TALK ABOUT ALUMNI OWNERSHIP!
IN 1881, PRESIDENT AMUEL BARTLETT,ZALETT FOUND himself in hugely publicized oms dogfight as the Aegs racously illustrated. New York alumni put him on trial, accusing him of stifling debate, among other things. The U.S. District Attorney for New York cross-examined him; the trustees eventually cleared him. "The alumni of Dartmouth have always been noted for their proprietary concern," concluded historian Ralph Nading Hill '39, "but it is doubtful that matters ever again reach such an impasse that the President actually stands trial for alleged malfeasance in office."
Presentations venturing i[phento wholly new ground ranged from a sc32heme whereby any alumni could nominate themselves to run for any seat on the board to a radically new plan of governance for the College that offered a promise of easing both the work demands on the trustees and the tensions in the fractionated alumni body.
In addition to the multiple-choice question, the floor discussion dealt with the balance between the number of Charter Trustees (those elected by the board itself) and Alumni Trustees and whether there should be any Charter Trustees at all; on board size; on whether the trustees or the council should be given the right to elect or not elect a sitting Alumni Trustee to a second term; on the legitimacy of the trustee "charge" that however much board members may disagree on an issue, all must support the outcome of the final vote and not voice their previous opposition; and on assorted other issues.
It would appear that the trustees were wise in adopting die new election system on a twoyear trial basis. Nobody, including the CBO itself, is certain the upcoming elections will work. The forum made it clear that there are uncertainties.
Underlying most of them is the split in the alumni body between what might be called the Unhappy and the Sanguine. It was well illustrated at one point by the juxtaposed remarks of two men, Bill Tell '56 and Gene Kohn '60, each speaking to the same avowed purpose: Tell (contending that the electoral procedures under discussion became significant only when questions of substance were at issue): "I think those who are saying the process should be opened up are really saying, 'I'm deeply troubled over the substance of the policy, I don't understand it, it hasn't been well communicated, what I do understand I find myself in disagreement with, and if this board is determined to continue it, I want an opportunity to somehow seek replacements for the board.'"
Kohn (proposing a new substructure to assist the trustees): "I am a proponent of opening up the government of the College, and it has nothing to do with the substance of where the board votes and how it proceeds at the moment. It has only to do with what greater glories can come out of opening up the system."
The question becomes how the split may influence the success of the new voting system. The forum paid virtually no attention to criteria for trusteeship that the CBO proposed and the trustees later adopted as guidance for the nominating committees. In fact, nothing came closer to the subject than the warning from some that only a real choice between candidates presumably as to issues—would be satisfactory. Hence an unease: if each of the nominees is selected on the basis of these criteria, as it seems they should be, will everybody be satisfied? If not, will it mean resort to petition for an issue-oriented candidate, conceivably ignoring the criteria?
An associated concern is that the new system is intended to put an end to costly campaigns that result when supporters of a petition candidate gready upped the ante and those backing the challenged nominee had to meet it.
The Association of Alumni, the entity charged with designing rules for campaigns, can seek to prevent this but has no control over elements outside tie Dartmouth community. Any rules that are enforceable against one candidate and not another are bound to create ill feeling.
On another aspect, this writer still has the jotted comment he intended but did not get to voice at the forum: "I'm concerned that I've heard little today on how we are going to choose more intelligently between candidates than the members of the nominating committee who know so much more about them than we do."
Let's turn from reluctant negative thoughts to the trustees' acceptance of two other CBO recommendations. The first is the creation of a representative College Committee on Trustees (its members including trustees or trustees emeriti and Alumni Council members or former members) to seek out individuals who would qualify as candidates for trusteeship.
The second is a provision that the chairs of the Charter Trustee and Alumni Trustee nominating committees will henceforth serve ex-officio on each other's committee.
An even more promising development is the Alumni Council's creation, and the board's endorsement, of a Trustee Relations Group empowered to carry alumni concerns to the trustees and the president and report responses back to the alumni on a formalized twice-a-year basis.
Oh, yes, who owns Dartmouth College? The consensus, to the extent that there was one, was that it's not the alumni after all. As Jerry Goldstein '54 pointed out, if the College were to liquidate tomorrow, there would be no declaring a dividend of the endowment to each of us. In a strictly legal sense the institution belongs to an entity called Trustees of Dartmouth College. Our question of ownership is, of course, not legal but philosophical. Ort Hicks's society-at-large got votes. Asher Lans '38 reminded us that long ago Dan Webster '01 said in his brief for the College to the U.S. Supreme Court: Dartmouth belongs to a compact among the past, the present, and the future—and that got votes.
Nobody said it and we seldom think about it, but it's clear enough that in the vast load of alumni services to the College: • in the tens of thousands of gifts comprising the Alumni Fund, indispensable to the institution's very existence from year to year; • the College's other fundraising efforts; • the bequests of those no longer with us; • the care, thought, and energy poured into
class and club activities,
• into the work of local and regional interviewing committees and those who seek to engage the interest of fine scholars and athletes;
• in the light of whatever the College may have done to and for each student in his or her uniquely personal "Dartmouth experience,"
• of the whole mystique of remembering and caring, of returning together to celebrate in the light of all these, it's clear that it's Dartmouth College which owns a piece of each of us.
"Our questionof ownershipis, of course,not legal butphilosophical."
"AsherLans 38reminded us thatlong ago DanWebster '01said in his brieffor the Collegeto the U.S.Supreme Court:Dartmouthbelongs to acompact amongthe past, thepresent; and thefuture andthat got votes."
