Alumni Council

We stand at a very interesting junction in alumni relations.

By all reasonable metrics, the College is thriving. Applications and selectivity are up. Student satisfaction is very high. Our endowment is growing. And we continue to attract a preeminent teaching faculty.

These are all good signs.

An even better sign, and one that's important when you seek to be the best at what you do, is that no one believes everything is perfect. The administration and trustees speak openly about the next set of opportunities and challenges. They also seek out, listen to and respond to alumni feedback.

So you'd think that, as a whole, alumni would be delighted with the state of our College, but I don't think anyone would claim that to be the case. The last three trustees nominated by alumni to the board were petition candidates who ran on explicit anti-administration platforms. The last two elections for the leadership of the Association of Alumni featured tough campaigns in which one side again took a strong anti-administration point of view.

It is puzzling. On one hand, the data sug- gests we're following the right path. On the oth- er, you have a significant number of alumni reacting strongly to the idea that we are not. 1 . 1.1 1 • 1 * A

Is this a liberal vs. conservative schism? An older vs. younger class problem? Acommunica- tions issue or perhaps the lingering result of a few very visible mistakes? Do we need a radical course correction?

I hold a different view. I believe that at the root of the problem are our very own alumni institutions. What I have observed is an Association of Alumni that does little more than run trustee elections and nominate a single slate of officers each election year. I also see an Alumni Council that meets twice a year, does a good job of reconnecting its members to the College, but does its most important work in small, closed committees. And I see an antiquated constitutional system that, among other weaknesses, divides governance into two separate bodies and still requires in-person voting for matters of substance.

As importantly, among alumni interested in having a voice, there is a pervasive sense of those who are "in" and those who are "out." If you are "out," the barriers to getting "in" seem daunting. The system hardly seems open, either to new ideas or to new blood, and it becomes very convenient to paint the picture that the "ins" are part of the institution.

These divisions will continue until we reform our institutions. One of the enduring strengths of Dartmouth is its loyal sons and daughters, a highly engaged alumni body that can best be enabled through a respected, effective and independent alumni organization.

We have an historic opportunity to update alumni governance in away that will distinguish Dartmouth for the next century. We need to unify the two separate bodies: the association and the council. We need to open up the election of our membership and our officers and ensure that we invite true dialogue with a broad range of perspectives. We must rethink the committee structures to align them with volunteer talents and College needs. And we need to reinvent how we communicate, both with the College and with our constituencies.

Updating our two separate constitutions was work begun four years ago by a joint council-association committee and returned to committee almost two years ago. Your Alumni Council will devote much of its May meeting to considering this new constitution. Pending approval by both the council and the association, the matter will then go to all alumni for their consideration. When that moment arrives, I urge you to review this important document and exercise your right to vote.

Let us work together to build an even stronger Dartmouth.

6068 Blunt Alumni Center,Hanover, NH, 03755; rrouthier@spencerstuart.com