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.