ACTA's Must-Reads

« While the fur flies | Main | Outcomes and outcries »

A "Faux Response" from Dartmouth

Frank Gado, a 1958 graduate of Dartmouth College, kindly forwarded to ACTA his thoughts on the Dartmouth Association of Alumni's response to ACTA's recent letter:

The Alumni Association's Executive Committee Issues a Faux Response to ACTA

On June 1, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) reproved the Executive Committee for its suspension of the scheduled October 15, 2006 election and "call[ed] upon the Association to reconsider this deeply troubling decision." Merle Adelman, writing for the Executive Committee, answered by attacking ACTA, a non-partisan organization dedicated to free speech and democratic practices in higher education, for launching a "media relations campaign" and using the issue "as a background in a political power struggle."

Although Adelman found fault with ACTA for not waiting for the Executive Committee to respond before making its condemnation public, Adelman's letter provides no facts or arguments not previously available to ACTA. She insists that, even though her own Executive Committee set the next Annual Meeting for October 2006, according to its own Guidelines, it has the right, not only to push the date months forward into 2007 but also to reinterpret the constitution's requirement for an annual meeting by defining "annual" not as a calendar year but as an academic year--making the elapsed time between annual meetings in this case potentially as much as 22 months. (In fact, historically reckoned, this recomputation would leave the Association one "Annual Meeting" short.)

To justify this unprecedented act, Adelman contends:

1. "It makes no sense to elect new Association officers and find out two weeks later that the whole organizational structure has been voided."

Rebuttal: If this were a legitimate reason, no new members should have been appointed to the Alumni Council at the end of May, given that the Council is no less an operating part of the "whole organizational structure ."

More important, there is no plausibility to the argument. If--perish the thought--the AGTF constitution passes, the current Executive Committee will be no more expert in dealing with the transition than a new Executive Committee. Indeed, one of the contentions of the AGTF is that the Association and its Executive Committee have no business to conduct other than to run elections for its own officers and to call meetings. If such experience is so valuable, let the current members stand for reelection and have the voters decide.

The real reason the Executive Committee wants to remain in office, of course, is to control, once again, the process by which yet another effort will be made to change the constitution should this AGTF-proposed constitution fail to be ratified.

2. To give "members of the Association the opportunity to focus on one set of issues at a time, and allows for a smooth transition to a new governance structure if the new constitution is passed."

Rebuttal: If Dartmouth alumni are unable to focus on more than one set of issues at a time, the AGTF constitution should be divided into its component political parts and voted upon seriatim. As for "transition," the task is certainly within the ken of whoever might hold the office--and as transition is a one-time thing, no incumbent would have the advantage over a neo-elect. Indeed, the present leadership has bungled their responsibilities so flagrantly, the claim of competence is risible.

The fact remains that the Executive Committee has exercised complete control over the scheduling of the vote on the proposed constitution as well as of the Annual Meeting. To "postpone" elections to solve a supposed problem of its own making is disingenuous.

Adelman repeatedly claims that the Executive Committee "first and foremost honors" the constitution and implies that the unprecedented suspension of the constitutionally mandated election in some way will abet delivery of "all-media voting"--i.e., extension of the franchise beyond the borders of Hanover. This is cynical nonsense. In fact, it is and has been the Executive Committee, through Guidelines of its own making which have never been submitted to a single vote by the members of the Association of Alumni, that has blocked every effort to rescind its own prohibition of all-media voting. The constitution does not give the Executive Committee the power to issue Guidelines or to control the election of the Executive Committee, nor is there any By-Law so empowering it. If, as Adelman maintains, this Executive Committee has been "duly elected," that election has been restricted to the tiniest fraction of the Association membership by artificially construed rules designed to perpetuate control of the Association by few.

Adelman sneers that ACTA "appears[s] to be trying to interfere with the lawful operation of this Association." Rubbish. ACTA no more interferes than the ACLU interferes with our courts or Common Cause interferes with our Congress. Adelman declares that the Executive Committee's execution of alumni governance "serves Dartmouth and those who love her," but this is akin to the husband who controls his wife by keeping her under lock and key and then defends his actions by asserting his love for her.

Thanks, Mr. Gado.

Posted by cmitchell at June 23, 2006 09:33 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/176

Comments

Posted by: Goad at December 7, 2007 10:09 AM

Posted by: Goad at July 1, 2008 10:36 AM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)