Thursday, June 05, 2008

Vote Reminder

Online voting for the AoA's Executive Committee concludes today. For those who live close to Hanover, you can still vote in person at their annual meeting on the 10th.


Anonymous said...

Alumni: You can still vote at YOUR annual meeting...

unless the trustees start objecting to these rules too after they no longer get their VP in a controlling position. Then it will be THEIR meeting.

Anonymous said...

if only their VP were in a controlling position, then he would stop being voted down by the majority...

Anonymous said...

resources.. it's all about access, money, information, communication control, etc.

Anonymous said...

then the anti-board forces should be set. they've got the macgovern fundraising machine and its million dollar fund, plus a media arm [csdc], plus a national angry-donor movement sponge [cehe].

Anonymous said...

A pittance compared to DU, and the resources of DC.

Anonymous said...

How about assuming that the two sides cancel each other out, or perhaps - GASP! - that this Ivy Leauge-educated electorate actually makes considered decisions for itself? Now there's a radical notion.

If you beleive that, they you might say also that you believe in democracy.

Anonymous said...

umm.. believe...

A lip of the hand, not of the mind.

Anonymous said...

umm... slip

Anonymous said...

If hands had lips, I know something you could do to yourself.

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen much propagandizing by DC in its press releases and vox things. All of it (on that side) seems to be coming from DU.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:19... Then you are not on the college-maintained email lists for all the PR coming from alumni councilors, classes, clubs, etc.

Anonymous said...

"alumni councilors, classes, clubs, etc."

And here I thought they were all independent-minded alumni like me.

Anonymous said...

Nor are you one of the people (Classes of 2006 and 2007, for example, or people who have moved in the past couple of years) who get regular DU mailings, but don't get Parity mailings - because the College gave its mailing list to DU and not to the Parity slate.

The Parity Slate mailing list(from the last College directory) is a few years old.

Anonymous said...

Dartmouth College did not give any mailing lists of any kind to either side in this election. Each side had to find lists wherever they could. Both sides used published directories, whether authorized or not. Both sides had a huge number of snail mail returned and both sides had a large number of e-mails non-deliverable. Slice this any way you wish, there is no story there.

Anybody who say anything different either is not telling the truth or doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

End of story.

Anonymous said...

The mailings I got from Dartmouth Undying all used similar postal coding AADC etc as I get from the College/Alumni Affairs office and thus I wonder exactly how (on a disk; on a flash drive: on a (wink wink) document sent from Dartmouth's printer...

1. Will Dartmouth Undying allow an independent auditor to report on its mailing list and contributors?

2. Will Dartmouth Undying and the College please report on the salaries and names and contracts of all lawyers, consultants, public relations firms, political experts and others who have been coordinating with the A Affairs office and Dartmouth Undying?

Anonymous said...

Kinda like all the anti-Dartmouth mailings, even the ones sent by anti-Dartmouth trustees, look like they came from the Hanover Institute?

Why in the world would you expect DU or the college to report all those things? No one has suggested that any laws have been broken.

Anonymous said...

What "anti-Dartmouth" mailings and trustees?

Sam 0 said...

Let them have their "wink-wink". It's all they have. And it hasn't mattered. We need to keep to the high ground.

Anonymous said...

I hope the meeting doesn't run late into the evening. June 10th is also the day that Miley Cyrus and Mandy Jiroux are releasing a new dance battle video on youtube.

Kevin G. '98 said...

Don't forget Game 3.

The meeting will be over by 2. It is still just a ceremony of a vestigial organization - so they hope.

Kobe B '00 said...

Kevin: Strap up. We play tonight, not Tuesday.

Doc R. said...

Let' hope Game 3 is more clinical ceremony, like Quarter 3, and no vestige of Quarter 4.

Will our opponents push votes up the floor in the final period, or take shots from the outside?

Anonymous said...

The fans want a slam-dunk blowout, as Game 4 has been cancelled.

Anonymous said...

The lawsuit will end, mercifully.

This is a great victory for the Unity Slate and for Dartmouth. The average margin of victory was over 5,200 votes. Dartmouth Undying is glad to have supported this outstanding group of alumni. We look forward to working with the Unity Slate, the Trustees, and all Dartmouth organizations to restore civil discourse to the resolution Dartmouth's issues within the Dartmouth family.

For the results go to

* President - John H. Mathias Jr. '69
* First Vice President - Cheryl A. Bascomb '82
* Second Vice President - Douglas H. Keare '56, TU/TH '57
* Secretary/Treasurer - David P. Spalding '76

Executive Committee Members:

* Marian Zischke Baldauf '84
* Veree Hawkins Brown '93
* John S. Engelman '68
* Ronald G. Harris '71
* Kaitlin Jaxheimer '05
* Otho E. Kerr, III '79
* Ronald B. Schram '64

Katherine J. Murray said...

Deeply disappointed, but hardly surprised.

Dave Hemmer '96 said...

Dartmouth has received my last donation.

Amused Voter said...

Mr. Hemmer is angrily taking his ball home.... Is that all it took? One decisively lost vote? And Ms. Murray, why are you hardly surprised? After months of smug superiority and self-assured proclamations about the Petition Slate's moral and ethical high ground, doesn't the resounding 3-2 margin of defeat surprise you even a little bit?

A. J. Schlosser '07 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A. J. Schlosser '07 said...

JUNE 10, 2008

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."

The following alumni were elected. Their vote totals are in parentheses. (N) designates candidates nominated by the AoA Nominating Committee. (P) represents petition candidates.

Executive Committee Officers


John H. Mathias Jr. '69 (N) (14,919) - 22 percent margin of victory
J. Michael Murphy '61 (P) (9,705)

First Vice President:

Cheryl A. Bascomb '82 (N) (14,908)
Bert Boles '80 (P) (9,704)

Second Vice President:

Douglas H. Keare '56, '57Th, '57Tu (N) (14,909)
Paul Mirengoff '71 (P) (9,659)


David P. Spalding '76 (N) (14,502)
F. Marian Chambers '76 (P) (9,913)

Executive Committee Members

Marian Zischke Baldauf '84 (N) (14,504)
Veree Hawkins Brown '93 (N) (14,286)
John S. Engelman '68, Hanover (N) (14,414)
Ronald G. Harris '71 (N) (14,183)
Kaitlin Jaxheimer '05 (N) (14,221)
Otho E. Kerr, III '79 (N) (14,361)
Ronald B. Schram '64 (N) (14,560)

Other Executive Committee candidates and vote totals included:

Frank Gado '58 (P) (9,474)
Zach Hafer '99 (P) (9,486)
Alexander X. Mooney '93 (9,453)
Richard Roberts '83 (9,452)
Marjory Grant Ross '81 (9,397)
John Steel '54 (9,829)
Charles J. Urstadt '49, '51Tu (9,568)

Alumni voted to accept the proposed change to the association constitution that was included on the election ballot by a vote of 19,821 "yes" to 3,017 "no", an 86 percent margin of victory.The amendment required a two-thirds supermajority of voting alumni to pass.The amendment includes a provision for all-media voting in the association constitution.This provision formerly appears in variable association voting guidelines.

Approximately 16,397 ballots were cast online (66 percent), 8,543 ballots (34 percent) were voted by paper, including 65 cast in-person today. Balloting began April 28, 2008, and closed at midnight June 5 for receipt of online and mailed ballots.

The vote count was administered by TrueBallot Inc., (TBI), an independent election administration company that ensures the security, accuracy, and impartiality of association and other types of elections. TBI was contracted by the Association of Alumni and Dartmouth College to manage all balloting, ballot counting, personal email reminders, and in-person voting.

For more information about the 2008 Dartmouth Association of Alumni election please visit

The Dartmouth Association of Alumni's primary role is to run the annual meeting of the Association and related elections. The organization is distinct from the Alumni Council, which has a much broader role to act as principal communications vehicle between alumni and the College. The Council is made up of nearly 120 representatives of Dartmouth's alumni classes, clubs, and affiliated groups, as well as faculty and undergraduate student members. On a 6-3 vote, the prior leadership of the Association voted to bring a lawsuit in October 2007 against the College to block measures the Board of Trustees approved in September 2007 to strengthen the governance of the College.

Anonymous said...

So much for democracy.

So much for the believability of the parity slate too. Didn't they say they would win?

Anonymous said...

Who is "taking their ball home?" Without the proverbial ball, you cannot play the game, and that is exactly what the administration and its shockingly loyal gaggle of trustees have continually tried to achieve with respect to alumni participation. With this recent vote, with that "new constitution", it's "win today and we'll come back next year with some other trick to permanently wrest power away from the alumni... and lose and we'll have the means to ignore you forever." And that's how this has come to pass... five consecutive elections showed that the alumni supported real change in the leadership and priorities of the College. So in predictable response, those charged with temporary responsibility to oversee the college choose to entrench and insulate themselves. And all they needed to do was have their demagoguery work once.

Anti-unity? Please. It's like punching your mother in the face, and then blaming her for causing a rift in your family when she calls the cops on you. Ridiculous, juvenile, but there are about 15,000 certified Dartmouth alumni who seem to have a difficult time sorting out that "complex" situation.

And why *would* someone want to donate money to Dartmouth College when there are countless organizations that don't choose to tell their donor base to "sit there, shut up, and take it... oh, and while you're at it, write us a check?" Hardly a strong appeal, and a pretty reasonable explanation for why Dartmouth's alumni giving rate has dropped notably in recent decades.

And to those great masses who support the dilution of alumni-selected trustees... I hope you get what you want, now and in the future. Because as an alumni, we won't have to worry about these things anymore. Our betters will simply appoint more of our betters to guide Dartmouth College. And when their turn is up, they'll find some more of our betters. For *they* are the lack of change that *we* have been waiting for. And they'll be able to hire plenty of deans, and create all sorts of initiatives and it will all be really great. Or so you should hope. Because you just voted yourself out of a meaningful vote, for some reason. I hope it was worth it for at least some of us.

thomas jefferson said...

So much for democracy.

What, democracy is no longer good when the people vote against what you want? Not a very good democrat, are you?

George Washington said...

chose not to be serve as a King, because he knew that democracy was not defined by a single vote.

you little brat. my goodness. get some perspective. or does Dartmouth College not require American history anymore?

"George Washington could have become another Julius Caesar. After winning the Revolution against Britain, participating in the debates that defined a new and Republican nation in a new way that had never been done before, and serving two terms as President, he was still beloved by the people. The people still remembered their old King George, some more fondly than others. All other countries were ruled by kings, except for France in its bloody convulsions. The masses would have gladly offered George Washington a crown. What could he have done then? The USA would have been ruled by the King of the House of Washington, and would have expanded into the sparsely settled vastnesses that now make up the US. What of slavery? What of free speech? Would libel and slander law favor the plaintiff as much as it does in Britain? Would “insulting” the King or his office constitute treason as it did in Britain at the time? Would America have thrived and industrialized and become the freest and proudest and most powerful country in the world as it did with elected Presidents if it had been ruled by the House of Washington?"

Anonymous said...

Anon. 5:57, you sound really, really bitter. That's understandable. But your confusion about the basics of what's going on is not understandable.

Your "punching your mother in the face" analogy is nearly as bad as the rape-behind-the-supermarket analogy. You have to face the fact that the Board was completely within its rights to vote democratically to expand (one hopes no alum would seek to hobble the Board in its exercise of its charter rights) and that it is you who deserve the blame for creating a rift by filing a lawsuit.

Dartmouth is not telling its donor base to shut up. You must not have gotten the many emails from the Board asking for input on the expansion and now on the presidential search. You should check with the alumni office to see that your email address is still on file.

Do you really think alumni "support" the dilution of alumni trustees, or were they just fed up with the lawsuit and the disgusting way in which it was perpetrated in the name of alumni?

Do you really think that alumni are entitled to have their opinions override the vote of the Board? You seem to think you have some right at stake here, some "meaningful vote." I am not sure why. It is probably because you are among the minority of alumni who have a difficult time sorting this out. Oh well, I see the small size of that minority as a testament to the efficacy of a Dartmouth education.

Anonymous said...

Is George Washington responding to something?

Anonymous said...

People will give money to Dartmouth to get their kids in there.

Anonymous said...

Paul Mirengoff wrote at powerline "Most adults don't run for office, and I hadn't in my adult life until now. It was extremely helpful for me, as someone who writes about politics, to have done so."

When, precisely, does he think he ran for political office?

Anonymous said...

Now that this is over, the college can hopefully go back to focusing on more important things like rallies against hate.

Anonymous said...

He didn't say *political* office, but he was a candidate in an election in which 60,000 people were eligible to vote, and in which he and the other candidates spent several months arguing their positions to the voters. That looks a lot like political office to me.

Anonymous said...

Putting unsaid words into the mouths of opponents is a classic political trick, mastered in the last election by the DUers with great success.

Anonymous said...

"Most adults don't run for office, and I hadn't in my adult life until now. It was extremely helpful for me, as someone who writes about politics, to have done so [i.e. run for office]."

The man is talking about political office. The AA is a private club with officers elected by the membership only. Therefore the man is utterly clueless; I have no idea how he made it onto the ballot, and I am ashamed to see that several thousand alumni actually voted for him.

Anonymous said...

The "man" NEVER mentioned for running "political office." He said he writes about politics and found the process of running for an elected office interesting. The Anon 4:15 is utterly clueless; I am ashamed he (or she) is likely a fellow alum who actually voted.

Anonymous said...

Mirengoff said as someone who writes about politics," "it was extremely helpful for" him to have "run for office." You couldn't imply more strongly that you ran for "elected" office or "political" office without using one of those phrases. Mirengoff thought of this race as a city council election or something. He misunderstood it totally.

Anonymous said...

Mirengoff just ran for an office in which 70,000 people were eligible to vote. He ran with a slate of people with similar positions and was opposed by a slate of people with opposite positions. Both sides argued their positions and criticized their opponents (on a variety of levels) through mass mailings, e-mail, blogs and op-eds in a variety of newspapers. Both sides used sock-puppet expressions of "spontaneous" support, sought endorsements from key people, debated the election process itself, accused the other side of trickery, spent a lot of money, scrutinized the other candidates' backgrounds, and tried to communicate on the level of basic themes ("democracy," "expertise," "dissent," "diversity of views and backgrounds," "fairness") as well as on the level of actually articulating positions.

And at times, both sides sounded like gaseous, self-interested douchebags.

I think there are a lot of parallels between that experience and the experience of running for political office, and I don't doubt that Mr. Mirengoff found the experience helpful in his writing about politics.

I'm not sure I understand why people disagree with that.

Anonymous said...

Right, a dolphin uses its fins to swim in the sea, so it must be a fish.

Most adults don't run for office, and I hadn't in my adult life until now. It was extremely helpful for me, as someone who writes about politics, to have done so.

When people who write about politics think of running for office, they think about mounting an actual [Democratic-Republican] political campaign for actual [elected civic-governmental-representative] "office."

It would be quite a stretch to characterize the annual election of association officers as any of these things.

Anonymous said...

No stretch at all, especially compared to some election for a local town political office with only 4-5,000 residents, often with only one candidate on the ballot.

Why is any such distinction important, other than the intent of the original Anon to smear Mirengoff. The election is over; the parity slate lost. The need to keep disparaging its members is past. "Get over it".

Anonymous said...

Ask Mirengoff, he's the one who brought it up in his Powerline post.

Anonymous said...

"Get over it."

Anonymous said...




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