I don’t understand how either of these candidates can ask their fellow alumni to vote for them without knowing their positions on the biggest and most fundamental issue involving alumni governance of the College. We appear to have returned to holding meaningless beauty contests instead of issue-centered elections about the College’s future.

“Vote for me, and after I’m elected I’ll tell you where I stand.” Really! Are Dartmouth alumni preresumed to be that gullible?

This issue has been examined for two years, and Judge Timothy Vaughn of the New Hampshire District Court wrote an excellent analysis, in rejecting the College’s motion to dismiss the case, finding that there was ample evidence to support the contention that there was indeed a binding contract. Is Kondracke waiting for a divine bolt of insight? And Replogle is waiting until he can consult those on the board who were responsible for the assault on alumni rights and who refused to meet with us or to agree to mediation, thereby precipitating the lawsuit? This is an independent candidate who can make up his own mind?

You can always tell when you have the wrong candidates. They mush away with gooey nothings using the current buzzwords like diversity, sustainability, strategic challenges, global exposure and Washington connections. Morton Kondracke has been in Washington long enough to think that mimicking politicians with a strong implication that he will be able to bring home to Dartmouth federal money as a result of his "connections" will bring him victory. "Free money Kondracke." Neither one wants to commit on the "parity" question because they always want to reserve the ability to get votes from both sides of the question, meaning that they can't be trusted on anything. The campaign manager for these two should run a slogan that says, "It's time for more of the same...Trustees that can't be trusted...to do what's right or tell the truth about it." Maybe someone will mention that the Dartmouth College Administration should drop about 1,000 "slots" in the administration just to get back to the size of the President James O. Freedman bloat of the administration. All of these additional administration jobs aren't just an innocuous waste of money either, many are actively destructive of the fabric of a college and nation based on a race, sex, sexual orientation, religious, income etc. neutrality. 3,000 people working full time in "support" positions with 430 faculty and 4 to 5 thousand students depending on how they are counted, is outrageous. The school has to cut $100 million over the next 2 years? If the average total cost of an administration position is $100,000 a year and that is probably a low ball figure, cutting the 1,000 of bloat on bloat would save $100 million in one year with no impact on the actual mission of the college. Who is looking after the budget at the college? It is supposed to be the Trustees and there isn't one word from either candidate about the runaway bureaucracy at the College. But hey, what else is new?

Why give these fence sitters advice?

Perhaps the Alumni Council thought that their choice of a political conservative and a businessman would end divisiveness among alumni. They totally misread alumni concerns for the College, her direction, and her governance, which are not political. Mort now reveals that his vision is for a Dartmouth ever more dependent upon the trough of Government handouts (beware the ramifications) and John apparently is unwilling to do his homework and take a stand on parity before alumni must decide on him. It makes one long for our prior voting system, which should have been termed “non-approval” voting, whereby one could vote for all candidates equally leaving out only those they did not wish to see seated.

Mr. Lachner is exactly right, and my friend Tim, who is very seldom even slightly wrong, makes a most important point about relying on federal grants. Would that candidates for trustee showed greater perspicuity in their comments about education. In addition to cynicism, what they reveal here is a dangerous naivete.

Oh, give me a break! These alums have generously volunteered to serve Dartmouth. They are far more interesting than some of the earlier “bland” candidates. At the moment, they don’t have opponents against whom they can be compared. Isn’t all this bitterness a bit much? And about a few quotes in the D?

I, for one, think Dartmouth is robust enough these days to start turning down federal grants. Down with big government! Palin in 2012!

Scott: No bitterness, just observations on the words from candidates who were originally welcomed, at least by yours truly, with an open mind. I detect a wee bit of sarcasm in your comment about the robust state of Dartmouth’s financials. Coming on the heels of a very successful capital campaign, can you please explain why a proposal for increasing a dependency on federal monies is in any way positive? Especially when the opportunities for savings on the cost side are so obvious. Or do you agree with AoA president Mathias that the 1,000 person increase in non-faculty staff, including 650 new “professional”-class employees, over the past decade was a mere “political mythology” vis-a-vis administrative excess? ps How about using a last name?

Well, the assumption would be that “these alums have generously volunteered to serve Dartmouth,” Scott, but just what it is they will be serving up to us is the question. Will it be tender, lean and tasty steak or mystery meat in opaque goo sauce? Any institution will be better served by an open process, with real debate and true accountability, responsibility and fairness. What is the mission and what are the goals of the College?

The past 30 years in fact not spin, say that Dartmouth College has put its' money where its' (political) bureaucracy is and everything else has suffered as a result of absolutely misplaced priorities and direction. All sides of the question(s) know it, but the entrenched power refuses to acknowledge the fact of its' malfeasance and instead finds it convenient to draw battle lines, this it uses to obscure the internal problem through the ruse of an external enemy, the "external enemy" why yes, other "bad" Dartmouth alums. The administration is highly politically correct, mirroring the faculty and the Trustees act as though they are captives of the permanent staff, but of course what they really are is a self congratulatory elite who are installed to give large amounts of money, put their names on buildings and drone and chant that all is well 24/7. Any that don't like that chanting are attacked, smeared, de-elected as in Todd Zywicki's case and said to be hurting the College's image...oh the image, can't muss the image. Never mind what the reality is, if alums and institutions think that there are problems at Dartmouth they may not give as much as otherwise and isn't that the goal? Get the money and let the politicos who inhabit the bureaucracy throw it around any way they like. I had no idea that there is a dean of OPAL (Office of Plurality and Leadership) but there is and numerous other worthless expensive overhead that promotes...promotes what? Well, according to "a few quotes in the D" the Dean of OPAL's mission in life and at Dartmouth is "social justice" and she took the job at Dartmouth because the "College is committed to social justice." From all I can tell this is correct. Dartmouth College is committed to redistribution. Will Dartmouth be a College or a racket? It is up to each of individually to answer that question and then act on it or not.

Brandon, what in the world is “de-elected”? I hope you’re sharing my planet…

That these comments were fired off so quickly, and on the basis of a single article on a race that hasn’t yet officially even begun, suggests that the attack politics that characterized the past few elections are alive and well in a minority of the alumni body. That’s a real shame. Let’s start with the call for “issue-centered elections” – I think that’s something all alumni would support. Actually, why not call it “issues-centered”? The principal problem with parity paralysis is that some commentators would make this question the single litmus test for Trustee qualification. With the exception of those individuals who thought suing the College was a good way to improve things, do any alumni really believe that the most important question facing Dartmouth is whether half of the Board is elected by alumni … or some smaller or larger percentage? I doubt it. Dartmouth faces the most severe budget cutbacks in its history. Shouldn’t we be looking for Trustees who are superbly qualified to provide independent Board oversight to the Administration’s efforts in this process? It appears that this article was based on interviews that covered these questions, presumably in greater depth than reflected in the piece. Shouldn’t the D, and the debate, look at these questions and move beyond such a single-minded focus on whether an 1891 action was a contract or a goal? Todd Zywicki’s peers on the Board voted not to re-elect him and his off-hand dismissal of John Replogle’s qualifications smells of sour grapes. Replogle has had an impressive track record of business success across big, complex businesses in diverse industries – always demonstrating great financial management, strong strategic vision and a consistent commitment to businesses that did well by their communities as well as their owners. Aren’t these precisely the qualifications that would make for a strong Trustee, particularly at this time? Similarly, taking Morton Kondracke to task because he wants to help the College attract greater research funding is perplexing, to put it mildly. This is a critical financing stream for all colleges and universities, and research grants have always been important for Dartmouth – indeed, the same issue of the D ran a big story on the College securing $39MM for 100 research projects. Shouldn’t we applaud any alumnus or alumnae who can help us attract more of this support? I don’t think these attacks come because the writers really doubt these candidates’ independence. I think they are based on a political demand for dependence – insistence that Replogle and Kondracke toe the line on a single issue – that they take the side of plaintiffs (like commenter Frank Gado, above) suing Dartmouth in a currently-pending lawsuit that has wasted scarce dollars, misdirected energy and hijacked a reasoned discussion of questions that really matter to the Dartmouth experience of current and future students. Single-issue politics isn’t “issues-centered”. It’s just plain short-sighted.

Kim: The comments above were not initiated following “a single article on a race that hasn’t yet officially begun.” The candidates have been formally announced and endorsed by the Alumni Council. The candidate statements reported by the D came from campaign webpages already put up by the candidates themselves.

You want campaigns to be “issued-centered”, yet immediately disagree with one issue, parity, which is of importance to alumni because many of them believe it important to the College. You allege a single-minded focus on parity, yet in the next breath question why some of us are concerned about a totally-unrelated issue which was raised by a candidate, increasing dependence on government research grants.

Apparently “issues-centered” debate is only valid when you chose the issues (exclude parity) or when the other side of an issue (not chasing more government money) is not to be raised. Yes, let’s debate the issues, these and others; that is the purpose of election dialog independent of whether you always agree with it or not.

Scott, your pea shooter is bent, you’re hitting yourself with the pea and drool. Also, your last name? It’s no good hiding in the bushes Scott, and thanks for reading my comments and you remembered a word of it too, you show great “doggedness.” Don’t ask me what that means. Sorry for your sleepless night “decoding” the meaning of “de-elect.”

What we really need is more time. We have not deliberated long enough and we don't know enough about the new candidates or whether we think that the alumni should be equally represented on the Board as they have been since they bailed the College out over a hundred years ago. Anyone who has a point of view on any of this at this time has "fired off" unconsidered remarks, "Attack politics," "minority" "views" and all manner of uncouth, reactionary statements. Is that about right, Kim? Kim then goes straight ahead to tell us without any further deliberation and without the "election even starting yet", that the two status quo nominated candidates are...as Goldie Locks pronounced so famously, "just right." This proves that she can come to the "right" "conclusion" right away but anyone who disagrees? "They are just a nasty minority of malcontents." What is the big deal about being represented and to be able to vote anyway. Right, Kim? These two highly accomplished alum candidates haven't "Decided" whether they think that the alumni should be able to vote for half of the Board. And that is just fine. Here is the question for you Kim, do you think that the packing of the unelected members of the Board of Trustees was a good idea? Would you have the same reaction...thinking reaction, that is, if the US Constitution were changed or that since the entrenched power in Washington, DC was losing, that it changed the number of Senators and Congressmen we could actually vote for, or just added 111 new appointed Congressmen and 33 new appointed Senators all to be appointed by whoever is already there? Would your first problem still be the budget, Kim? That is what you are telling us here, that you don't want to short circuit the power of the people you agree with, with these "pesky" parochial things like representation for the alums who pay the bills and are the reason for the existence of the College as well as its' only real "product." I am amazed that anyone who takes time to think about anything, thinks that it is OK for power grabs and the political bulldozing of other alums whose agenda is for the College to do its' job of educating the students rather than running a politically correct "social justice" plantation, including a massively bolated political administrative bureaucracy. How hard is it to notice that the money that the College is short is going to the more than 1,000 administrators layered in since the mid 1990's? Who thinks it is a good idea for the College to have to, or want to pander to the federal government to an even greater extent than it already does. The problem with the College is politics and those who are most political accuse those who are not, of being... political. They know that they are political, so they try to disqualify those in opposition to the political college as political. That's all they have...they have no points to make, no solutions to offer, just status, the status quo, elitism, dependency and emptiness. When you have the law, pound on the law, when you have what's right, pound on what's right, when you have neither, like the Board appointed Trustee packers, pound on the table. The table is cracking.