A Better Colgate: Better Transparency, Better Accountability, Better Alumni Participation

Here’s an update on our meeting with the Colgate Board of Trustees Oct. 3. 

Dr. Peggy Ward ’88, Greg Narag ’89 and Curt Balch ’01 made our case for direct alumni elections of a meaningful number of the Trustees.   

They answered questions, as did John Wilson ’52, Tim Sanford ’58 and Sean Devlin ‘05.  Tom Ireland ’59 and Jim Muzzy ’67 delivered the petitions.  

Peggy explained that we were at the meeting on behalf of the 1,557 alumni who have signed the petition, as well as the 600 others who support us but haven't signed for a variety of reasons.  

She said our request was to form a joint Trustee Election Work Group to study how elections are handled at other schools where alumni elect some trustees and to make recommendations as to how this could work at Colgate.  

Greg explained why we want reform.  He pointed to the need for greater alumni engagement and the fact that A Better Colgate has become a voice for those who feel disenfranchised by the actions of the Trustees.  

Curt, who identified his professional background in planned giving, made the case that greater alumni engagement translates to more contributions to the endowment. 

The Trustees asked questions, which fell into four broad categories. 

  1. What qualifies A Better Colgate to speak for alumni? (We’re a grassroots group that has grown to more than 2,100 alumni.  We’re just the messenger.)
  2. Why should anyone who isn’t known to the leadership by virtue of his or her volunteer contributions or financial donations be considered?  (This is reminiscent of the argument at the Constitutional Convention when the Founders decided that being a citizen, not a landowner, entitled a person to a vote.  We note that the 19th Amendment was an excellent, progressive step and that Colgate alumni want a similar right of suffrage.)
  3. How would elections be handled? What is a "meaningful" number of trustees to be elected? (Answering these questions would be the task of the Trustee Election Work Group.)
  4. What specifically should the Trustees or the Alumni Council be doing differently to get the alumni engaged?  What is it that the Trustees are doing that we would like to see changed? (The lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making and policy setting pushes alumni away, causes distrust, and ultimately disengagement – both in contributions of time and money. Alumni want a bona fide voice in Colgate’s future through direct election of a meaningful number of trustees.

The Trustees seemed generally skeptical and our answers did not seem to resonate very satisfactorily with the group.  There was an attempt to divert to a "kill the messenger" mode, rather than discuss the core of the issue - direct alumni elections.  But our speakers kept coming back to that main point.  

After the presentation, Chairman of the Board Christopher Clifford promised to get back to me by the end of November about creating a joint Trustee Election Work Group. 

When Rebecca Chopp was president, I proffered “that the only influence the alumni have over the college is through their check book”.  Dr. Chopp agreed! But, that’s a cynical attitude and I, and many others, believe it could be otherwise.   

Open election of a meaningful number of trustees would retain the power enjoyed by the Trustee Nominating Committee, the Executive Committee and the Trustees, and would also give accountability to the alumni and a bona fide voice in Colgate’s future. 

Thank you for your interest.  See our website for more info.  www.abettercolgate.com  

Tim Sanford
Chairman
A Better Colgate
alumni@abettercolgate.com
303.740.7455