Statement of Opposition of Jas. Adams '71

 REED DOES NOT NEED YET ANOTHER MYTHICAL ENTITY 

The constitutional amendments necessitating the spontaneous and apparently magical birth of a Chapter Steering Organization bring to my mind the image of the mythical phoenix rising from the ashes -- a fanciful but improbable solution to problems that are resolvable by ordinary means without resort to constitutional amendment.

Following are three points regarding the constitutional changes referred as an all-or-nothing package to Reed alumni by the referendum.

1. Resolving the perceived problems of (a) length of Chapter representative reporting, (b) Chapter representative terms of office, or (c) size of the Alumni Board of Directors does not require creation of an "independent" Chapter entity.

(a)  I have served on many boards and attended many meetings that entailed informational reporting by individual representatives, and there are non-structural changes that can expedite the process, such as creating a complete informational document and limiting length of oral reporting to short summaries.

(b) The 15 At-Large Alumni Board directors have staggered 3-year terms, and the Chapter representatives have had one-year terms.  Why could not Chapter representatives also have staggered terms?

(c) There were (and still are) 15 At-large directors on the ABD, and 9 Chapter representatives.  If the size of the Board is deemed too large, why not reduce the Board proportionally?  Chapters have an actual constituency of the alumni in their areas and hence they are legitimately and democratically representative. In contrast, the 15 at-large seats on an alumni board do not represent alumni with actual constituencies.     

Conclusion:  All three problems identified as needing a change can be resolved without creating an independent and intermediary Chapter Steering Organization.

 

2.  The drafting error in the revised Alumni Association Constitution resulting in 18 months without Chapter representation on the Alumni Board of Directors cannot be fixed by the ABD. 

If the amendments are adopted, the 18-month period in which there would be no Chapter representatives on the Alumni Board of Directors (ABD) is not fixable by the ABD, because the ABD cannot violate the Alumni Association Constitution.  That alone should have motivated the ABD to withdraw its previous approval and fix that error before sending the amendments to all alumni for a thumbs-up or thumbs-down referendum vote on the entire set of amendments. 

2.  New Article IX of the Alumni Board Constitution is procedurally vague about how the “independent” Chapter Steering Organization will be formed. 

The Chapter Steering Organization (CSO) created by Article IX is to be "independent" (not defined), will be “supported" by the College (also not defined), and yet without it, Chapters can have no representation on the ABD.  The new Article IX and the related revised Bylaws are silent as to the process by which this independent entity is supposed to create itself and then “determine its own structure.” 

The omission of any procedural mechanism for the formation of the CSO raises doubts as to when (or even whether) this will happen.  Certainly, those currently active in Chapters who oppose the creation of an independent layer of chapter bureaucracy will not be motivated to set up the CSO.  And because Chapter representatives must be nominated by the new CSO, it could be much longer than 18 months before any Chapter representatives are serving on the ABD.  If the independent CSO is not created at all, there will be no Chapter members on the ABD, ever. 

Collectively, these three aspects of the package of amendments are highly problematic: (1) non-structural remedies could resolve the identified reasons for change, (2) Chapter representation will be disenfranchised for at least 18 months, and (3) the amendments omit any form of procedure for creation of the mandatory yet "independent" Chapter Steering Organization. 

All three points warrant voting no and sending the entire package of amendments back to the Alumni Board of Directors to come up with a more carefully designed proposal that seeks to resolve identified problems by dint of leadership, bylaw changes and more surgically precise constitutional amendments that have undergone thorough review by legal counsel.