University of Massachusetts Amherst - Index Yearbook (Amherst, MA)

Page 27 text:

even though he had followed unsafe and unsound financial practices . This judgment referred to Lance's ac- tivities as President of the Calhoun First National Bank CCFNBI from 1972 to 1975 and his other activities up until the time of his nomination for the OMB. Meanwhile, President Carter was so convinced that the American Public would accept Lance's credibility, that he interrupted a vacation at Camp Da- vid to fly to Washington to praise Lance at a televised news conference: Bert, I'm proud of you. Unfortunately, Carter's standard of ethics for choosing government offi- cials was tainted because new issues surfacedg issues he wouldn't want to claim. For example, during the time that Lance was President of the Calhoun First National Bank, officers and their families were allowed to overdraw checking accounts in substantial amounts for considerable periods of time. Lance defended himself with the claim that overdrafts were common among country banks. The Senate Committee and the press did not think so and kept digging, even though White House Press Secretary lody Powell kept issuing statements in de- fense of Lance. The evidence against Lance mount- ed. The day before he was appointed 000 TgDCQSjQl-vigil-CQllTl.l-,OOO equate for a large University. The maldistribution of the budget, and the lack of allocative standards, meant that some departments had more funds and faculty than they could justify while others had inadequate re- sources and faculty to meet the student demand for their courses. Student in- terests had been shamelessly ignored. While faulty allocative decisions in- ured largely to the disadvantage of the professional schools, Arts and Sciences departments were also affected. It was my attempt to bring more preci- sion to the allocative process that brought me afoul of a small, but politi- cally active, group of faculty in Arts and Sciences who opposed budget reallo- cation and long-range planning even if prospective students in other depart- ments were denied access to programs for which they were qualified. This group of approximately 250 faculty, out of a total faculty of 1300, in a mob-like meeting in April of 1977, voted no con- fidence in my administration and sub- sequently asked that I be dismissed. While few of the faculty had read the reallocative decisions embodied in my long-range plans, they apparently ob- jected on the grounds that the pro- posed reallocation of approximately forty positions tout of 13005 would somehow destroy the Arts and Sci- ences at the University. There were also some who objected to the plan because the faculty had not been for- mally consulted before the plan was implemented. Despite the fact that then President Robert Wood attended the meeting to explain that he had or- dered the preparation and immediate implementation of the Plan, some fac- ulty felt that I should have ignored his directive. They were also quite willing to overlook the fact that each depart- ment had submitted to me a proposed long-range plan for their units which I used in developing the campus long- range plan. The call for my dismissal by a minor- ity of the Arts and Sciences faculty was quickly taken up by the Secretary of the Faculty Senate and his cohorts. A meeting of the full faculty was called by the Rules Committee of the Senate to consider another resolution of censure which took exception to my long- range plan and falsely accused me of violating governace procedures. This resolution was passed by essentially the same minority that voted in the earlier Arts and Sciences meeting. What was of considerable significance, however, was that this group of faculty had now come to accept the notion that my reallocation of resources to meet changing student needs was necessary, and they passed a companion resolu- tion to that effect. The only difference was that they thought the Faculty Sen- ate should devise the long-range plan rather than the Provost. They com- pletely ignored the fact that, by prior Trustee decision, long-range planning was the primary responsibility of the Administration. Despite all these efforts by a minority of the faculty to remove me, the Board of Trustees refused, at its june 1977 meeting, to accede to their wishes. However, it was decided to hold the planning process in abeyance until planning assumptions for all three cam- puses had been developed by the President's Office, and approved by the Board. These assumptions would form the basis for further review of campus plans with full participation by students, faculty, and administration. Several Board members chastised the faculty for its long standing opposition to the planning process, and the Board generally made it clear that the process would go foward. One Board member also indicated that he had received re- ports from other faculty that the attacks on me were racially motivated. This is an issue I will return to later. Despite the fact that I had received virtually no support from the campus Chancellor during my spring travail, I felt the Board of Trustees had given its sanction to the long-range planning process, and that this was a basis for continuing my efforts to modernize the academic sector of the University. Subsequent events were to prove me wrong. A few weeks after the june Board meeting, President Robert Wood resigned, thus altering the politi- cal conditions under which I operated. The primary obstacle to the continu- ation of my efforts was the Chancellor's gradually unfolding decision to be a candidate to succeed Robert Wood as President. Over several months, it be- came clear that I would not have the Chancellor's support if such support interfered at all with his presidential ambitions. Consequently, my position in the administration continued to de- teriorate throughout the fall. The aca-

Page 26 text:

Lance Didn't Balance When President jimmy Carter chose his close friend Bert Lance to act as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget KOMBJ in Washington last january, most Americans believed that they had just another good ole boy to add to their list of officials with southern accents in the Capital. Well, as it turned out, this ole boy wasn't so good and innocent after all. Reports by the news media and official investiga- tions suggested possible wrong-doings in Lance's freewheeling financial affairs. The controversy was sparked by the May 23rd issue of Time Magazine con- taining the first public accounting of Lance's debts. More reports followed in the Washington Post, The New York Times, and Newsweek Magazine. The media claimed that Lance was abusing his position as part owner of the Na- tional Bank of Georgia CNBGD. They ac- cused him of unethical conduct in ob- taining personal loans in his financial interests. These discoveries lead to offi- cial inquiries by the Senate Govern- mental Affairs Committee headed by Senator Abraham Ribicoff on july 15. The committee concluded that it was satisfied with Lance's testimony, saying that he had done nothing improper . A report by the Comptroller of the Currency and Lance's close friend, john G. Hieman, also endorsed Lance, Turmoil: Tifiaiaeem An Act Of Perfidy On the basis of a near unanimous recommendation of a faculty search committee, I was offered the position of Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost in late August of 1976. Al- though a group of dissident faculty sought to overturn this recommenda- tion the University Board of Trustees approved my appointment, and I as- sumed my duties on October 15, 1976. Fourteen months later, on january 10, 1978,the Chancellor, for political rea- sons, asked for my resignation. The fol- lowing day, when, as a matter of princi- ple, I refused to step aside voluntarily, I was summarily dismissed. This ended the shortest tenure of any academic of- ficer on this or any other campus. For whatever lessons it holds for the future, it may be useful to examine, in sum- mary form, the web of factors that led to my demise. I came to the Provosts Office at a time when the University was adrift. Because the political elements in the faculty were in constant internecene warfare with the President's Office over jurisdictional matters, little sustained attention had been given to the task of modernizing the University at a time when societal changes were beginning to have a profound influence on the future of higher education throughout the nation. Few faculty understood that the phenomenal growth in enrollment and University budgets during the 19605 and early 1970s had come to an end, and would not return again during the remainder of this century. More- over, despite studies by the Carnegie Commission and others, few faculty were prepared to face the reality that permanent secular shifts in the eco- nomic system, from a predominately goods producing to a service economy, presented a challenge to the University to meet the emerging societal demand for more specialized career education, particularly at the undergraduate and the Masters levels, While vociferously denying that these charges were inevi- table, some faculty failed to recognize the need to revitalize a moribund liber- al arts which, through lack of clarity and definition, had not only given up its traditional claims at the center of the educational process, but was increas- ingly at odds with changing academic values. The faculty also remained blind I to the imaginative ways in which cur- ricular and degree requirements at all levels could be tailored to appeal to the students broad intellectual interests as well as to their quest for specialized career education. Knowledge for its own sake may be an admirable goal, but it is one which few individuals practice exclusively, including those faculty who urged such views on their stu- dents. I accepted the Provost's position with the clear understanding that my primary tasks would be to improve aca- demic organization and management fin a University notorious for poor managementj, and to provide the ad- ministrative leadership necessary to modernize the University and equip it to meet the new societal conditions which would affect its operation for the remainder of this century. The first step was to begin a process of long-range planning which would guide the alloca- tion of fiscal resources in the future, determine the relative importance of academic programs and, in general, provide for the maintenance and en- hancement of scholarly excellence de- spite diminished budgets. My initial analysis ofthe academic budget led me to the inescapable conclusion that the budget was not rationally distributed among academic programs, that there were no clear empirical guidelines for the allocation of academic resources, and that there was considerable mis- mangement of budgets at the School and Department levels. All this was compounded by data management and accounting systems appallingly inad-

Page 28 text:

Lance was dropped by the Attorney General's Office in Atlanta. Lance had failed to file reports with his outside business interests and personal bor- rowing, as required by statute or regu- lation. A total of fifty bank loans were not reported. The constant harassment by the me- dia and the never-ending questions hurled at Lance by government agen- his credibility as OMB Director The American people were becoming skeptical perhaps the President was betraying them by trying to protect a man who was not fit to stand up to the ethical standards that he had set up during his campaign speeches Carter announced Lance's resigna- tion on September 2'Ist, after three days of defense testimony by Lance be- fore the Government Affairs Commit- tee. Carter accepted the resignation with the greatest sense of regret and sorrow . He replaced Lance with james T. Mclntyre, also from Georgia. Per- haps the President had learned to dis- tinquish between comradery and credibility. - jim Braver OMB Director, a criminal case against cies Were enough to Pefman3mlY harm 006.45-Am, aoii of Pefficlyooo demic Deans, sensing my lack of sup- port from the Chancellor, as well as my dissatifaction with their overall perfor- mance, began to insist that the exercise of the Provost's perogatives were de- pendent on their approval. At no time did the Chancellor make it clear to the Deans that I was their superior, not vice versa. Instead, he urged that I reach some kind of accommodation with them despite evidences of gross in- competence. I was, for instance, to ig- nore budget overruns and the misuse of personnel funds, and permit the Deans responsibilities which my prede- cessors had always exercised indepe- dently. After all, the Chancellor could hardly appeal to the Deans to support his presidential candidacy and, at the same time, permit me to impose ac- ceptable standards of performance. Matters came to a head in late No- vember when I announced, after a year of study and consulation with ap- propriate graduate faculty and the Deans, for the reorganization of the Graduate School, which was strikingly similar to one promulgated and ap- proved several years earlier by my pre- decessor. While I had been directed to put the plan into effect by the Chancel- lor several months earlier, he agreed to a Faculty Senate resolution to delay im- plementation even though the Senate, in along debate, was unable to cite any substantive objection to my proposal. Presumably, it was unworthy because I was its author. Following the November meeting of the Senate, it was clear that my useful- ness as Provost was at an end. In the succeeding weeks, I began to reorder my life and prepare for the inevitable resignation. On Christmas Day, the Chancellor came to my home bearing gifts and promising, in a disgraceful act duplicity, that I had his strong support and this support would be demonstrat- ed in tangible ways after the holidays. A few weeks later I was told by a faculty friend that at almost the very moment he was pledging his support, he was conspiring with the Deans to oust me. Early in january, the Deans requested that I resign immediately because I would not permit them to dictate budget decisions or approve staff ap- pointments in my office. I, in turn, asked several Deans to resign on the grounds of poor performance. As my subordinates, the Deans had no legal authority to request my resignation. As Provost and acting Chancellor lDr. Bro- mery was out of townl, even they clear- ly understood that I had the authority to request theirs. Upon his return to campus, and without examining my lengthy written case for the removal of the Deans, he dismissed me for my percepitous ac- tion against the Deans. However, in my final conference with him, he com- mented: Some people say I've sup- ported you too long and it's affecting my presidential chances. So you can understand why I can't work with you any longer. For a man who had never supported the policies he brought me to the University to implement, this was the final act of perfidy. I was clearly the victim of the Chancellor's misguid- ed ambition, an ambition which, as later events revealed, he was never destined to fulfill. It is significant that throughout the turmoil that surrounded my incumben- cy, no successful attacks were made upon the soundness of my policies. Even the Faculty Senate charges of pro- cedural transgressions fell on barren ground. It is clear that the principle ob- jection to me was not simply my race, but my unwillingness to embrace the stereotypes of servility and deference which are still ascribed to my race and which, unfortunately, were the hall- marks of the Chancellor's dealings with the faculty over many years. Some rac- ist faculty were quite open in their views, referring to me as the Choco- late Mafia and nigger , Others were less overt, expressing their more sophi- sticated racism by seeking to deny me prerogatives freely and openly exer- cised by my white predecessors. Either way, it is clear that a vocal minority was unwilling to accept the academic lead- ership of a black Provost who would not blindly follow their self-interested view of the University. The shame of it all is that they persuaded a black Chan- cellor to become a willing partner in their perfidious designs. - Professor Paul Puryear