The Volokh Conspiracy - Dartmouth Trustee's "Gang of 12" Defend Board-Packing Plan:

Voting began yesterday in the Dartmouth election for the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni. As I noted last week the issue in the election is straightforward--it is a referendum on the Board-packing plan adopted last fall by the trustees. If you oppose the board-packing plan and want to preserve the traditional parity between elected and appointed trustees then you should vote for the Dartmouth Parity slate and if you support the board-packing plan then you should vote for the Dartmouth Undying slate.

Into the fray yesterday came the "Gang of 12" non-petition Dartmouth Trustees. The letter is published on Board of Trustees letterhead and is posted on the College's website--even though it purports to be from only 12 trustees and is not an official board action. It is not clear whether the letter is being printed, mailed, and emailed using Dartmouth resources or whether any College employees assisted in its production, but this appears to be the case.

Reaction to the letter has been swift and skeptical. Doug Anderson's short critique is simply devastating. Doug (Class of '89) writes, for example, "Fourth, the letter is breathtaking in its Orwellian constructions, like '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.' I guess no one could possibly think that these board members were trying to achieve through dilution of alumni elected trustees a result that they could achieve through alumni elections." Read the whole thing.

Paul Mirengoff, who is a candidate for the Second Vice-President position, comments here.

As Paul and Doug note, very little in the Gang of 12's letter actually defends the merits of the board-packing plan itself. So it seems to be largely an effort to distract alumni from the central issue of the election--which is the board-packing plan. If the disruption and cost of the lawsuit is a concern, then this problem is easily solved by the majority of the Board simply settling the suit and rescinding the board-packing plan in light of the court's rejection of the motion to dismiss.

	[Todd Zywicki, April 29, 2008 at 3:07pm] Trackbacks Dartmouth Trustee's "Gang of 12" Defend Board-Packing Plan: Voting began yesterday in the Dartmouth election for the Executive Committee of the Association of Alumni. As I noted last week the issue in the election is straightforward--it is a referendum on the Board-packing plan adopted last fall by the trustees. If you oppose the board-packing plan and want to preserve the traditional parity between elected and appointed trustees then you should vote for the Dartmouth Parity slate and if you support the board-packing plan then you should vote for the Dartmouth Undying slate. Into the fray yesterday came the "Gang of 12" non-petition Dartmouth Trustees. The letter is published on Board of Trustees letterhead and is posted on the College's website--even though it purports to be from only 12 trustees and is not an official board action. It is not clear whether the letter is being printed, mailed, and emailed using Dartmouth resources or whether any College employees assisted in its production, but this appears to be the case. Reaction to the letter has been swift and skeptical. Doug Anderson's short critique is simply devastating. Doug (Class of '89) writes, for example, "Fourth, the letter is breathtaking in its Orwellian constructions, like '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.' I guess no one could possibly think that these board members were trying to achieve through dilution of alumni elected trustees a result that they could achieve through alumni elections." Read the whole thing. Paul Mirengoff, who is a candidate for the Second Vice-President position, comments here. As Paul and Doug note, very little in the Gang of 12's letter actually defends the merits of the board-packing plan itself. So it seems to be largely an effort to distract alumni from the central issue of the election--which is the board-packing plan. If the disruption and cost of the lawsuit is a concern, then this problem is easily solved by the majority of the Board simply settling the suit and rescinding the board-packing plan in light of the court's rejection of the motion to dismiss.