I'm not sure why Joe continues to title his posts about alumni conflicts using Mozart arias, but I suppose that's not exactly relevant. (If someone can enlighten me, I'll be immensely grateful.)
What is relevant (I suppose) is that the Executive Committee of the Alumni Association has cancelled the elections scheduled to be held during Homecoming Weekend 2006 for some time in the first half of 2007. The link above has a full analysis of the actual events, but Joe sums it up thus in a previous post: "The current people in charge have decided not to put their own offices up for a vote." Joe points out quite rightly that this wouldn't be too terrible if this were a regular year, but alums will be voting on the Constitution (which was approved over Green Key), and that constitution will change many things. (I cover them a bit in this DFP editorial.)
My feeling, as I sketched out in my editorial, is that I really don't care about the democraticness of alumni affairs for any intrinsic reason—I could honestly care less how they elect, or are prevented from electing, new leaders of the Alumni Association or the Alumni Liaison Board or whatever. My problem with all of these shenanigans is that it will make alums think that there is something worth shenaniganning about in all this muddle. (And maybe there is, I don't know.) This will only provoke alums to start intruding further and further into actual College affairs and not just their little AlumniWorld, which I assume is full of khakis and blazers, trophy wives, and open bars. (Hey, that sounds nice actually...) At any rate, I don't want alums groping for control or more input; I don't think they should have it and I think the effort to get it will be bad for students and for faculty.
A college is perhaps the only type of institution where rule by the workers is both a viable and a good idea. If alums start crowding in, we, the workers—the students and the faculty, aren't going to get the chance to bear this out.