Replogle, Kondracke elected to the Board of Trustees
Morton Kondracke ’60, left, and John Replogle ’88 have been elected to the Board of Trustees.
By Greg Berger And Madeline Sims, The Dartmouth Staff
Published on Friday, April 9, 2010
Web Update
Alumni Council-nominated candidate John Replogle ’88 has won the election for one of two open seats on the Board of Trustees, defeating petition candidate Joe Asch ’79 and garnering 70.9 percent of votes in the election, Association of Alumni president John Mathias ’69 announced at the Association meeting Saturday. His nomination to the Board of Trustees was approved by the Board Saturday morning, along with the nomination of Council-nominated candidate Morton Kondracke ’60, who ran uncontested for the other seat.
Mathias’ “Unity” slate of candidates was also elected to the Association executive board.
Thirty-two percent of voting alumni — 20,790 voters — cast ballots in the election, which ran from March 10 through April 7, according to Vox the Vote. Replogle received 14,176 votes to Asch’s 5,823, while Kondracke received 17,762.
The election marks the first victory of Council-nominated candidates since the consecutive election of four petition candidates — T.J. Rodgers ’70 in 2004, Peter Robinson ’79 and Todd Zywicki ’88 in 2005, and Stephen Smith ’88 in 2007.
“Alumni are ready for a change [from] the very vocal and very small minority of the alumni body that have really been driving the last several elections,” Replogle said. “The unspoken majority spoke out.”
Both Replogle and Kondracke credited the work of their shared steering committee for the election’s turnout.
“I know from our standpoint, we just had a phenomenal campaign organization and I don’t think there was any class that wasn’t represented,” Kondracke said. “Class captains clearly got the message out to everybody in their class that this was an important election.”
Kondracke also expressed hope that fewer elections will be contested in the future and that candidates will not be required to spend as much money.
“I think this result is so decisive that the wars of the past are over,” he said. “The alumni have spoken, and therefore unless there is some sort of enormous controversy that comes up, we’re not going to have as many furiously contested elections as we had in the past.”
Replogle said he feels the election turnout is indicative of support among College alumni for a “constructive vision” of the College, while Kondracke said that the results prove alumni do not support lawsuits or “nonstop criticism” of the College.
Both trustees-elect said the voting turnout suggests College alumni are willing to support College President Jim Yong Kim in the coming years. Kondracke noted that the election results represent a “decisive statement” from alumni that they support the direction of the College under Kim, who took office July 1, 2009.
“It’s not that [Kim] endorsed anyone, but the vote is a statement that they want to get on with the success of the College and that they have confidence in him as a leader,” he said.
As a trustee, Replogle said he will work to end lawsuits against the College, and that he will “have a conversation” about the Board’s governance model in order to ensure the “best” structure for the College.
Since 2007, the College has faced two lawsuits brought by alumni against the Board in response to the Board’s 2007 decision to end parity between alumni-elected and charter-selected trustees by adding eight additional seats filled by charter-selected trustees. Both argue that alumni are guaranteed parity by an agreement made in 1891, which they see as legally binding. The first lawsuit, brought by the Association’s executive board in September 2007, was dismissed with prejudice in June 2008 when alumni elected a new executive board that opposed the lawsuit. The second was brought by an independent group of alumni in November 2008, but was dismissed by res judicata in January 2010. The group is currently appealing this decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Despite past criticism that Replogle does not have a decisive view on parity between Board-selected and alumni-elected trustees, Replogle said he holds a consistent opinion on the matter.
“I believe alumni representation on the Board is a positive thing,” he said. “[It should] continue to be expanded.”
Replogle added that he would like to explore introducing young alumni representation on the Board, similar to the model used by Princeton University.
“I think that may be a way to bridge the gap,” Replogle said. “I’m not dogmatic that we need to reach a 50-50 balance immediately, but I think that’s a good objective for us to have.”
One of Asch’s campaign platforms was to restore Board parity, although he said he did not support the second lawsuit against the College.
Kondracke expressed similar sentiment to Replogle.
“I did not say that I endorsed absolute parity but I think we should move in that direction,” Kondracke said.
Both Replogle and Kondracke outlined further objectives for themselves as trustees.
Kondracke said his role in the future will be to better communicate Dartmouth’s robustness to the general public, to improve the College’s image and to increase alumni involvement in College governance.
“I view my role in this new era to try to help Dartmouth communicate its message better so everyone knows how great we truly are,” he said.
He also said he hopes to ensure that Dartmouth becomes more competitive with other Ivy League institutions. When students currently are accepted to Dartmouth and other peer schools, Dartmouth “loses overwhelmingly” to Harvard, Princeton and Yale, he said.
Replogle said he hopes to address the problem through improved communication with prospective students, their parents and the general community.
As a trustee, Replogle will work to “put classrooms first,” as well as to manage the College’s assets, costs and revenues to reflect the College’s long-term needs.
Replogle said he intends to become involved with Board discussions on “education curriculum,” adding that he is also willing to serve the Board in whatever capacity he is needed.
“I also look forward to spending time when I’m in Hanover meeting with students and Student Assembly — listening and being close with Dartmouth today,” Replogle said.
Although Asch and several of his supporters contended that Replogle and Kondracke engaged in negative campaign tactics throughout the election, the trustees-elect argued that their campaign efforts were not defamatory.
“I never attacked my opponent,” Replogle said. “I simply used my opponent’s words to make sure people understood his position on issues. He’s got a very clear track record, and I simply used his published words.”
Kondracke also denied accusations from the opposition that the campaign was “harshly negative.”
“There were major differences between Replogle and Asch that needed to be brought to the fore, but I don’t think this was a horrendously negative campaign,” he said. “In fact, it was an overwhelmingly positive campaign.”
Replogle said he was “delighted” and “absolutely honored” by his election to the Board, he said, adding that he wanted to thank all alumni who voted, as well as his opposing candidate Asch.
“I want to thank Joe Asch for his campaign and his hard work on behalf of Dartmouth,” Replogle said. “I think he made me a better candidate and I am thankful for all he had to offer in this election.”
Kondracke called the election a “fantastic victory all around.” Asch was not immediately available for comment.
The two vacant seats that Kondracke and Replogle will fill were previously held by trustee Michael Chu ’68 and Zywicki. Chu has served his second and final term, while Zywicki was not re-elected to a second term, a break from the precedent in which re-elections had previously been routine.
In a letter Asch sent to thousands of College alumni during the voting period, the three petition trustees — Rodgers, Robinson and Smith — endorsed Asch over Replogle. Smith also sent a separate mailing of his own in which he expressed his support for Asch and denigrated Replogle as a trustee candidate.
Despite the trustees’ endorsement of his opponent, Replogle said he “looks forward” to working “collaboratively” with all members of the Board.
“We only succeed if we all work together,” Replogle said. “I will listen to the differences in opinions and try to see if there’s a way for us to build amongst those differences options to better the College.”
Kondracke and Replogle will join the Board on June 13, according to a College press release.
In the Association race, Mathias defeated J. Michael Murphy ’61 for the Association presidency with 73.7 percent of the vote. Veree Brown ‘93, Mark Alperin ’80, Doug Keare ’56, Lynn Gaudet ’81, Mark Alperin ’80, Marian Baldouf ’84, John Engelman ’68, Ronald Harris ’71, Kaitlin Jaxheimer ’05, Otho Kerr ’79 and Ronald Shram ’64 were all elected to the Association executive committee.
Brown defeated Alpha Bond ’52, winning 72.4 percent of votes for the first vice presidency. Keare won the second vice presidency with 73.7 percent of the vote, beating out Diana Ellis ’08. Gaudet, director of alumni leadership in the College Office of Alumni Relations, received 74.5 percent of votes for the secretary-treasurer position, defeating opponent Emily Esfahani Smith ’09.
Comments
The Dartmouth welcomes comments from readers on TheDartmouth.com. You can find answers to frequently asked questions about commenting by clicking here.
Comments may be submitted using the input feature below. There are three ways you can submit a comment:
- Use the Dartmouth Name Directory (DND) account login: Using this option will ensure your comment is posted immediately. Your name will be displayed with your comment.
- Use an OpenID account (Google, Yahoo, etc.) login: Your comment will be posted after it is approved by an editor (usually within one hour on business days). You can edit the identifying information that appears with your comment.
- Use a guest account: Using this option, you do not have to login using a DND or OpenID account. Your comment will be posted after it is approved by an editor. You can edit the identifying information that appears with your comment.
Dartmouth alumni have spoken.
Some predictions of the result:
The re-elected Association executive committee will enact “election reforms”, supposedly to end negative campaigning, even though Dartmouth UnDying did exactly that to keep this slate in power; the real goal will be to further disadvantage, discredit, and ultimately silence alumni with opposing views. The Council will re-emphasize its role as the primary vehicle for representing alumni, without imposing any requirements on classes, clubs, or affiliated groups to insure true representation. The Office of Alumni Relations will continue its behind-the-scenes manipulation to insure the above. Eventually the Association will be merged into the Council. Disenchanted alumni will quietly go away, resulting in less-healthy homogeneity among active alums; incumbents will cheer the end of “divisiveness.” As things quiet down, the Board will return to its “rubber stamp” mode and after the current financial crisis passes, Dartmouth will again succumb to pressures to become larger in size and more university-like in nature. The remnants of “Dartmouth exceptionalism” will be snuffed out. It will remain one of many among elite institutions of higher education, but will no longer be unique, a “me-three” school playing keep-up with its peers.Unintended consequences….
By Timothy A. Dreisbach 71 on Apr 10 | 11:53 am
Tim: You are completely correct and, therefore, congratulations are in order to David Spalding. He has now accomplished everything he was hired to do. Carrie Pelzel’s job may have gotten a bit harder, but Ed Haldeman would say that’s a small price to pay for this total victory. Goodbye.
By DartBored on Apr 10 | 12:52 pm
The alumni have spoken. Parity is no longer an issue within the Dartmouth family. It’s time for the Hanover Institute to realize that it’s day has come and gone. It’s time for the Dartmouth family to come together and be unified. Let’s make it happen.
By John Fitzpatrick ‘65 on Apr 10 | 1:38 pm
Tim,
The vote was 3:1 against the petition slate with an improved turnout of 32% of eligible alumni. Alumni are not turning away.
It seems to me that alumni are tired of the external attacks on Dartmouth and do not wish to be represented by people who appear intent on tearing down the school’s reputation and damaging fundraising in the process.
Once the current budget matters are settled the question of parity will have to be settled by negotiation and commonsense and not in the courtroom and on the editorial page.
However, John may be right, I am not sure that “parity” is the primary issue alumni are considering as they vote.
By Geoffrey V. Bronner on Apr 10 | 2:31 pm
Somewhere around 90% of students and alumni, who were accepted regular decision, were rejected by Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. It’s about time we’re getting what we want.
By Kimberly James on Apr 10 | 3:39 pm
Kim,
What in the world are you talking about?
By Brice D. L. Acree 09 on Apr 10 | 4:53 pm
What reforms did Dartmouth Undying enact, Tim? Are you talking about the Association of Alumni constitutional amendment? Which was approved by a supermajority? How exactly does it keep a “slate” in power? And why didn’t you warn us of this grave consequence before the election? It looks like your side lost yet again and you’re upset about it.
By Anonymous on Apr 10 | 5:30 pm
DartBored: A further prediction: President Kim currently has on his Board three remaining petition trustees who asked tough questions when they ran for their positions and presumably continue to do as trustees. He does not want micro-management, but I suspect that he will find that he values and misses these individuals after they are gone.
Right now he has a financial crisis at his back allowing him to make difficult but necessary choices. After it passes, he will need a strong, independent Board who asks questions of the entire administrative team, in order to overcome inherent resistances by faculty, staff, and even students. He will find it more difficult when the toughest Board question reverts to “are we having lobster rolls for the Board luncheon?”
By Timothy A. Dreisbach 71 on Apr 10 | 8:36 pm
Goodbye, DartBored
By Timothy A. Dreisbach 71 on Apr 10 | 8:39 pm
as the parent of an incoming ED 2014 i'm glad to see common sense prevail. as to the 90 percent figure——impossible, as 30 % of each class is early decision, with dartmouth obviously this group’s first choice. my daughter is as strong as they come academically and would have had a shot anywhere. she was in fact recruited by h (i can’t say for what or it might i.d. her and she'd be furious i weighed in) but d was her favorite far and away . But parents of potential applicants are turned off by the bickering, as were we. we got over it largely because of what several recent grads told us—-ignore that marginal fringe, they told us, they are the minority. this election confirms that. I couldn’t be happier to say my daughter was right——-she picked the best school.
By anonymous on Apr 11 | 12:56 am
anonymous (April 11):
With all due respect — and I genuinely mean that — you would do well to not discuss things you don’t fully understand. In this race, Replogle ‘88 and Kondracke '60 were actually far more negative than Asch '79. Asch never mentioned either on his website, for example, while Replogle’s mentioned him by name numerous times. Asch did not send an negative mailer; Dartmouth Undying sent one intentionally misrepresenting Asch’s views and experience. The UnDying crowd might claim that these attacks were preemptive, but it doesn’t change the fact that Replogle was far more negative in this race.
And to educate you on some history from the past decade — had the Board of Trustees had more, not fewer, people like Asch (such as the three other petition trustees) there’s a decent chance the College wouldn’t be in such dire financial straits right now.
And finally, on “bickering” – your daughter should feel proud to be at an institution where alumni care this much. All of this representation on Dartmouth United wanting to “hurt” the College is ridiculous. They’re not in this for monetary gain, fame or career advancement… they’re doing this because they want to advance the College. Diverse opinions and debates in the public square are good for us, however annoying they may sometimes be. (Imagine one-party rule and uncontested elections for government…. more peaceful, but so much worse for everyone.)
Don’t believe me? Ask Jeff Immelt ‘78: “Part of growing as a leader is to open the doors to divergent opinions, to let critics into the boardroom, and to engage diverse viewpoints and perceptions. Institutions cannot be insular or static.”
By Brice D. L. Acree 09 on Apr 11 | 12:33 pm
Can anyone explain how/why there were 2 open seats, but only one was subject to a contested election?
I thought all of the trustee seats were interchangeable and would have expected that with 2 open seats, the top-2 vote-getters would get them. Apparently I was mistaken. I'd appreciate it if someone could fill in the details.
By 01 on Apr 11 | 5:56 pm
01-
Dartmouth has an interesting method of electing alumni trustees. The Alumni Council nominates candidate(s) for open seats. This year, there were two open seats, and the Council nominated Kondracke ‘60 for one and Replogle '88 for the other.
In the past, many alumni have not been thrilled by the choices of the Council. Any alumnus/ae who wishes to serve on the board, but who was not nominated by the Council, can petition to be placed on the ballot. If that alum can get 500 petitions signed, s/he appears on the ballot. This year, Joe Asch ‘79 petitioned to be put on the ballot. He chose to challenge Replogle. No alumni chose to challenge Kondracke.
(In the past, the Council would nominate multiple candidates for each open seat, but after a string of success by petition candidates, the Council decided to nominate one standard bearer for each seat.)
By Brice D. L. Acree 09 on Apr 12 | 9:56 am
Correct, except the Council decided nothing. They were told what to do by OAR and the Trustees.
By Anonymous on Apr 12 | 10:50 am
Actually, alumni voted to amend the constitution of the Association of Alumni so as to put forward one nominee in most elections. The Council, which nominates candidates but does not run the elections, chose to supply one nominee for each seat in this race.
Among all 70,000 alumni, only one person was dissatisfied enough with the Council’s nominees to gather the signatures and run as a petition candidate. Against the weaker candidate.
The amendment also instituted one-man-one-vote voting instead of approval voting, which is what 01 is familiar with.
@ Brice: since we do not know the content of the board’s discussions, we can’t assume that the petition trustees were any more “independent” (of what?) or knowledgeable or prescient regarding the financial collapse than any other trustees. Certainly their push to restrict the board’s authority does not suggest they saw it coming. Nor do their backgrounds: most of them are really inexperienced when it comes to nonprofit boards, and most of them have very little experience in finance. Chances are just as good that Dartmouth would be worse off if there had been more petition trustees, not better off.
By Anonymous on Apr 12 | 12:36 pm
Anonymous (April 12)–
My claim was not that petition trustees have more financial experience than the rest of the Board. Perhaps we disagree, but during the bubble years I think Dartmouth would have been better served had more of her trustees exercised sharper oversight. (The growth in the size of administration, for example, was a major campaign theme from 2004-2007.) The Council’s nominated candidates just have a different view on the role of a fiduciary, namely to be generally deferential to the President of the College. I personally disagree, as did our petition candidates.
By Brice D. L. Acree 09 on Apr 12 | 6:37 pm
Brice—
I think the petition trustees were obsessed with non-issues like “free speech” and classroom sizes. They weren’t exercising fiscal oversight, and most of them wouldn’t have known how to do that anyway. They are idologues and that’s what got them elected.
It is simply not true that any trustee sees the role of the fiduciary as being deferential to the president. It is particularly strange to see this kind of comment in support of the petition trustees, since they have generally shown a very poor understanding of the fiduciary’s role.
By Anonymous on Apr 12 | 10:27 pm
Anonymous-
We have different definitions of the role of trustees, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the fiduciary. Nor does it mean that the petition trustees had “a very poor understanding of the fiduciary’s role.”
And you’re selective in your memory.All three petition candidates who won seats in the mid-decade ran, in part, on fiscal restraint and limited administrative growth. Had their message been heeded, Dartmouth would not need to cut quite so much from the budget today.
For the record, the petitioners weren’t idealogues. They just had ideas, and shared them. I'm not conservative in the least — have only staffed Democratic campaigns — but I supported Asch and his predecessors. It’s not about ideology, it’s common sense.
By Brice D. L. Acree 09 on Apr 13 | 5:48 pm
Kondracke wants fewer contested elections. Now he tells us! Let’s all move to China.
By Mr. Mao on Apr 18 | 9:39 pm