I appreciate that some alumni consider "parity" between charter trustees and alumni-elected trustees to be the most important issue in this election--in fact, a litmus test of trustee qualification.
I certainly favor expanded elected alumni representation on the board and will work to achieve it. I am even open to working for parity if it can be achieved while providing Dartmouth with the qualified trustees we need.
But Dartmouth faces more important issues than this--first, a fiscal crisis and the imperative to solve it and maintaiin Dartmouth's historic excellence as an undergraduate teaching institution. And, equally important, insuring the success of Jim Kim's visionary presidency.
I think trustee candidates should be judged on the basis of their capacity to meet these priorities--and their ability to convince other board members to address the governance issue in a collaborative manner that takes into account alumni sentiment. Having supported a lawsuit against the College would not meet that qualification.
John Replogle '88, CEO of global companies and an expert on eliminating waste, is superbly qualified by skill and temperament to be a trustee. His opponent, an unremitting critic of the College and supporter of lawsuits, is not.
Having carefully studied the governance committee report that led to departing from the parity tradition, I'm satisfied that Dartmouth's board did need to be expanded. The committee and board determined that nominations by the Alumni Council - and elections - would not reliably produce enough trustees with the qualifications that the board needs.
This is a question that needs further study. I believe the Alumni Council is entirely capable of finding superbly qualified alums. It has in the past and, this year, meticulously considered 400 potential candidates before making its nominations.
So, for a certainty, the alumni election process can fill more trustee seats than the eight now contemplated. I will work to see that accomplished.
