<p>I am not happy about this...</p>
<p>It's really a way to keep the alumni-elected trustees at bay, isn't it. Scarey.</p>
<p>I agree with VeryHappy. I think the trustee elections have gotten a bit out of control and generates a lot of negative publicity for the college. </p>
<p><a href="http://thedartmouth.com/2007/09/07/opinion/verbumultimum/%5B/url%5D">http://thedartmouth.com/2007/09/07/opinion/verbumultimum/</a>
I think that editorial is right on the money. Alumni need to realize that they are not the governed at Dartmouth. The past few elected trustees were unfit for the job; some never even donated money or had any involvement with the College after their graduation.</p>
<p>Actually, Utopia, I think we disagree.</p>
<p>But let's agree to disagree, and leave it at that. There's enough yelling and caterwalling going on over this already.</p>
<p>I don't think you agree with Very Happy - I read his post as saying that it's scary that the board is taking control away from the alumni. </p>
<p>The current board members claim to be liberal-types standing against the conservative petition candidates - I can't think of anything LESS liberal than limiting democracy.</p>
<p>This will totally backfire in twenty or however many years when the board swings in a direction these people don't like, and they can't vote in enough members who agree with them to have any effect.</p>
<p>And while the alumni are not the ones being governed, they know the most about the school, they have a loyalty to the school, and they are the ones contributing money. The fact that you (or some of the current board members) don't like the way they vote is not a valid reason to diminish their right to do so. The board already tried to do this in a legitimate way, but of course the alumni would not support it - now they've sunk to making decrees while ignoring the opinions of the greater Dartmouth community. What makes them any more qualified to select those responsible for the future of the college than all of the people who have been through it?</p>
<p>Too late to edit previous post, but I'd like to add: Someone posted this on IvyGateBlog (identified as D'04), and I think he or she makes a very good arguement - I totally agree with the sore-losers bit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As I understand the law of trusts, trustees hold property "in trust" for the exclusive benefit of the trust beneficiaries. Trustees are meant to serve the interests of others, not themselves.
To that end, the presence of an opposing voice is essential not only to good governance, but also to education. The expansion of the Board effectively silences the opposing voice. I have questions: why doesn't the administration want to entertain difference of opinion, to debate their plans? Are they afraid that these plans can't withstand scrutiny?
This seems like the behavior of poor losers, as though the charter trustees had said, "If we cannot win the game under the present rules, we'll change the rules." That smacks of immaturity... and these people will lead the College into the future?
[/quote]
</p>