Electing the Owner
By Michael Chu, Guest Columnist
Published on Wednesday, February 24, 2010
As Dartmouth faces another trustee election, long before choosing which candidate to back, many alumni will decide it’s not worth going to the polls. Ten years ago, an election like this made me an alumni-elected trustee, and I served on the Board until last June. Like any other busy alum, I understand why people wonder if it’s worth the time to figure out the election. The answer of course depends on what’s at stake.
Unlike a state university that is owned by the public, Dartmouth has a private owner, and that owner is the Board of Trustees. Like any owner, it can do just about anything so long as it is lawful. The owner can be wise, nurturing and growing the estate, or stupid, wasting assets while chasing trivial fancies. And past wisdom is no guarantee against present or future idiocy. But unlike estates where ownership is an accident of birth, Dartmouth’s ownership is a willful act exercised by the men and women who love her. For nine years, you made me one of Dartmouth’s owners. How I implemented that ownership affected our College.
For the better part of my tenure, the ownership of Dartmouth has been torn by two conceptions on how an owner should act. On one hand is the view that a trustee represents all alumni: past, soon-to-be and especially future. In this conception, a trustee’s views represent only one of at least 60,000 valid visions for Dartmouth. Ownership is temporary. A trustee needs to arrive to all Dartmouth issues with a truly open mind, where the opinions of other trustees have equal weight in a sincere attempt by all to distinguish the enduring good of the College.
At its core lies the conviction that ultimately Dartmouth is better served by the Board’s collective wisdom rather than your own views. I now believe adhering to this is the highest expression of my love for Dartmouth. Believe me, it didn’t come naturally.
At the other end is a view that an owner should act like one: if you know what’s right, you better make the institution head that way. If you are an alumni-elected trustee, this is even truer because every vote you get should be seen as an affirmation of your views and a rejection of all others. In this conception, your own experience and observations are paramount — after all most other people are only advisors to the owners.
Accordingly, success is the degree to which a trustee can bend outcomes to his or her views. By definition, compromise on the Board may be necessary, but it’s at the cost of an ideal Dartmouth. Consequently, the dynamics of the Board are driven to resemble legislative politics, where building voting blocs and taking positions with an eye to the next electoral round are eminently logical.
This clash in how owners should behave has pervaded Dartmouth alumni relations. For years, I’ve seen myself and most sitting trustees remain silent as some of us have attributed to ourselves the progress achieved by collective efforts over long years. While many of us on the Board pressed for changes and alternative outcomes, we were publicly labeled as puppets of the administration. My silence was the result neither of public timidity (of which I have never been accused) nor distance from fellow alumni (whose company I enjoy), but of a different conception of trusteehood.
A private institution is only as good as its ownership allows it to be. This is as true of General Motors as of Dartmouth College. Like in any trustee election, those who love Dartmouth can choose to go to the polls and decide which type of owners should run the estate: those who believe the future of a jewel born in 1769 is best assured by mobilizing the collective wisdom of the family or those who come already armed with what is best for the family.
Or they can choose to take care of other matters. As for me, my ballot is waiting for the polls to open on March 10.
Michael Chu ’68 is a Senior Lecturer at Harvard Business School and served as a trustee of the College from 2000 to 2009.
If alumni know too much about the College, they are likely to have formed opinions. They are also likely to be micro-managers. It is not good to have trustees like this, especially since their opinions are likely to be conservative or right wing. The best type of trustee is one with an open mind – a blank slate, if you will. This type of trustee will come to meetings without opinions, read the briefing books, engage in healthy debate, and participate in votes. Some people may think that this approach leads to “group think”. This is a false worry. The College has operated this way without problem for 240 years. The last ten years is the proof.
By Supporter on Feb 24 | 10:39 am
I always wondered why particular trustees took credit for particular administrative policies such as the abolition of the two “speech code” letters from the Dartmouth server. Did a trustee singlehandedly convince the board to vote to change a policy, or did he singlehandedly order the administration to remove the letters, or did his mere presence alter the climate enough to cause the administration to act? If it was any of these, then why did it look like administrators removed the letters in response to pressure from outside groups? Maybe the trustee had no effect at all.
By Dartmouth Alumnus on Feb 24 | 11:12 am
Obviously, “collective wisdom” is not all its cracked up to be, or the college wouldn’t be facing the structural deficit and other problems President Kim inherited from the last administration! Heckuva job, Michael Chu!
By Steven R. Koch ‘82 on Feb 24 | 12:44 pm
But Michael Chu was not in the administration.
And who’s to say it wasn’t the board’s collective wisdom in approving the investment strategy that prevented the collapse from being bigger than it was? Perhaps the collapse was easily predicted and most investors were unaffected…..
By Dartmouth Alumnus on Feb 24 | 5:36 pm
Thank You, Michael C. for writing “Like in any trustee election, those who love Dartmouth can choose to go to the polls and decide which type of owners should run the estate: those who believe the future of a jewel born in 1769 is best assured by mobilizing the collective wisdom of the family or those who come already armed with what is best for the family.”
This is exactly the argument for having more alumni-selected trustees serve on the Board, and for having more candidates placed on their Association’s ballot through petition rather than as chosen in a nominating committee’s smoke-filled back room. Just remember to respect that “collective wisdom” even when it runs counter to any individual opinion, or counter to that small number who comprise the Board’s Governance Committee. “Knowing what is best”, they had already set a course to eliminate parity in the year before alumni even became aware they were considering such a change.
By Timothy A. Dreisbach 71 on Feb 28 | 11:34 am
Why do trustees like Mr. Chu argue that they as individuals should give higher priority to the collective wisdom of the Board, and then erect barriers against the collective wisdom of all alumni? Apparently the self-appointed (and mega-donation purchased)seats always know best, even when they were asleep at the switch of overseeing management. Their “wisdom” has allowed structural problems in organization and finance to grow, and created great divides among loyal alumni. So much pain, so unnecessary.
By just wondering on Mar 3 | 7:35 am