First day of elections sees high voter turnout
By Greg Berger, The Dartmouth Staff
Published on Friday, March 12, 2010
Web Update
A sign outside of Rauner library, posted anonymously, commerates March 10 as the day Daniel Webster gave his famous defense of the College, and encourages alumni to vote in the current election.
The College alumni body demonstrated its greatest first day participation in elections for the two available seats on the Board of Trustees and the executive board of the Association of Alumni elections on record, according to Lynne Gaudet '81, the director of alumni leadership in the College's Office of Alumni Relations.
In the first 24 hours of voting, 4 percent of Dartmouth alumni cast their votes, while by Friday, 6 percent of alumni had voted in the election, according to the Vox the Vote web site. The elections conclude April 7.
"I think, for one thing, [alumni] haven't had a trustee election in three years," Gaudet said.
Only 2 percent and 1 percent of alumni voted during the first day of the elections in 2008 and 2009, respectively, according to Gaudet.
Neither election included a vote for trustee candidates. The 2008 campaign featured the election of a new slate of candidates to the Association executive board - the "Unity" slate that ended the first alumni lawsuit against the College - while the 2009 vote dealt only with an amendment to the Association constitution.
Voter turnout by day has only being recorded since 2008, according to Gaudet.
Gaudet is a candidate for Association secretary-treasurer for the current "Unity" slate.
Gaudet added that she believes alumni are more involved in the current election because of increased access to candidate information through online media, electronic communications and mailings.
Several Alumni Council members have sent out e-mails to their constituents reminding them to vote in the ongoing elections. The communications, obtained by The Dartmouth, included descriptions of Council-nominated trustee candidates - John Replogle '88 and Morton Kondracke '60 - while also providing information on petition candidate Joe Asch '79, who is opposing Replogle in the race.
"Alumni Councilors typically send communications on their own based on what they feel is important information that they've learned from the College," Council President Janine Avner '80 said. "So they're getting quite a bit of leeway when it comes to getting information out there to their constituents."
One e-mail was sent to alumni of the College and another was sent to alumni of the Tuck School of Business.
The e-mails began with the same paragraph introducing the ongoing voting period and requesting alumni participating in the elections. The second paragraphs of both e-mails include descriptions of the current business affiliations of Replogle and Kondracke, as well as mentioning Asch's "two entrepreneurial businesses."
Both e-mails included the phrase "petition candidate Joseph Asch was the subject of a recent article in the Daily 'D' which is worth a read" before providing a link to the a recent article about Asch's current and former business affiliations ("Asch '79 withheld business past" March 9).
In a response to the e-mail also sent to The Dartmouth, two College alumni, John Leyba '01 and Albert Henning '77 state that including this information, which is one of two references to Asch's candidacy in the original e-mail, is inappropriate.
In his response, Leyba said as a result of the e-mail, he has now decided to vote for Asch.
"I was on the fence before, but your email has cemented a vote for Joe, on merit and now in protest," Leyba wrote.
Henning, however, said that the e-mail's content did not change his decision to not vote for Asch. He cited the recent article, and Asch's response to it, as a confirming reason why he would not vote for Asch.
"Instead of changing them, this episode reinforces my impressions from my earlier, private interactions with [Asch]," he said. "And I had arrived at this conclusion without aid of Hoyt's email."
Avner said the e-mail provided information on Asch's background.
"It did add to information about Joe Asch and his business experience," Avner said in an interview with The Dartmouth. "So, in that sense, it was information that the alumni could consider when they cast their ballot."
One e-mail was sent by Council-member Hoyt Zia '75, while the other was signed by Danielle Dyer '81 TU '89 and Stephen Bates TU' 74.
Zia declined requests for comment.
This is a breaking news update.
As a “constituent” I must have missed the voting for my Alumni Councilors. Are they like your High School guidance “councilor” [sic] that they just stick you with? And the Class Councilors get wide leeway to stick it to petition candidates? Wow, that’s cool, not fair, not right, but when you don’t have a case to make for your side, well then, it is high time for cheap shots and rigging the process against the other side. Go TEAM!!!
By Are You Kidding? on Mar 12 | 11:28 pm
I nearly wet myself when I read about the high turnout until I read “all about it” and found out that it is a high turnout compared to other votes…that weren’t elections and only going back to 2008. What was the alumni voter turnout for the eight new appointed Trustees? That must have been a real blockbuster of an election. I think that I was out of the country when that vote happened. What was that election like? Did the Dartmouth Undying people cheap shot those candidates too, to show that they are fair? Just kidding.
By Now We’re Talking! on Mar 12 | 11:46 pm
Most alumni councilors are not elected by their constituents. But that is not to say that all 100 of them are administration lapdogs. Many of them are embarrassed to pass along Office of Alumni Relations press releases as their own analysis and opinion.
By DartBored on Mar 13 | 8:56 am
@ Now We’re Talking: this election is to nominate an alumnus to be elected by the board. For those seats in which nomination is handled by the board’s own nomination committee, there is no voting by alumni. I hope this clears up your confusion.
By Anonymous on Mar 13 | 11:26 am
Just to clarify: I received three separate email from Alumni Council representatives regarding the election. One of these, from Hoyt Zia, contained a reference to the D article on Joe Asch’s medical products business, but the other two AC emails I received did not. My friend John Leyba copied me on his reply to Hoyt, taking Hoyt to task for the reference. I agree with John, that the reference was prejudicial and uncalled for, and wrote to Hoyt as well. Hoyt replied to me, and I am satisfied with his response.
Beyond that: I was satisfied with Mort and John as candidates for the Board, and with the process of their selection as such. I do encourage everyone to take the high road, get beyond the peevishness and pettiness and petulance, and focus on making the College the best undergraduate institution possible.
By Al Henning ‘77 on Mar 13 | 5:59 pm
I appreciate the word on the Councilors, DartBored. It seemed to me that the word “constituent” is misplaced if the alumni have little or no say in who our Councilors happen to be. I am pleased to hear that many are too embarrassed to pass along the trash tossed out by Alumni Relations. As best I can tell there are a group of authoritarian self selected elites running the school with no sense and access to big bank accounts.
By Are You Kidding? on Mar 13 | 7:46 pm
Al H: You will be interested in posts #50 and #51 over on the AoA forum. But take care to navigate in on the white background version of the thread and scroll to the bottom. If you bring up the permalink version with the grey background, for some reason the second post does not show… maybe a limitation of the blog software. Tim
Other readers: You may also be interested in posting #51 over there, as there is some insight relevant to the discussion here on councilors being representative of constituents.
By Timothy A. Dreisbach 71 on Mar 13 | 9:34 pm
Al: The prejudicial Asch reference was not an isolated one in the email you received from Hoyt. There are other examples of the same communication from others. While some councilors took the reference out, it apparently was in a draft suggested for use by councilors more broadly. This is a perfect example of “Ins” (your term) playing on an uneven field to advance their candidates.
Perhaps you should elevate your concerns as expressed to Hoyt to the level of the Council leadership.
By Timothy A. Dreisbach 71 on Mar 13 | 9:53 pm