartmouth being a second-rate institution
e) a clapping seal
f) all of the above

It's never going to end, is it? Permanent polarization. Ever-war.

Hypothesis: Dartmouth conservatives actually enjoy the culture war. It is their preferred state of and reason for being. Resolution of conflict is not the goal; conflict is means and end, at once.

D-Green 1974 said...

Oh, the foolish arrogance of those people denigrating the outcome of this election! Calling the outcome of a clearly democratic process "undemocratic," and whining that the highly intelligent alumni of Dartmouth were ill-informed or somehow had the wool pulled over our collective eyes.

Clearly, these sad beings have no respect for the collective voice of the alumni body, unless it results in an outcome favorable to their agenda.

What really caught my attention in the contest was the qualifications of the candidates. Most of the petition (parity slate) candidates had not had much involvement with Dartmouth since graduation, while all of the unity slate candidates had long and active involvement. So, who should I trust to "love" Dartmouth - those who have devoted time and resouces to helping the college, or those who are, quite frankly, trying to assume positions of influence and power without ever having paid their dues?

Of course, when the obnoxious, racist and hate-spewing Dartmouth Review backs a slate, then knowing how to vote becomes pretty obvious. Just vote the other way and you won't go far wrong! LOL!

I love the Dartmouth College I graduated from in 1974, but that college is 34 years in the past. I also love today's Dartmouth where my nephew earned his PhD.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it time that the Dartmouth Review quietltly folded its tent and went away? Your post-election grumbling is just one example of your immature approach to Dartmouth, and to life beyond. Get real, an devote yourselves to something worthwhile.

Andy said...

@2:18 PM

you could just as easily assert based on comments here and elsewhere that if you DID vote for the petition slate you must be:

1)a member of a vast, right-wing conspiracy
2)somehow affiliated with the Review
3)yearning to implement a malicious agenda of a bygone era and to "turn back the clock" on progressive reform
4) "arrogant..obnoxious, racist, and hate-spewing"
5) oh, and of course, the favorite term of the campaign, "divisive"

One could go on. To me, it seems painfully obvious that Dartmouth Undying and those of a similar ilk won by executing a very successful spin campaign. They were able to galvanize a usually dormant portion of the alumni base by falsely categorizing the petition candidates and anybody who disagreed with the Board-packing scheme as a conservative, or more accurately, anti-progressive. I find it ironic that terms such as "politicking", "having an agenda" and "playing divisive politics" have been bandied about so much by the Undying crowd, when they themselves were blatantly doing so themselves. Remember, it's only a malicious "power-grab" if you're not in complete agreement with the Administration.

It is also pretty silly to view this election as a vindication for alumni democracy as many seem to assert. Consider that the lawsuit came about after 4 previous trustee elections and a referendum on altering the constitution, all with outcomes "unfavorable" to the establishment. Democracy didn't seem to work so well back then for them. But now, as alumni vote to ensure that their future votes will not matter, democracy seems to be working pretty well!

Anonymous said...

Are there really people out there who think "the insiders used legal tricks to change the rules," and that it was necessary to resort to a lawsuit "to undo the legal tricks"?

This seems like doublespeak.

What "legal tricks" did the board use when its members, all of them insiders, voted in the majority in favor of a resolution making the new trustees Charter Trustees? Were the petition trustees temporarily blinded or something?

What "rules" did the board change with that resolution? How did that change depend on "legal tricks," and what were they?

By "legal tricks," do you mean Roberts Rules of Order, or some other well-established idea you do not understand?

Anonymous said...

Andy, both sides engaged in "spin." Dartmouth Undying's campaign was far less misleading, less voluminous (fewer mailings), and less far-reaching (national pundits, etc.).

It is possible that many alumni saw through the spin on both sides and that more of them simply preferred the unity slate. This explanation seems more likely than the unfounded and far-fetched assumption that fourteen thousand Ivy Leaguers were bamboozled by "spin." If alums were so easy to fool, wouldn't they have fallen for the bigger lie anyway, and voted for the Parity slate?

It's important to distinguish the Association race from the Trustee contests. Most of Undying's critique of "politicking" and "divisiveness" referred to the Trustee contests where it is clearly inappropriate and yet is perpetrated by the Petition Trustees and supported by the Parity slate.

just an opinion said...

Andy, you miss the point:

the petition candidates were just as guilty of creating paranoia of Dartmouth is being run into the ground, Dartmouth's administration has a vast conspiracy to create a full graduate school at Dartmouth, and the current administration does not believe in god and country, et al. The parity candidates, honestly, made a bad impression on me with their "haughtiness" that they know what's best for Dartmouth - and most of them have not been involved with Dartmouth since graduation!

The biggest issue with the last set of trustee elections and this election was the "politicking" that went on and the vast sums spent on campaigns by both sides. Hopefully this referendum will end this politicking and return Dartmouth to sane leadership and guidance and some propreity to the trustee elections. .

Iron(y) Man said...

@5:03

For all the many in attendence at the Association's annual meeting who applauded the president's remark that the meeting would be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order, a check of prior committee minutes will reveal that he and the secretary both opposed this resolution, made by those damnable insurgents. The insurgents also initiated and lead the effort behind the passed constitutional amendment. One hopes the policy for timely public minutes and officer voting records, also implemented by the latter group, will be continued.

@5:11

So "politicking" by the bad guys is bad, but "campaigning" by the good guys is good? Was Mathias' comment congratulating the parity slate for a well-run campaign an honest one, or merely polite but insincere diplomacy?

Anonymous said...

Now that the politicking is over, we can get back to the symbolic gestures that make Dartmouth's alumni legendary.

There was very little talk about real issues - how the College is being run and where it is headed.

The next event will be the naming of the next President.

Anonymous said...

With a material reduction in Board representation, that's all it will be... nothing but talk.

And when they fix the election rules against petitioners, and petitioners stop running (the real agenda), even the talk will stop.

5:11 said...

There was a lot of talk in the election about the real issue, the only real issue, which was the lawsuit. Dartmouth's "direction" and all that have never been the province of the alumni association.

@ 5:20: it doesn't matter whether you call it politicking or campaigning, it is downright wrong if it happens in an alumni trustee nomination and acceptable at best if it happens in an association election. Elected officers of an unincorporated association are different from appointed trustees of a nonprofit corporation.

Who cares whether Mathias's comment was merely diplomatic? Would you rather he had been undiplomatic and said nothing?

Anonymous said...

He should either be sincere or say nothing. We have had enough of false words.

Anonymous said...

Exactly why politicians have a bad reputation.... making "diplomatic" statements when diplomacy is expected, when all know their words are BS.

Anonymous said...

The campaign(s) *were* well-run, and hard-fought.

I read Mathias' missive as honest, sincere, and diplomatic, all at once.

Some of you seem to prefer abandonment of all decorum: you presume Mathias et al. hate the petitioners, ergo you impute all his comments with dishonesty and insincerity.

You seem to want to believe the worst of people. Now why is that? (And don't recite a litany of real or perceived ills or injustices, dating back to time immemorial. Look at yourself critically, and answer the question.)

Hypothesis: As I said before -- resolution is not your goal. Conflict is your means and your end.

Anonymous said...

Y'all just don't get it.

This result has at a minimum pissed off permanently at least 10,000 Dartmouth alumni.

Including at least a couple of massively donating billionaires.

They will always believe (correctly in my opinion) that they were right and would have prevailed in the lawsuit.

The only real hope for reconciliation would have been a verdict (either way) in the lawsuit.

Unless of course the new AoA officers can somehow now talk the Board into maintaining parity on the board - that would be a result few could have legitimate complaint with.

At least part of the Unity pitch was that they included those who want parity maintained, but that find suing the college not the way to go about it. We'll see.
.

Anonymous said...

@11:35

By no means. My original question was if Mathias was sincere or not, without any assumption of the latter. With hope, this means he and his commmittee will not now takes steps to restrict election campaigning.

@12:32

Time will tell... let's see what 15% of Dartmouth alumni (9-10,000 individuals) do with their money and how that impacts the annual giving percentage.

Anonymous said...

@ 12:32: Doesn't every election piss off a minority of the voters? What should the Unity slate have done differently -- rolled over and given up?

Anonymous said...

@ 12:32: I doubt a bitter and expensive trial and then a drawn-out appeal would provide more "reconciliation" than dropping the lawsuit according to the will of the majority.

I also doubt the people behind the suit, at least the ones with legal training, ever thought they were going to prevail. They were just trying to force something out of the board, and that's why they advanced three alternative causes of action. They did not necessarily think any of them would work. Do you have some non-public information that makes you think they would have prevailed?

Anonymous said...

@ 12:35. If, as I suspect, the past financial support of the 10,000 "parity" voters is similar to that of the "parity" candidates, the impact on financial support to Dartmouth will be negligible. After all, it's impossible to reduce a "nothing " gift.

Anonymous said...

There were several people who supported the lawsuit who did have legal training and who believed the case was strong. As "evidence", consider the decision to have the case decided by Judge Vaughn, in lieu of a jury trial, after seeing his level of understanding reflected in his analysis during the rejection of the motion to dismiss.

Among the people favoring parity and angered by the Board's unilateral action was the Byrne family, hardly a non-consequential donor. But alumni participation has value beyond money, and losing 10,000 out of 65,000 is a big loss.

Anonymous said...

Don't know what the unity slate per se could have done differently, but its members who were also a part of Dartmouth Undying could have eliminated the falsehoods, inaccuracies, and innuendo in their campaign statements.

Old Loyal Alum said...

A classmate who strongly supported continuing the lawsuit directed me to this blog. After taking a look, I thought I’d throw in my two cents. I voted for the Undying slate. Here is my story:

I graduated from Dartmouth in the late sixties. Like most everyone else in those days, I was a Harvard reject. I had some troubling adjusting, but wound up loving the place. Actually, I love it more in retrospect. The social life was lacking. I got drunk my share of times, but I can’t say there was much else to do. Not having women around was a major drawback. I was very focused on academics as a government major. Some professors were great. I loved the small classes. But everything wasn’t perfect. I would have liked more advising – freshman, major, and career. In any event, I went on to law school. I finally made it to Harvard. I’ve had a good career. I’ve been moderately involved in alumni activities. I’ve been a member of my local club and done some interviewing. I’ve gone to most reunions. I’ve been a regular contributor to the alumni fund. I stepped up my donations as my kids got closer to applying. Two got rejected and the third didn’t apply. She went to MIT. But I’m still loyal to Dartmouth.

I think I’m like most Dartmouth alums. I spent four formative years in Hanover, but I don’t want to be involved in running the College. I don’t follow Dartmouth news that closely to have many opinions about how the place is being run and I don’t want to get involved. From what I have learned over the past few days, I believe the so-called pro-parity people may have some reasonable concerns. I have no doubt they have noble intentions. But, frankly, I don’t want to spend the time to learn more.

I belong to a country club. I don’t get involved in its politics. We have club officers. They appoint a nominating committee who pick the next slate of officers. People who want to get involved do so. I just want to play golf. On the other side, I am on the board of a local museum. I’ve made some financial contributions over the years and my wife has served on several committees. They asked me to join the board and I did. I enjoy it, but I wouldn’t be willing to run for the job. I look at a college as a cross between a country club and a museum, so I can empathize with the trustees.

While I admire all of you who seem to care so much about the College’s future, I just want to leave it in the hands of the people in charge. I have many memories of the place – mostly good. And I just want to leave it at that.

Dartmouth '10 said...

Old Loyal Alum - It was interesting hearing your perspective, but frankly I had hoped Dartmouth alums (at least many of them) were different...that they actually did care about the running of the college. This election is a grave disappointment.

Anonymous said...

Dear '10:

Not all of us alums regarded Dartmouth as an educational museum to be run by the country club set. We do not want to run the College, but feel an obligation to you current and future students to care about how it is run, and hold those who do run it accountable.

It is a shame that the College was able to exploit the political machine that is its closely managed arm of class/club loyalists to get out voters like "Loyal Alum", who acknowledges he is unwilling to take time to learn more about the College beyond the spin he receives at club and reunion activities.

Enjoy your sophomore summer, and take advantage of the next two years. Despite the attempts of the Board-packers, Dartmouth's future is in the hands of yourself and other soon-to-be young alumni.

A Different Old Alum

Anonymous said...

Old Alum is the perfect stereotype of the "I pay my financial dues, but expect others to do all the work so I can just play golf" types.

"I did join the museum board when asked to as an honor for giving money, and so I will give more. I never have cared enough about the museum to really work at getting into office, but please call me loyal."

Honest; pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I meant "Old Loyal Alum", not "Different Old Alum".

Anonymous said...

The Dartmouth Review is known, probably with good reason, as a hotbed of Dartmouth Conservatism. Therefore, most of your bloggers are probably of the same ilk. Out of curiosity I've looked at the 39 blogs to date to detect a trend.To my surprise, 24 of the 39 are supportive of the elections results. The actual vote was 61% for the unity slate. The blogs are 61% (24/39)for acceptance of the vote. Ergo, it could be concluded that 61% of the Review's supporters are at last showing some common sense. Let's hope....

Anonymous said...

Or one person, not a Review supporter, blogs a lot under differing identities.

Besides, the recent election was not a "liberal vs conservative" debate, no matter how much you feel conservatives are "ilk".

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 2:42. Of course you may be right on the
"repeat blogger" point. You should also agree that it's probably true for both camps. Enough said...

Anonymous said...

Old Alum, if you care about the running of the college, then why would you want an outside charity to file suit against it using the name of the AA?

@ 9:33: Judge Vaughan did not issue a “decision” in the case, especially a “decision” “in lieu of a jury trial.” He denied a motion to dismiss. Almost every meritless loser lawsuit in this country is one that survived a motion to dismiss. Those parts of his “analysis” that did not deal with the sufficiency of the petition had no affect on the lawsuit.

Can you name any of the people with legal training who believed the case was strong? Not just people who supported it but who sincerely believed it had more than a 5% chance of success. Todd Zywicki was not among them, and you can’t count the hired guns.

Anonymous said...

For starters, Todd Zywicki (who did believe the case was winnable), Stephen Smith, and Bert Boles, all attorneys. Boles was a member of the EC who would not voted for it if he thought it had no chance.

Vaughn's "analysis" sure provides some insight into his thinking, that will have an affect on his final decision, if the suit is allowed to continue. That is why it will be withdrawn. The Packers do not want to take this risk.

Anonymous said...

When I was a first year (I'm an '06), I took a guilty pleasure in reading the Review (though my politics are certainly liberal compared to yours). You had the best writers on campus, you were perfectly snarky, and, most importantly, you managed always to outclass your opposition.

What happened to that class? Now, the Review reminds me of a troll on a message board-- provoking for the sake of provoking, without any underlying argument except the necessity of speech for its own sake.

This reaction to the election is really the bottom of the barrel. You didn't lose the election because of a conspiracy to turn Dartmouth into a B-list research institution. You lost it because a large majority of alums don't agree with pushing a lawsuit. Take a lesson from politicians. Grow up. Thank your opposition, re-explain your differences, make cogent arguments, and move on.

Anonymous said...

PARITY!

Anonymous said...

@8:49 PM:Exactly! As a WW2 vet I come from a different era, but your comments mirror mine. Let the Review return to what it was - a caustic but valued member of the Hanover scene - and stop this totally unjustified criticism of the Dartmouth of today. You girls and guys are grinding an axe that's impossible to sharpen. Please apologize (if you're capable of that), stop, and try to once again be of real value to the College we love and admire.

Anonymous said...

Todd Zywicki has never indicated that he believes the case is winnable. Read his response to Stith-Cabranes prior to the lawsuit. His conclusion is that there is no contract but that nothing should prevent the board from voluntarily giving alumni four more seats. Hardly a vote of confidence.

I asked for people who believe the case was strong. Smith and Boles supported it, but I doubt they honestly believed it had a strong chance of success.

The reason the suit will be withdrawn has nothing to do with its chance of success. That's just stupid. Nobody needs a reason to desire no longer to be a defendant in an expensive lawsuit, or to desire no longer to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit that is offensive, divisive, harmful to an institution you care about, and founded on malice.

Anonymous said...

at 9:23.

... in your opinion ...

You doubt the honesty of others in their beliefs and challenge for a proof of it. Should not the burden be on you to prove their dishonesty? If you can't, please stand down (that's polite diplomacy for "shut up").

Anonymous said...

"Should not the burden be on you to prove their dishonesty?"

No. They are the ones who once touted an improbable theory (or actually three improbable and mutually-exclusive theories, any one of which they would have "believed" if would have defeated the board). I'm not saying they are dishonest, I am saying they did not believe it had a good chance of succeeding. As supporters of the lawsuit, they had to take a contrary position in public.

That covers Smith and Boles and the hired guns from the plaintiffs' bar. Zywicki's longest public statement suggested the lawsuit would fail. Do you have any lawyers who were not interested in the outcome who reasonably believed the suit had a good chance of succeeding?

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone not interested in the outcome have taken any time to understand the lawsuit in enough detail to form an opinion?

Why do you ignore the opinions of those who had an interest, rather than judge if their opinions had some basis?

F'ing waste of time to continue this ridiculous discussion.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nysun.com/national/path-clear-for-self-perpetuating-majority/80021/

Anonymous said...

The article cited above is an awesomely succint and concise summary of all the Sue-their-pants-off crowd's propaganda and rhetoric. Again. Geez, got anything new?

Anonymous said...

Oops, ...succinct....

Anonymous said...

The article also says alumni elect 9 trustees. Don't think the Sun can count.

"Interest" doesn't mean "curiosity," it means personal stake or potential benefit. It's the opposite of "disinterested," not "uninterested." The lawyers in the Washington law firm "believed" the suit would succeed because they were paid to. It seems to frustrate you that you cannot find any disinterested person who knows what he's talking about thought the law suit was going anywhere.

Anonymous said...

The article states, "Not all of the alumni association officers elected last week agree with the board's plan, Ms. Bascomb said, but they all feel that the lawsuit is inappropriate."

These new people are entitled to their opinions, but can they take any action? I know they are going to drop the lawsuit. But, after that, isn't their role limited to running elections?

Anonymous said...

They will self-limit their role to running elections, even if their constitutional responsibilities are broader.

Viva le Council.

Anonymous said...

The council has a long way to go.

Anonymous said...

"These new people are entitled to their opinions, but can they take any action?"

Surely a Committee that could file a lawsuit is also authorized to un-file it?

"I know they are going to drop the lawsuit. But, after that, isn't their role limited to running elections?"

Have they said they are going to do any more than run elections? The quote from the article said nothing at all about what they might do after stopping the lawsuit:

"Not all of the alumni association officers elected last week agree with the board's plan, Ms. Bascomb said, but they all feel that the lawsuit is inappropriate."

Anonymous said...

So the ones who disagree with the Board's plan are going to do nothing? Some representation! Who are these anyway?

DartBored said...

I assume that, after the new Exec Comm kills the lawsuit, they will do nothing further except run the next election. They will let the Alumni Council do the representing. So, we the alumni vote for people who don't represent us while the Alumni Council appoints the people who do. And, more bizarre, this is what the majority of voting alumni want.

Old Loyal Alum (above) has it right.

Anonymous said...

The pro-parity folks on the Unity slate also disagree with Ireland's vote not to join Lisbon, but they have about as much say over that as over the board's decision to expand.

"So, we the alumni vote for people who don't represent us while the Alumni Council appoints the people who do."

The AA does represent you, it just has a limited job -- which would be the case no matter which slate won, and which you knew before you voted.

dartbored said...

"The AA does represent you, it just has a limited job -- which would be the case no matter which slate won, and which you knew before you voted."

Correct. They represent me in the running of an election. That's nothing.

But what about the role of the alumni council? What does its representation entail? Pretty much nothing too. They are just keeping the myth alive. Why?

Anonymous said...

@5:09

The pro-parity people on the Unity slate?

Such persons were promised to exist, but no one ever was named or stepped forward. Is there any such one among the new eleven, or was this pure hype?

Your Rep said...

It was pure hype. Winning was the only thing that mattered. I'm sure alumni desire for parity will be mentioned in a footnote of the ALC's first report to the Trustees though. That should be good enough.

Anonymous said...

Whose on this ALC, who appointed them, and have they asked for alumni inputs?

Anonymous said...

The Unity slate said clearly that its members had different views of governance and didn't agree with everything the trustees did. It was enough that you couldn't assume that they were anti-parity, as the underhanded spinmeisters of the pro-lawsuit tried to paint them.

The comment that some Unity people were pro-parity was simply an answer to the petitioners' claim that the focus of the election was parity, not the lawsuit, and that the name for their slate ("pro-parity") was not misleading. Of course it wasn't...

It is funny that Dartlog now backtracks to say the election was a referendum on the lawsuit alone, not parity!

Anonymous said...

@ 8:04

But was it an honest answer? We have yet to learn who these pro-parity anti-lawsuit people on the winning slate are, if they exist at all.

Anonymous said...

@11:38: The ALC is the Alumni Liaison Committee. It is a committee of the Alumni Council. It replaces the College Relations Group.
Alumni Councilors will submit comments gathered from their constituents to this committee which will then submit an annual report to the Trustees.

Anonymous said...

"Comments gathered from their constituents"

What are these? In 30+ years I have never been asked by either a class or club "representative" for any opinion, on anything.

Anonymous said...

This is a subcommittee of the same Council that last year refused to tell the trustees that many alumni felt parity was important.

Anonymous said...

Ceremonial gestures.

Anonymous said...

A片,aio,av女優,av,av片,aio交友愛情館,ut聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,色情聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080聊天室,視訊聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,上班族聊天室,成人聊天室,中部人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,情色聊天室,情色視訊,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,視訊,免費視訊,美女交友,成人交友,聊天室交友,微風論壇,微風成人,sex,成人,情色,情色貼圖,色情,微風,聊天室尋夢園,交友,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊辣妹,一夜情

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購,A片,視訊聊天室

免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX

情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片

av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室

情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室