In the race for the executive committee of the Association of Alumni, supporters of the Association’s lawsuit against the College have claimed that the Board of Trustees ignored or denied several of the Association’s requests to meet prior to the Board’s September announcement of changes to Dartmouth’s governance structure. Board Chairman Ed Haldeman ‘70, however, said ... Association President Bill Hutchinson ‘76, who opposes the suit, has maintained, along with College officials, that the executive committee made “one and only one” attempt to meet with the Board, and the Board complied.

As today’s news article (“AoA members differ on dealings with Board”) makes clear, the executive committee made only one official effort at a meeting with the Board to discuss the proposed governance changes before they were announced publicly. Even though pro-lawsuit members of the committee and their supporters have claimed that the committee persistently and seriously pursued the option of mediation, no resolution was ever passed on the matter.

Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College Issues Election Campaign Corrections

Hanover NH, May 1, 2008: Contact: Tim Dreisbach, Class of 1971
Executive Committee Member
802-763-2456

The annual election of the Association’s leadership has begun. While the Executive Committee of the Association remains firmly committed to open campaigning and unrestricted speech by all candidates and their supporters, several incorrect, false, and misleading statements have been made about the actions of the Executive Committee itself and its members. We feel an obligation to set the record straight on those allegations.

One slate of candidates, Dartmouth Parity, has implied in their campaigning that the Association polled alumni on the question of whether or not to pursue legal action in defense of maintaining parity on the Board of Trustees. This is incorrect. The Association did conduct an alumni-wide survey in which alumni responded that they were in favor of maintaining parity, by a margin of over 9-1. This information was provided as input to the Trustees. After the trustees announced their decision to eliminate parity, the timeframe for filing an injunction did not permit a second survey.

One organization of campaign supporters, Dartmouth Undying, has stated that all those in the Association executive committee majority who voted for the lawsuit also “asked the N.H. legislature to enact a law to give the state control over the Dartmouth College charter.” This is a falsehood; only one of six spoke in support of this bill, and several others were openly opposed to the measure. The committee’s documented deliberations reveal a desire by the majority for non-involvement. A minority request to take a stand of condemnation was defeated. Dartmouth Undying has endorsed candidates opposed to the pro-parity petition candidates, and in turn some of these opponents are listed as supporters of Dartmouth Undying.

Dartmouth Undying has also published a statement that the same six members of the executive committee "still refuse to disclose who is footing the bill" for the lawsuit. This is also untrue. Funds for attorney fees have been contributed by the Hanover Institute, a fact that was made public by these individuals after obtaining permission from the donor. The law firm has made clear that it takes direction only from our designated liaison, and that individual can act only on the approval of the Association’s executive committee.

One member of the Executive Committee, the president, recently sent an email to all alumni using Association letterhead, criticizing a letter from six of his fellow members. Because they had also used Association letterhead, he falsely claimed their letter “purported to be from the Association” without there having been a formal vote. There was no such representation in the letter, which was explicitly signed by the six senders. President Hutchinson’s letter was also sent without formal review or approval. A recent letter by twelve Dartmouth Trustees, on College letterhead, follows the same practice.

President Hutchinson went on to state that the Executive Committee made “one and only one” attempt to meet with the Board regarding the governance study. In fact there were many attempts to interact with the Board. Our formal letter of May 30 received no response. Written inputs from individual committee members received no response other than a courtesy acknowledgement of receipt. Chairman Haldeman met in-person only with president Hutchinson, having been informed that our president did not represent the opinions of the committee majority. One teleconference did occur during the last week in August, involving two trustees, but the committee was informed that the governance recommendations were essentially complete; there was no sit-down working session to consider alternatives. Shortly after the trustee decision was announced, several executive committee members made personal overtures to various Board members suggesting legal action would be held in abeyance, if the Board would postpone implementation of their plan during a mediation process. These overtures were rejected.

We hope the above provides clarification specific to the actions of the executive committee. On behalf of the entire Association, we encourage all alumni to participate in these elections, with an informed and thoughtful mind. A high turnout percentage will demonstrate the engagement of Dartmouth alumni in the College they love. A majority mandate, one way or the other, will be a major step towards a constructive future.

Date: 28 Apr 2008 09:29:08 -0400
From: Gail M. Zimmerman
Subject: Meeting summary
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: thc@cs.dartmouth.edu (Thomas H. Cormen), Daniel M. Nelson, Thomas Crady, Robert B. Donin, Kevin D. O'Leary, Susan E. Knapp

Dear Students,

Thanks to all of you who were able to attend yesterday's meeting. For those of you who were not able to attend, below is a summary of the key points. I, and the other deans in the First-Year Office, remain available to meet with any of you on an individual basis and/or to talk with your parents. Please don't hesitate to share this information with your parents.

The most significant concern was related to the legal issues raised by former Prof. Venkatesan's emails. Robert Donin, Dartmouth's General Counsel, was present at yesterday's meeting. He advises that we do not believe there is any merit to a potential lawsuit and he does not feel it necessary for students to retain their own legal counsel at this time. Any lawsuit received by the College would be responded to by Dartmouth's legal counsel. There has been no such action thus far. Students and parents should feel free to contact Dartmouth's General Counsel if there are individual concerns. They can be reached at:
Office of the General Counsel
Dartmouth College
14 South Main Street
Suite 2C
Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
Telephone: (603) 646-2444

Most of you have seen and/or heard that the Dartmouth Review and The Dartmouth have articles and blogs about the emails that you have received. There interest and publication may result in other media becoming interested as well. Should you be approached by any media for comment, you are certainly free to talk. Our advice would be, if you choose to do so, do so judiciously and/or with caution. You should also know that you are under no obligation to respond at all and this may be the best approach. Our Public Affairs Office is happy to advise you on your rights when responding to media requests. Sue Knapp, Stephen Smith, and Roland Adams are familiar with this situation. They can be reached at:
Office of Public Affairs
Office Address: 7 Lebanon St., Suite 201, Hanover, NH 03755
Telephone: (603) 646-3661

Questions arose as to our ability to block Prof. Venkatesan's emails. Whether that ability exists or not, it would not likely stop her emails from reaching your inbox given the dearth and ready availability of other free email systems such as hotmail, gmail, and yahoo. If these emails are distressing, please don't hesitate to forward them to me unopened. I would request you to forward any emails to me regardless of whether you read them or not so that I can be apprised of and assess how best to respond and support you.

Again, please don't hesitate to contact any of the first-year deans with concerns or questions.

Take care,
Dean Z

pk/sf
***************************************
Gail M. Zimmerman, Ed.D.
Dean of First-Year Students
Dartmouth College
6007 Parkhurst
Hanover, NH 03755

WOW! Alumni, except those who are Trustees chosen by the administration, are all a bunch of idiots who can't think for themselves. They might be under the sevengali-like spell of "organizations" with "AGENDAS!" When the administration and its lackey Trustees stop acting like Stalinists trying to shove their cramped, narrow, ideas about the college down everybody's throats, perhaps law suits wouldn't be necessary. But they sure were in Daniel Webster's day, and appear to be equally necessary today. And by the way, the lawsuit was started before Wright said he might leave in a year, so your cause and effect for confusion is 180 degrees off-kilter. Talk about agendas! You apparently don't like your fellow elected Trustees, so you are trying to marginalize them with the Boogey-Men of the Dartmouth Review and Hanover Institute, the Review's fundraising arm. Don't you people believe in academic freedom, the right to disagree successfully, the right to suggest alternatives? Apparently not.

John Gridley '64.

PS. And f--- you too, Brad.

Now, let’s address the trustees’ diversionary attacks on those of us who disagree with them. Are we “well-organized and well-financed?” I hope so, and we have been able to run a few ads, do some mailings (though the college won't give us the full alumni mailing list), and establish a web-site. Not surprisingly, however, we are substantially outgunned by the Dartmouth establishment. For example, the pro-capitulation slate was able to place its glossy ad on the front page of the alumni magazine. Ours was somewhere in the back, as I recall.

Do we have a “political agenda?” I don’t know the politics of most of my fellow parity candidates, though I'm vaguely aware that not all of them share my take on politics. It’s possible that, as a group, some of our views of what’s good for Dartmouth differ from the views of the opposing slate. If so, that wouldn’t mean that we have a “political agenda” and our opponents don’t. In any case, the only “political” issue we can expect to be able to influence if elected is whether Dartmouth alums will retain the right to elect half of the college’s trustees. All of us think they should.

Is the lawsuit costing the college money to defend? Yes, but the trustees can put an end to that by adhering to the 1891 agreement. Indeed, assuming the trustees act with a modicum of good faith, they will try to settle the lawsuit if their slate loses this election. The trial court’s denial of the trustees' motion to dismiss plainly signals that the trustees have a losing hand. Thus, the sensible course (if the trustees' election gambit fails) would be to concede the issue of parity and to negotiate other issues they say concern them, such as expanding the board and reforming the election process. Unfortunately, the trustees have never shown an interest in negotiating. They prefer to dictate.

Finally, we come to the biggest red herring: who is paying for the effort to oppose the trustees’ power grab? As I understand it, funding comes through the Hanover Institute, a 501(c)(3) educational foundation that was founded and is run by Dartmouth College alumni. The Hanover Institute raises money primarily through letters sent to Dartmouth alumni. By an overwhelming majority, most contributions come from thousands of Dartmouth graduates. A few come from non-alumni who wish to lend support because they are offended by board’s power play, favor free and fair trustee elections, and/or agree with the Institute with respect to the primacy of undergraduate education, or similar issues.

Dear fellow Dartmouth alumni,

Last month, the Trustees launched a search for the next president of Dartmouth--a search that is critically important to maintaining the unique character of Dartmouth and ensuring that our students continue to receive an outstanding education. As we embark on that search, the College has become ensnarled in yet another divisive campaign--this time around the Association of Alumni (AoA) election. As Trustees of the College, we were reluctant to enter this debate, but we feel an obligation to respond to a recent letter by four trustees to alumni containing inaccurate claims and endorsing like-minded petition candidates for the AoA.

This group has wrapped itself in the rhetoric of "democracy at Dartmouth" but they are working with national groups that have a clear ideological agenda for the College. The Upper Valley's local newspaper, the Valley News, wrote in a recent editorial that this group wants to "turn back the clock" at the College. They believe they can manipulate Dartmouth's unique process of electing alumni nominees for the Board of Trustees and are now waging an aggressive campaign to maintain control of the AoA, which administers those elections.

A Well-Organized, Well-Funded Group's Campaign Against the College

Critics of the College-long championed by The Dartmouth Review and supported by outside groups like the Hanover Institute--are well organized and well funded. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on full-page newspaper ads, glossy mailings, and web sites to elect their allies to the Board and now the AoA. They are supporting a costly lawsuit against the College. This will force Dartmouth to divert some $2 million away from critical priorities like financial aid and faculty in order to protect the independence of the College that Daniel Webster so ably defended in 1819. The plaintiffs have repeatedly refused to reveal who is really paying for their suit or their campaign, although an ideological special interest group--The Center for Excellence in Higher Education--with no connection to Dartmouth is raising money to support their lawsuit.

They have politicized Dartmouth elections and have brought Washington-style politics to trusteeship. And, this week, The Dartmouth Review launched a reprehensible and baseless personal attack on Chair of the Board Ed Haldeman--unabashedly timed to coincide with the AoA elections. Members of this group even encouraged their political allies in the New Hampshire Legislature to promote a bill that would allow the Legislature to insert itself into the affairs of the College-a misguided effort that failed by an overwhelming majority.

What Is This Group's Real Agenda?

Amidst the many emails and letters you've received, we're sure you have asked yourself--what is this group's real agenda? Trustee Todd Zywicki provided an unintended glimpse of that agenda in a speech last October where he attacked Dartmouth and its peer schools, saying those "who control the university today[,] they don't believe in God and they don't believe in country." He discouraged people from contributing money to support the College and told his supporters that it would be a "long and vicious trench warfare I think if we are serious about taking the academy back."

This group's political agenda is also at the heart of their opposition to the expansion of the College's Board of Trustees. We recognize that alumni have many different views on the governance issue, but after a thorough review of Dartmouth's needs, a majority of the Board determined that it was in the College's best interests to add eight new members who could bring additional skills and talent to the College--leaders who could help ensure Dartmouth remains a world-class institution. Four of our trustee colleagues filed an amicus brief against the College to try to achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in the boardroom through normal Board processes.

We sent a copy of the report explaining this decision to all alumni. We also voted for a more open election process to ensure the winning candidate received a majority of votes. This group opposed the changes because they reduced their ability to game the system. They want you to believe that the Board is looking to "marginalize" alumni. The fact is that every member of the Board (except the Governor and the President) is a Dartmouth alum. Alumni will continue to nominate a higher percentage of trustees than at virtually any other institution in the country and will remain central to the College's governance.

What Is At Stake For Dartmouth and Its Students?

This group has publicly vilified the leadership of the College in newspaper interviews and letters. And, while the College is in the midst of a critical capital campaign--the largest in its history--they have done little to advance it and, in some cases, actively urged alumni to divert resources from Dartmouth to institutions that are more ideologically in tune with their own agenda. They have lost sight of Dartmouth's purpose. The College exists to provide a superb education to its students, not to advance the personal politics of its alumni. And now they are putting Dartmouth's future in jeopardy. They would push the College far outside the mainstream of higher education. As The Dartmouth wrote in a recent editorial aimed at this faction of alumni, "If you truly love it, you should be able to cherish the College without controlling it."

What Does All This Mean For You, Our Fellow Alumni?

By every significant measure, Dartmouth has become a stronger institution over the past decade. That progress has come despite the harmful efforts of this group-not because of them, as they have claimed. As Dartmouth looks to build on that strength, we want to encourage all of you to stay engaged with the College--and to read the election materials carefully and to let your voice be heard in the upcoming AoA elections, http://voxthevote.org/.

We need individuals representing Dartmouth alumni who bring no political agenda to the table--except what is in the best interests of Dartmouth. We need individuals who can fairly and effectively represent the views of all alumni and work with the leadership of the College to carry forward the business of Dartmouth. And we need individuals capable of unifying the College's alumni to help Dartmouth remain the finest College in the world.

Please join us in putting Dartmouth's interests first.

Trustees of Dartmouth

Leon Black '73
Christine Bucklin '84
Russ Carson '65
Michael Chu '68
John Donahoe '82
Brad Evans '64
Jose Fernandez '77
Karen Francis '84
Ed Haldeman '70, Chair
Pam Joyner '79
Steve Mandel '78
Al Mulley '70

***** T r a n s F o r m *********
****** Wednesday at 7 pm

Come see TransFormed Dartmouth Students: ------
Athletes
Nerds
Beauties
Conservatives
Liberals
Crunchies
All together bending their gender expression in one HOT runway show.

Test your perception! Test yourself!

T r a n s F o r m
*
7pm doors open
*
Wednesday at Collis Common Ground
*
Followed by the incredible

~~ ANNUAL DRAG BALL ~~ (you won't want to miss this either)

Proceeds of this event will benefit ACORN, a local HIV and Hep-C
resource organization.

~SPONSORS & SUPPORTERS OF PRIDE~
President's Office, Dean of the College Office, Alumni Relations, Bildner
Endowment, IDE, Graduate Student Council, Office of the Advisor to LGBT
Students, ORL, DGALA, SPEC, Office of Black Student Advising, Office of Asian
and Asian American Student Advising, Dartmouth Athletics, Dartmouth Coalition
for Progress, Afro-American Society, The Coed Council, OPAL, GSX, XH, TDX,
SAE, AXA, TriDelt, Chi Gam, Panarchy, Alpha Phi, AZD, AD, Sigma Delt, Phi Tau,
EKT, Tri-Kap, Psi-U, KKG, KDE, Sig Ep, GDX, BG, Alpha Theta, Sigma Nu, Alpha Pi
Omega, The Tabard, Student Assembly

Which brings us back to the voting that begins today.

Now that the current officers of the Association of Alumni are approaching the ends of their terms, two slates of candidates are seeking to succeed them.

One slate stands for parity. If elected, this slate would continue the lawsuit. At the same time, it would open negotiations with the Board, seeking to preserve the longstanding parity between elected and unelected trustees.

The other slate supports the Board-packing plan. If elected, it would withdraw the lawsuit, permitting the Board-packing plan to take immediate effect.

My own views on the Board-packing plan are already public—an alumni trustee, I voted against the plan, then joined several other alumni trustees in submitting an amicus brief supporting the Association’s lawsuit. Here, however, I simply want to urge Dartmouth alumni to consider the arguments for and against the plan for themselves—and then vote.