My objection to the proposed constitutional amendments is informed by nearly a decade on the Alumni Board: as Outreach Committee Chair, Nominations Committee member, Alumna Trustee, plus chapter steering committee member. While I applaud the proponents’ desire to improve the AB’s effectiveness, I find the following troublesome:
• Absence of a clear “problem statement” makes it difficult to assess whether the proposed changes will help. While the “Proposal” states the “goal is to increase alignment,” what is misaligned and how the proposal will solve the undefined problem are unclear.
• While the “Proposal” calls for “all alumni board members [to] have term limits,” it only limits terms for Chapter Directors and Alumni Trustees. The latter limit derives from the Reed Board of Trustees governance rules, but the former appears arbitrary.
• Removal of most chapter leaders from AB membership has alienated several hard-working, committed chapter volunteers at a time when other controversies still reverberate within the alumni community. I recommend the AB work to heal rifts in our community through more inclusive, not exclusionary, actions.
• Alternatively, Nominations Committee focus on matching skills needed for each AB position, plus training/coaching on effective meeting management, may better address AB effectiveness concerns.
Respectfully,
Marcia Yaross, ‘73
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Alternate Approaches to Choosing Alumni Association Leadership
by Paul Alan Levy ‘72
The post from Friederike Keating, which suggests both that the alumni board is too large to be effective but also that the board needs to provide representation to more strains of alumni activism, leads me to provide the following reflection on paths not taken by the current proposed amendments to the alumni association’s constitution.
When the proposal to eliminate representatives from each of the chapters on the alumni board was first put forward in the fall of 2017, one of the rationales offered by the proponents of the change was that the alumni board was too large to operate effectively; elimination of chapter representation was said to represent a necessary form of streamlining. Of course, there was no necessary connection between the objective of cutting the size and eliminating chapter representation – why not, instead, cut down on the number of at-large members (fifteen of them, with five elected each year)?
Another alternative that was put forward was to keep roughly the same number of alumni board members but to achieve a degree of streamlining by expanding the Board’s Executive Committee – currently consisting of the secretary, vice–president, president, and immediate past president of the alumni board – by adding the chairs of each of the functioning committees – currently, the Committee for Young Alumni, the Diversity and Inclusion Committee, the Reed Career Alliance and the Chapters Committee. To make sure that this leadership represented a bottom-up democratic selection process instead of the current top-down process whereby the Alumni Board’s president chooses the committee chairs, the alternate proposals was for the committees to choose their own chairs.
One that sort of streamlined leadership structure was in place, it could have been possible to expand alumni participation in the alumni board by drawing in representatives from the affinity networks that have begun to form among alumni — among alumni of color, STEM femmes, legal professionals, journalists, Reedies in finance, Reedies for social change, and the like. That might have made the Board larger, although an alternative would have been to reduce the number of at-large board members.
To my own mind, the alumni board ought to be the gathering place where alums who are active in building and supporting the various activities of the alumni community can compare notes, and find ways to collaborate as well as to relate their activities to the college and the current students. Membership ought to be generated from the bottom up, rather than being selected by the current top-down process to which the representatives of the chapters are now the only exception. During the last years before Todd Hesse and Mike Teskey were pushed out of their alumni office positions, I had been hearing about such a possible expansion of the alumni board. Sadly, in the event the Board’s leadership decided to go in a different direction.
Indeed, the alternate amendment proposed, as well, that the nominating committee not limit itself to selecting a single candidate for each of the at-large and executive committee positions, One of the nicest developments at the alumni board over the past few years has been the increase in the number of alums who have wanted to be considered to be nominated for election to at-large positions. Reports from the nominating committee in recent years mentioned their having made selections from a pool of 45 or even 50 possible candidates. Why not, then, charge the nominating committee with putting forward at least two candidates for each at large position, and letting the alumni members choose among those candidates in an election? A similar principle might call for nominating multiple candidates for the executive committee positions.
Unfortunately, the proponents of the alumni constitution amendments decided to change in the direction of less democracy rather than more.
The post from Friederike Keating, which suggests both that the alumni board is too large to be effective but also that the board needs to provide representation to more strains of alumni activism, leads me to provide the following reflection on paths not taken by the current proposed amendments to the alumni association’s constitution.
When the proposal to eliminate representatives from each of the chapters on the alumni board was first put forward in the fall of 2017, one of the rationales offered by the proponents of the change was that the alumni board was too large to operate effectively; elimination of chapter representation was said to represent a necessary form of streamlining. Of course, there was no necessary connection between the objective of cutting the size and eliminating chapter representation – why not, instead, cut down on the number of at-large members (fifteen of them, with five elected each year)?
Another alternative that was put forward was to keep roughly the same number of alumni board members but to achieve a degree of streamlining by expanding the Board’s Executive Committee – currently consisting of the secretary, vice–president, president, and immediate past president of the alumni board – by adding the chairs of each of the functioning committees – currently, the Committee for Young Alumni, the Diversity and Inclusion Committee, the Reed Career Alliance and the Chapters Committee. To make sure that this leadership represented a bottom-up democratic selection process instead of the current top-down process whereby the Alumni Board’s president chooses the committee chairs, the alternate proposals was for the committees to choose their own chairs.
One that sort of streamlined leadership structure was in place, it could have been possible to expand alumni participation in the alumni board by drawing in representatives from the affinity networks that have begun to form among alumni — among alumni of color, STEM femmes, legal professionals, journalists, Reedies in finance, Reedies for social change, and the like. That might have made the Board larger, although an alternative would have been to reduce the number of at-large board members.
To my own mind, the alumni board ought to be the gathering place where alums who are active in building and supporting the various activities of the alumni community can compare notes, and find ways to collaborate as well as to relate their activities to the college and the current students. Membership ought to be generated from the bottom up, rather than being selected by the current top-down process to which the representatives of the chapters are now the only exception. During the last years before Todd Hesse and Mike Teskey were pushed out of their alumni office positions, I had been hearing about such a possible expansion of the alumni board. Sadly, in the event the Board’s leadership decided to go in a different direction.
Indeed, the alternate amendment proposed, as well, that the nominating committee not limit itself to selecting a single candidate for each of the at-large and executive committee positions, One of the nicest developments at the alumni board over the past few years has been the increase in the number of alums who have wanted to be considered to be nominated for election to at-large positions. Reports from the nominating committee in recent years mentioned their having made selections from a pool of 45 or even 50 possible candidates. Why not, then, charge the nominating committee with putting forward at least two candidates for each at large position, and letting the alumni members choose among those candidates in an election? A similar principle might call for nominating multiple candidates for the executive committee positions.
Unfortunately, the proponents of the alumni constitution amendments decided to change in the direction of less democracy rather than more.
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
The transition problem -- how poorly crafted language in the proposed amendments cuts out all directors representing chapters until July 1, 2020
The final drafters of the proposed amendments included a serious mistake: though the plan was to cut the alumni association chapters down to having 3 representatives on the alumni board of directors (ABD), in fact their amendments eliminate ALL chapter representation on the ABD for the first 18 months after the referendum is done (if their proposal passes). This is “the transition problem.”
Close Reading of the Documents
Specifically, one of the last minute changes that was made in the proposed amendments that had been under discussion since the fall, on the eve of the ABD meeting in June 2018, was to create an odd mechanism for identifying the three representatives to which the chapters are to be limited under the proposed amendments. Instead of simply being selected by the proposed new body called the Chapter Steering Organization (“CSO”), its selectees were made subject to the same nominating and election process as the at-large members as well as the executive committee members and the alumni trustee. (Articles IV(1)(c), VI(3), and VII(5) et seq.). Under this language, instead of being able to begin serving immediately, the CSO nominees will have to be submitted to the nominating committee which will be required to name them as the nominees for Chapter Director positions "on or before November 15." Then they will have to be identified in an official Reed publication as soon as possible after November 15; then there is a waiting period while there is an opportunity for other nominations, allowing any alum, even one who does not live in a chapter area, to run for one of the chapter representation positions. Then there is provision for the CSO to accept or reject the nominees who are elected. THEN the term of office for those representatives begins on July 1 following the election.
Let's assume that the proposed amendments are adopted in a referendum that will be completed in early February. By virtue of the change, all chapter representatives will be off the board. And yet the deadline for identifying Chapter Directors and publishing their names to the alumni membership, for terms to begin the following July 1, will be long past. Chapter Directors will have to be identified for publication to the membership on the following November 15 (2019), and then subjected to the election process preparatory to taking office on the following July 1, 2020. So, for a year and a half after the passage of the amendments, these provisions mean that the chapters will have NO representation on the board.
The Alumni Board Leadership Tried but Failed to Explain This Problem Away
These were shared in a comment thread in the Reed (u) Facebook group here (only the 4400 members of that Facebook group can view these). Then you can see in the comment thread a long back and forth between Paul Levy ‘72, a public interest litigator who is one of the opponents of the changes, and Darlene Pasieczny '01, a securities law litigator who favors the changes and has been the leaders’ technical point person. Initially, she denies that the language of the amendments had this meaning., but pleads that she is in a hurry and will respond in detail later; then she bravely says that the language does not do this but won’t explain why; then finally she asks Levy to agree with her assumption that the Alumni Board could just ignore the language of the amendments to add chapter representatives to take care of this problem. See also this post (again, accessible only to those who belong to the Reed (u) Facebook group).
But that cannot be right. The reason you adopt a constitution is to LIMIT the power of the ABD to monkey with selection of leaders. The way to deal with the problem that the leadership created is to vote the amendments down, sending them back to the drawing board if they still insist that having too many chapter representatives on the ABD is a problem that needs fixing.
How This Mistake Was Made
This post explains how this last minute error came to be made – alumni leaders put forward last-minute changes in the language of their proposal, and were in such a hurry to ram this vote through (they knew they had enough votes on the Board) that they did not leave enough time to study their final proposed language, and refused to allow enough discussion, before it was put to a vote.
Close Reading of the Documents
Specifically, one of the last minute changes that was made in the proposed amendments that had been under discussion since the fall, on the eve of the ABD meeting in June 2018, was to create an odd mechanism for identifying the three representatives to which the chapters are to be limited under the proposed amendments. Instead of simply being selected by the proposed new body called the Chapter Steering Organization (“CSO”), its selectees were made subject to the same nominating and election process as the at-large members as well as the executive committee members and the alumni trustee. (Articles IV(1)(c), VI(3), and VII(5) et seq.). Under this language, instead of being able to begin serving immediately, the CSO nominees will have to be submitted to the nominating committee which will be required to name them as the nominees for Chapter Director positions "on or before November 15." Then they will have to be identified in an official Reed publication as soon as possible after November 15; then there is a waiting period while there is an opportunity for other nominations, allowing any alum, even one who does not live in a chapter area, to run for one of the chapter representation positions. Then there is provision for the CSO to accept or reject the nominees who are elected. THEN the term of office for those representatives begins on July 1 following the election.
Let's assume that the proposed amendments are adopted in a referendum that will be completed in early February. By virtue of the change, all chapter representatives will be off the board. And yet the deadline for identifying Chapter Directors and publishing their names to the alumni membership, for terms to begin the following July 1, will be long past. Chapter Directors will have to be identified for publication to the membership on the following November 15 (2019), and then subjected to the election process preparatory to taking office on the following July 1, 2020. So, for a year and a half after the passage of the amendments, these provisions mean that the chapters will have NO representation on the board.
The Alumni Board Leadership Tried but Failed to Explain This Problem Away
These were shared in a comment thread in the Reed (u) Facebook group here (only the 4400 members of that Facebook group can view these). Then you can see in the comment thread a long back and forth between Paul Levy ‘72, a public interest litigator who is one of the opponents of the changes, and Darlene Pasieczny '01, a securities law litigator who favors the changes and has been the leaders’ technical point person. Initially, she denies that the language of the amendments had this meaning., but pleads that she is in a hurry and will respond in detail later; then she bravely says that the language does not do this but won’t explain why; then finally she asks Levy to agree with her assumption that the Alumni Board could just ignore the language of the amendments to add chapter representatives to take care of this problem. See also this post (again, accessible only to those who belong to the Reed (u) Facebook group).
But that cannot be right. The reason you adopt a constitution is to LIMIT the power of the ABD to monkey with selection of leaders. The way to deal with the problem that the leadership created is to vote the amendments down, sending them back to the drawing board if they still insist that having too many chapter representatives on the ABD is a problem that needs fixing.
How This Mistake Was Made
This post explains how this last minute error came to be made – alumni leaders put forward last-minute changes in the language of their proposal, and were in such a hurry to ram this vote through (they knew they had enough votes on the Board) that they did not leave enough time to study their final proposed language, and refused to allow enough discussion, before it was put to a vote.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
A different perspective: Statement from Friederike Keating ‘85
A different perspective: Statement from Friederike Keating ‘85
Friederike Keating, one of the moderators of the Reed (unofficial) Facebook group, explained her reasons for voting against the proposes amendments in one of the comment threads in that group (those who belong to the group can see it here) She has kindly consented to allow the following statement to be posted here. The group of opponents who sponsor this blog do not agree about all the following, but, in the event that the changes are voted down, we will all have to think about what comes next. As we see it, a multiplicity of viewpoints on that prospect is to be welcomed.
"I will vote against the proposal but for different reasons than those in your statement, and with a different vision. My vision is of a Board that is composed of reps from different areas of the alumni association and is streamlined so that it can make some strategic decisions after being advised by those reps, and then delegate the work back out to the contingents/committees/subgroups represented by those reps. It's like a sleeker, more efficient kind of Board.
"With that in mind:
I am in agreement with the idea of reduced representation of chapter leaders, because having all chapter leaders on the Board seems unwieldy.
I am in agreement with the idea of a chapter council that sends reps to the Board.
"However,
I think 3 is too few.
I think there should also be fewer At Large and Trustee members,
I think there should be equal terms and term limits for all
"My vision may not be workable for an organization that suffers from varying levels of enthusiasm and engagement and needs to use all the talent it can, and I am certainly not in a position to make any strong recommendations due to my lack of involvement (though I think of myself as having worked in one aspect of alumni relations quite diligently, that of social media/fb, and I think that may well deserve more attention in the alumni association's world)."
Friederike Keating, one of the moderators of the Reed (unofficial) Facebook group, explained her reasons for voting against the proposes amendments in one of the comment threads in that group (those who belong to the group can see it here) She has kindly consented to allow the following statement to be posted here. The group of opponents who sponsor this blog do not agree about all the following, but, in the event that the changes are voted down, we will all have to think about what comes next. As we see it, a multiplicity of viewpoints on that prospect is to be welcomed.
"I will vote against the proposal but for different reasons than those in your statement, and with a different vision. My vision is of a Board that is composed of reps from different areas of the alumni association and is streamlined so that it can make some strategic decisions after being advised by those reps, and then delegate the work back out to the contingents/committees/subgroups represented by those reps. It's like a sleeker, more efficient kind of Board.
"With that in mind:
I am in agreement with the idea of reduced representation of chapter leaders, because having all chapter leaders on the Board seems unwieldy.
I am in agreement with the idea of a chapter council that sends reps to the Board.
"However,
I think 3 is too few.
I think there should also be fewer At Large and Trustee members,
I think there should be equal terms and term limits for all
"My vision may not be workable for an organization that suffers from varying levels of enthusiasm and engagement and needs to use all the talent it can, and I am certainly not in a position to make any strong recommendations due to my lack of involvement (though I think of myself as having worked in one aspect of alumni relations quite diligently, that of social media/fb, and I think that may well deserve more attention in the alumni association's world)."
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Statement of objection by James Kahan '64
My
objection to the proposed Alumni Association (AA) constitutional changes is
informed by my highly active volunteer participation, including service on the Alumni
Board of Directors (ABD). I helped write
the group statement in opposition, and here add further objections.
The
self-perpetuation of the ABD solely through the closely-selected Nominating
Committee is anti-democratic; instead, the AA as a whole should choose its
representatives in as transparent and democratic a manner as possible. A way to accomplish this is to use modern
communications technology to hold an annual ranked-choice election for:
·
One alumni trustee to serve a four-year term,
·
One member of the ABD Executive Committee to serve a
four-year term, and
·
Five at-large members of the ABD, each to serve a
three-year term.
Alumni
wishing to serve would submit a short statement of why they wish to do so; they
might possibly also be asked to name up to ten people who endorse their
candidacy.
“Alignment
of interests”—used to justify the proposed changes—should be accomplished by
coordination of bottom-up ideas instead of top-down diktats. Indeed, to be faithful to the AA’s mission, such coordination
should be the primary function of the ABD.
James
Kahan, ‘64
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Where Reed alums live
Our data on the fraction of alums living in chapter areas came from Reed's Office of Alumni Programs, as follows. The cohorts represent groupings of time since graduation
| Total Living Alumni | ||
| Cohort 1 | 3881 | |
| Cohort 2 | 4613 | |
| Cohort 3 | 4499 | |
| Cohort 4 | 4766 | |
| TOTAL | 17759 | |
| By chapter | ||
| Boston | ||
| Cohort 1 | 176 | |
| Cohort 2 | 153 | |
| Cohort 3 | 151 | |
| Cohort 4 | 162 | |
| TOTAL | 642 | |
| % of Total | 4% | |
| Chicago | ||
| Cohort 1 | 113 | |
| Cohort 2 | 110 | |
| Cohort 3 | 103 | |
| Cohort 4 | 79 | |
| TOTAL | 405 | |
| % of Total | 2% | |
| Europe | ||
| Cohort 1 | 35 | |
| Cohort 2 | 84 | |
| Cohort 3 | 85 | |
| Cohort 4 | 56 | |
| TOTAL | 260 | |
| % of Total | 1% | |
| Los Angeles | ||
| Cohort 1 | 288 | |
| Cohort 2 | 235 | |
| Cohort 3 | 219 | |
| Cohort 4 | 276 | |
| TOTAL | 1018 | |
| % of Total | 6% | |
| New York City | ||
| Cohort 1 | 367 | |
| Cohort 2 | 364 | |
| Cohort 3 | 313 | |
| Cohort 4 | 266 | |
| TOTAL | 1310 | |
| % of Total | 7% | |
| Portland | ||
| Cohort 1 | 779 | |
| Cohort 2 | 894 | |
| Cohort 3 | 989 | |
| Cohort 4 | 895 | |
| TOTAL | 3557 | |
| % of Total | 20% | |
| San Francisco | ||
| Cohort 1 | 416 | |
| Cohort 2 | 517 | |
| Cohort 3 | 491 | |
| Cohort 4 | 568 | |
| TOTAL | 1992 | |
| % of Total | 11% | |
| Seattle | ||
| Cohort 1 | 228 | |
| Cohort 2 | 313 | |
| Cohort 3 | 414 | |
| Cohort 4 | 410 | |
| TOTAL | 1365 | |
| % of Total | 8% | |
| Triangle (NC) | ||
| Cohort 1 | 44 | |
| Cohort 2 | 58 | |
| Cohort 3 | 49 | |
| Cohort 4 | 35 | |
| TOTAL | 186 | |
| % of Total | 1% | |
| Washington DC | ||
| Cohort 1 | 141 | |
| Cohort 2 | 190 | |
| Cohort 3 | 194 | |
| Cohort 4 | 200 | |
| TOTAL | 725 | |
| % of Total | 4% | |
| Everyone else | ||
| Cohort 1 | 1294 | |
| Cohort 2 | 1695 | |
| Cohort 3 | 1491 | |
| Cohort 4 | 1819 | |
| TOTAL | 6299 | |
| % of Total | 35% | |
Monday, December 3, 2018
List of authors and co-signers of the statement in opposition to the proposed amendments
Here is the current list of authors and signers (as of January 18):
Authors
|
Name
|
Class
|
Alumni Association Activity;
Recognition for service
|
|
Johanna Colgrove
|
1992
|
current: Europe Chapter chair,
Alumni Board of Directors (“ABD”) member; past ABD member, Portland chair, alumni office staff
|
|
Bennett Barsk
|
1982
|
past DC Chapter chair, ABD,
ABD outreach committee chair
|
|
Connie Brand
|
1978
|
SF Bay Area Chapter Chair, ABD
|
|
James Paul Kahan
|
1964
|
past: ABD, chair Portland
chapter, chair Foster-Scholz Club; Babson awardee; commencement speaker
|
|
Paul Alan Levy
|
1972
|
current DC rep on ABD,
founder, Reedie Legal Network; past ABD at large, past DC chapter chair
|
|
Bill Nicholson
|
1978
|
co-founder Research Triangle
(NC) Chapter, past: Triangle chapter rep, ABD at large
|
|
Martin Schell
|
1977
|
MAT graduate
|
|
Elizabeth Jerison Terry
|
1982
|
past Southern Calif Chapter
Chair, ABD
|
|
Nico Terry
|
2017
|
Portland Chapter member
|
Co-signers
|
Name
|
Class
|
Alumni Association Activity;
Recognition for service
|
|
Jas. Adams
|
1971
|
|
|
Keith Allen
|
1983
|
current: AFR Steering Team
member; past ABD member, Triangle Chapter Chair, alumni data maven, most
recent Babson Award recipient
|
|
Alison Birkmeyer Aske
|
1993
|
past Chicago chapter chair,
ABD
|
|
Ian Atlas
|
1991
|
past SF Bay chapter chair, ABD
|
|
Jessica Leigh Benjamin
|
1993
|
past Boston chapter chair, ABD
|
|
Gregory Byshenk
|
1993
|
past ABD president
|
|
Wayne Clayton
|
1982
|
current SoCal chapter chair,
ABD
|
|
Kathia Emery
|
1967
|
past chair Foster-Scholz Club,
ABD; Distinguished Service Award honoree
|
|
Brian Graham-Jones
|
1981
|
past NY chapter chair, ABD
|
|
Sheldon Hochheiser
|
1973
|
past ABD president, alumni
trustee, Babson awardee
|
|
Amy Lindsay
|
1981
|
past Southern Calif Chapter
Chair, ABD
|
|
Annie Lionni
|
1979
|
co-founder NY chapter
|
|
Jan Liss
|
1974
|
cofounder NY chapter, past
alumni trustee
|
|
Jonathan Make
|
1998
|
past DC Chapter chair, ABD at
large, ABD nominating committee
|
|
David Perry
|
1973
|
founder Chicago Chapter, past
ABD president
|
|
Constance Putnam
|
1965
|
past ABD; Boston chapter
member; Distinguished Service Award honoree
|
|
Adam Riggs
|
1995
|
Founder, Working Weekend; past
ABD member; Babson awardee
|
|
Erik Speckman
|
1991
|
past ABD president, Rainier
Chapter chair
|
|
Angele Wilking Blanton
|
1964
|
Southern Calif Chapter member
|
|
Toby Sheppard Bloch
|
1998
|
New York Chapter member
|
|
Jason Htet Campbell
|
2014
|
Portland Chapter member,
member, Reed Career Alliance
|
|
Liz Exter
|
1984
|
SF Bay Area Chapter member
|
|
J.D. Eveland
|
1964
|
Southern Calif Chapter member
|
|
David Fudenberg
|
1982
|
SF Bay Area Chapter member
|
|
Carol Hegstrom
|
1989
|
SF Bay Area Chapter member
|
|
David Kanouse
|
1964
|
Southern Calif Chapter member
|
|
Theodore Kaplan
|
1963
|
New York Chapter member
|
|
Candace Lieber
|
1997
|
alumna
|
|
Jessica Litman
|
1974
|
tried to start a Detroit-area
chapter
|
|
Peggy Mendelson
|
1964
|
SF Bay Area Chapter member
|
|
Paul Messick
|
2015
|
SF Bay Area Chapter member,
student body VP and ABD liaison
|
|
Kelly (Carolyn) Pomeroy
|
1961
|
Hawai’i alum
|
|
Abbie Spielman
|
1982
|
Portland Chapter member
|
|
Erik Stallman
|
1995
|
SF Bay Area Chapter member
|
|
Leslie Mueller Stewart
|
1964
|
SF Bay Area Chapter member
|
|
Barbara Stross
|
1964
|
Portland Chapter Member
|
|
Jeffrey Whitehead
|
1994
|
SF Bay Area Chapter Member
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)