“We Did What Was Best”

The chair of the board of trustees offers his take on new governance decisions, apathetic alums and those feisty editorials in The Wall Street Journal.

ON SEPTEMBER 8 THE BOARD OF trustees announced changes to its makeup and the process by which future trustees will be elected. The controversial decision, which expands the board by eight trustees but retains the right of petition candidates to run (see the full report at www.dartmouth.edu/~news/features/governance/report-083007.pdf) came after a months-long run-up that featured national headlines and a fair amount of mud-slinging by opponents. Days after the trustees met, DAM caught up with board chair Ed Haldeman'70 to talk about the decision.

How would you characterize the discussions trustees held about governance?

I've always found that the best policy is not to talk about discussions that go on with the board. That's the only way you can make sure your discussions will be open and direct. I can say we had strong and vigorous debate. When the meetings were over, the board members and their partners sat down for dinner and I did look around to see if there was separate seating based on a point of view, and I didn't see that. One could take that as a good sign.

Why did you eliminate approval voting?

The board now has charged itself with naming new charter trustees, some asearly as November. Will you consider past losers of elections as candidates?

I'm a bit biased on that. About 10 years ago I went through the very complex election process, was nominated but lost the election, then ultimately was asked to serve on the board. So those who haven't won but are interested in being trustees—that might be a good place for us to look for candidates.

Were the trustees late in turning their attention to this issue?

I'd rather not reflect on past boards, but I can say that I feel our board went about this process and this decision incredibly efficiently.

What do you think of The Wall StreetJournal's ongoing editorial-page coverage of governance issues at Dartmouth?

I'm not so sure that their issue is with Dartmouth so much as it is with higher education as a whole. They just come from a different point of view than I do.

T.J. Rodgers '70 told the Journal in Septemberthat as a trustee "it's been a horribleexperience." Any comment on that?

T.J. is a classmate of mine, and I consider him a very good friend. He has sharply different views than I do, but he's always treated me with the highest respect and I value his contribution to the board. I think his approach has made me a better board member.

What did you think about the oppositionads that ran before your meeting in TheJournal and The New York Times froma group calling itself Save Dartmouth?

One of the problems with that organization is that it put out those ads under the name of Andres Morton Zimmerman, as if that was a real person. [lt's actually the names of three dorms on campus.] There was no disclosure of who put out the ads or who paid for them. That was a little bit troubling. It was so confusing to the public that the Boston Globe's account said that they'd made a great effort to talk to Andres Morton Zimmerman.

How much back and forth have you had,if any, with your trustee peers at other institutions?

I have friends who are board or faculty members elsewhere, and mostly what I get is that they are perplexed by what is going on at Dartmouth. They find it hard to reconcile all the goodness they know with what seems to be dysfunctionality when they pick up the newspapers.

Your final report mentions concerns over"faculty morale." Can you explain?

The board was concerned that some of the rancor was impacting faculty morale. We passed a unanimous resolution in support of the faculty that talked about the great jobt they are doing, both teaching and research, that we're not concerned that the College is moving toward becoming a research university and that we have the right balance.

Do you think we'll see a non-alumnustrustee anytime soon?

It is possible that at some time a board might think it wise to have someone who didn't have a Dartmouth degree, someone with special skills, a special perspective. But I don't think that's high on our agenda or something that's going to happen anytime soon.

Some unhappy alumni are consideringlegal action challenging the trustees' decisions on governance. What do youthink about alumni suing their almamater?

It would be best for Dartmouth if even those who disagree with the boards actions could read our entire report, reflect on it and understand the thought and rationale behind those decisions. I think a very high percentage would understand how reasonable people could conclude that we did what was best for Dartmouth.

Some alumni have called for your resignation,and for that of President JimWright. Is that going to happen?

Jim remains energized and I've talked to him about his agenda for the coming years, so he's given me no sign of giving less than no percent. As for me—and I'm not very important in this process—no.

Do alumni own the College?

Certainly alumni are stakeholders in the College But there is more than just one owner of the College, such as current students. There is also the faculty, working seven days a week there, and parents of students, who are in many cases making a huge sacrifice for their children to attend the College. I'd go as far as to say that when you talk about an institution with the national and global reputation of Dartmouth, society as a whole has some sense of ownership of Dartmouth.

What do you say to alumni who are apathetic about alumni governance?

They should care. They should read the report. It's important, and we need them. This would be a particularly good time for people to rally around the College.

Ed Haldeman