Some comments on the Proponents' FAQ, by Johanna Colgrove '92

Johanna Colgrove  Tuesday, January 22, 2019

The proponents created a blog. It was open for commenting (and I commented). Now the comments have been removed and that option turned off. So I'll post my questions about their “FAQ” here.  I want to respond to this here because I think it's important. (how important, well on the level of world politics, not at all). (I have formatted this so their question is in bold, their response in Italics, and my comment plain text.)

Is it true that the Alumni Board voted to remove all the chapter leaders from the Alumni Board when it met on June 8th?

No. It is true that on June 8th the Alumni Board voted to make a number of changes to its constitution and bylaws in a proposed amendment. One of those changes involves no longer automatically allowing a representative from each recognized chapter to serve on the board, without any standardized term limits or without going through the nominations vetting process.

Instead, the amendment allows for three board seats reserved for “Chapter Directors,” who will have full voting privileges as board members, and one-year terms renewable up to three years. Chapter Directors will be nominated by a newly created Chapter Steering Organization, which will be self-governed by the chapters, with staff and financial support from the college. The nominations process and three-year term maximum for Chapter Directors is in line with existing At-Large Director nominations and service terms.

Actually--because there is no transition plan, as several people have noted, unless the constitution is just completely ignored, it will effectively remove all chapter representatives to the board until such time as a CSO can be created, select representatives and have them go through the nominating process. 18 months? Maybe. Some supporters wave their hands and say the president could appoint two, which could be true, but she hasn’t said she will, and is only true if she didn’t already use her two appointments.

Were there any other changes to the constitution and bylaws that the Alumni Board voted on?

Yes. In addition to the changes specific to Chapter Directors, the amendment approved by the Alumni Board includes:

Creation of three committees in alignment with the College and other Alumni bodies (e.g., Alumni Fundraising for Reed). Committees will necessarily evolve as priorities evolve. Currently, the three committees include: The Committee for Young Alumni, The Diversity and Inclusion Committee, and the Reed Career Alliance.

I have heard this several times. Please show where in the text of the constitution or bylaws it creates these committees. The board can set any committees they want, always has been able to.

Opening up membership on Board committees—including the Reed Career Alliance, the Committee for Young Alumni, and the Diversity and Inclusion Committees—to all Reed alumni, not just members of the Alumni Board.

Non board members have always been able to sit on committees as non-voting members. This doesn’t actually change anything. Great to have it clarified, but not enough to justify support this.

Requiring all board members to serve on one of the Board committees, which annually set goals that are measurable.

Please quote text from the constitution or bylaws where this requirement is. Hint: it’s not there.

The board now will be allowed to use email, the Internet, and other forms of technology for communication and voting (the old constitution specified that “print” communications be the only method to communicate).

This is true and a good thing. But this alone is not enough to justify voting yes on this.

Cleaning up language of the constitution and bylaws for consistency across governing documents.

It references that the new CSO should refer to the Past Presidents association for assistance. Which isn’t defined anywhere. It says chapters are independent but must submit an annual report to the board. Not more consistent.

Ed. note: The proponents' blog was created in response to this blog.  Its creator explained his decision to cut Johanna's comments by saying that he had no idea that comments were allowed, that it's his blog and he doesn't want to allow any space for opposing views, and anyway there is no need for more opportunities to debate.