Today, I'm pleased to be interviewing Mr. Richard B. Dahlseid, who served as a member of the Presidential Search Committee in 1975 and 1976 which sought a replacement for President James L. Bugg, Jr., at Old Dominion University. Mr. Dahlseid is a junior political science major and he served as the student member of the Presidential Search Committee. The manner of this interview will be first a statement by Mr. Dahlseid about his experiences on the Presidential Search Committee and that will be followed by a series of questions. Now Richard Dahlseid.

First thing I'd like to make very clear is that the student participation as was the faculty and participation by one of the Deans on the committee not only was a good idea from the standpoint of allowing the various constituencies on the campus to participate in making them feel that they were a viable part of the selection process but more importantly than that I think was that it brought to the committee the viewpoints and the interests and the desires, the concerns of the university campus. Most of the concerns of which the board of visitors, operating sort of from an isolated cocoon in many respects, were not aware. Throughout the--the six- month deliberation period, the board members continually expressed the...amazement at some of the things that we found to be of concern and--and hope for a change with the new President. A number of them, one in particular board member that participated stated time and time again that he originally had been against anyone serving on the committee other than board members. But had to admit, not too far down the road or into the process that the board would have been terribly handicapped and handcuffed had they tried to do this by themselves. They wouldn't have known where to start, they wouldn't have known what to look for, they--they would have not been able to do the job that was done. So, I would just make the statement that in--in the future, anytime an undertaking of this--of this size is-- is gone into, that as many constituencies as possible be allowed to participate. The conflicting views and the things that each constituency brings to the committee in the long run makes it a much stronger more viable committee. One that is going to do a better job for the entire university. One that will more clearly reflect the desires of the entire university than had it been solely board members on the selection committee and taking part in the selection process. I feel personally that I was very fortunate to--to have served on this committee, it was a very valuable personal experience and I think it was also very valuable for the university to allow students to participate. There has been quite a vacuum of student participation or students being allowed to participate in sizeable decision-making endeavors on-in the university. Both student government and myself felt that this not only was an opportunity, a one-shot opportunity for students to participate in--in something of major consequence but it has more--it has far-reaching affects also. That if we did this in a mature and responsible manner, this was a foot in the door so to speak, and that in the future students would possibly be allowed and encouraged to participate in other things and student voice would more readily be listened to... in matters that concern students. The selection process that the student government undertook to find the student representative of the sele-, to serve on the committee, I thought, was done in an outstanding, in a--a very responsible manner. There were four or five representatives from the student caucus plus the editor from the school newspaper, The Mace and Crown made up an ad hoc committee, a selection committee to select the student who would represent the entire student body. They advertised around the campus for anybody that was interested to fill out an application and file it with the student government, anybody that was interested in participating, or being the student representative. This I did along with about 19 or 20 other students. The ad hoc committee then interviewed each student for a 10- or 15-minute period asking them various questions, how they felt about certain things and would they have time to serve on a committee, would they take it seriously and-- this responsibility, etc. The questioning was--was, I thought, extremely good, they asked very good questions, very pertinent to the--to the situation, they--they weren't frivolous about this at all, they were in dead earnest, deadly serious and I thought carried out their responsibility particularly under the conditions of--of short time they had to--to accomplish this and forward the name of a student representative to the Board of Visitors. I thought they did it in an outstanding fashion. Shortly after I was selected, the university held a fall planning conference at Virginia Beach, a 2-day affair that attempted to restructure, reorder, or re-evaluate the university mission statement, where the university is and where it's going. I was invited to attend this conference, and I found it to be a most valuable experience as a prelude to the--to my service on the search committee. I came away from that two-day conference with a much better understanding of what the university is al-- the total university is all about, and what the aspirations are for Old Dominion University, where our strengths are, where our weaknesses are, where the university priorities lie and which direction do the--do the--the people running the university see it going. It proved to be an enormous value to me, later on when we were trying to evaluate candidates for the job of President.

We began, at the fall planning conference we had our first little meeting, we had a luncheon meeting, and outlined a few administrative ground rules and discussed the gag rule which gained a quite a bit of notoriety in the local media and the press, etc. The--the main purpose for a gag rule, as that's what it was called, was to ensure the confidentiality of the people that were going to be submitting their applications for the job. Simply because many people had jobs that were good jobs that they were happy with, but did not want their current employer to know that were maybe interested in another position somewhere else could prove to be quite embarrassing. And so it became necessary to ensure the confidentiality of any applications that came in and we were not to discuss the names of any applicants or any applications with anybody outside the committee. I can certainly understand the need for this and I along with all the other members of the committee wholeheartedly supported it.

Throughout the month of, the rest of the month October, November up into December we formulated some--some plans as to how we were going to go about handling this situation, none of us had ever done this before. One member of the committee had been on a Dean's search, searching for an Arts and Letters Dean last year and had some experience along this line. But none of us had ever do--gone into anything of-of this magnitude before. I along with a couple other members of the committee did have some experience in screening records, evaluating people, interviewing people for jobs, etc. My experience came from my military background. One member of the committee, Mr. Robert Fodery, is civilian head of the 5th Naval District Personnel Office, so he deals in this all the time. Of course Dean Weese is--is involved in these sort of things periodically also. Some of the things we decided upon are all-- they are all in the minutes, how to go about advertising for the job, an affirmative action program to seek minorities, blacks and women, etc. These were-were discussed in detail and plans were made to--to advertise in the proper places and contact the proper agencies in Washington in this regard.

First part of December we started getting in some applications, through the month of December it picked up, by the first of the year I think we had somewhere in the neighborhood of almost 200 applications or nominations on file. We wound up with a total of 265, I believe it was, applications and/or nominations when it was all over with, but the bulk of them came in up in through the first part of January of this year. Mostly in response to ads that were placed in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. When the applications started coming in, then it was necessary to start going through the files. Each--each individual that applied or was nominated had a separate file folder and each one was numbered chronologically in the order that they came in. This enabled us to keep up with the--the flow in order that they did come in and that candidate number one was the first one to apply and candidate 265 was the last one. We--we started going through the--the folders and--and checking them out we found out very early in the game that you had to look at about 30 or 40 resumes to have something to judge and balance against before you really understood and really knew what you were doing. Then it became quite evident early in the game as--as these started rolling in pretty fast that it was going to be very necessary to as rapidly as possible cull out those applications and/or nominations that we had information on, that we had resumes on of those people who clearly were not qualified for the job who we clearly could see had no chance of receiving an offer for the job. And getting back to those people, thanking them for applying but informing them that they did not meet the needs of Old Dominion University. This ongoing sort of process accomplished two things: It--it let the person know where he stood as rapidly as possible plus it kept the file of still active candidates to a minimum. For the first month up through the middle of January, towards the end of January, this was our sole biggest function. It was just a--an enormous job of wading through all of this--this detail, this administrative data and trying to evaluate these people and--and processing their applications so to speak as--as rapidly and as--as fairly as possible. It took an enormous amount of time, it took a great deal of--of--of effort on part of the individual committee members. And in this res--regard, the four members of the university community, Dean Weese, the two faculty members and myself probably did the bulk of this sort of work and this administrative function. To me, I don't think it was unfair that we did the majority of it, I think in the long run it probably served a very useful purpose. If--if nothing else, we made certain that there was nobody still left as an active candidate who was going to be objected to strenuously by any member of the university constituency. We were looking for somebody that would bring harmony to the campus, somebody that would pull the various constituencies together on the campus into one big sort of happy family and everybody pulling together and working together. Anybody that it looked like we--we saw, that it looked like would not have the opportunity to do this, would not be capable of doing this, was eliminated very rapidly. And they were eliminated for various reasons, many had just absolutely no experience whatever along these lines, many people had academic experience, but it was of a very very limited nature, and just were not adequately qualified to handle the position. Along about the middle of January, toward the end of January, we sort of switched horses and started to look at the applications in--in a somewhat different manner. We had--we had cut off receiving applications, we had a cut-off date of 1 January, but we did receive some after that from people that had been nominated late in December and then the policy of course was to write to them, and ask them did they wish to apply and if they did, we would accept the application. So through the first part of January we were still receiving some applications, but the size of the active file had been weeded down to a rather small number, I think there were, my memory serves me correctly, somewhere between 60 and 70 at this time still active. Then we had a--a group of applications that were small enough that--that we could work with. It was small enough that we could now start looking at, out of that number of people, who were the best, who were the most qualified candidates. So we set about trying to pull out 20 or 25 people who we felt were the best qualified of what was left, what remaining applications amounted. We came up with a list actually of 28 names, and of those 28 names, we--we separated them into three categories. Category 1 being the most, the most qualified it appeared at any rate in our opinion that they were the most qualified, Category 2 the next most qualified, Category 3 were some very good people, but we didn't think they probably would be in the final group. Then it was a matter of going through these, reading--letters of recommendation had started coming in, more of the same sort of thing we'd done in December but with a smaller group of people, concentrating on this group of 28.

Long about middle of February we decided that it was time we discussed talking about interviewing candidates. And we decided that we would go to New York City for four days, early March, and interview a number of candidates that were located geographically in that--in that area of the country. The reason New York City was chosen was because we felt we could not do it in Norfolk and maintain confidentiality of the candidates. We could not bring them to Norfolk, there was a particular newspaper reporter from a local newspaper who was very adept at weeding out and--and finding out what we were doing and it embarrassed the committee in its deliberations a couple of times by mentioning names of candidates in the newspaper when they had been asked not to do so. So we felt we had to leave the city, we could not stay here and do this without having newspaper reporters hanging around. So we went to New York. We interviewed 12 people up there in 4 days, or 3--3 days plus, most of them as I stated were--were located geographically in that part of the country from New Jersey, New York City, New York state, Massachusetts, Maine, 1 came in from Indianapolis, 1 came in from Cleveland. We went up on a Thursday evening, we interviewed one individual that night, we got 5 the next day on Friday, 5 on Saturday, 1 Sunday morning and then came back to Norfolk, left New York noon on Sunday. It was a very strenuous 3 days up there, but we learned a great deal. We learned that everything you see in an application, and everything that's in a letter of recommendation doesn't necessarily jive with the individual that you talk to. It's an invaluable experience, I don't believe we could have arrived at the decisions we arrived at intelligently without talking to some of these people. We were greatly disappointed, having seen outstanding impeccable credentials from a couple of people, having talked to them face to face, the committee to a person was very much disappointed in--in some of them. They really didn't give--give off the impression that it looked like they would on--on paper. On the other hand, we ran across an--an individual or two that we were greatly impressed by, we had not been that much impressed by his credentials on paper, but once you had talked to the individual you had to be much more impressed by them. So I don't see any way that you can--you can conduct a search of this type without talking individually to as many of these people as you possibly can. It's a--it's a most enlightening experience.

When we returned from New York, we made a trip a few days later to Richmond. And on that day we talked to four people, 3 in Richmond, 1 in the Tidewater area. We had previously gone to Richmond in February and talked to one other individual that was an active candidate. For the same purpose, to talk to them, to seek their views and opinions about Old Dominion University, about an urban university, their philosophies on education, their philosophy of dealing with faculty, students, board of visitors, gain their reaction into their receptability of dealing with the local community, how they feel about fundraising, and all of the facets that involves a president's job. When we'd completed our interviews in Richmond, this was by--this was on the 10th of March, then we had a meeting about a week later and it was time then to decide who if any, and how many of the people we talked to, would we bring to the university campus for--for interview on the campus and to meet with the various constituencies in the community and on the university campus. At that time, at that meeting, we decided to invite four people to the campus. The four that we thought would be the most outstanding candidates and that--any of which we, at that time, though would be welcomed as the next president of Old Dominion University. Just before we issued the invitations, one of them decided he didn't want to continue as an active candidate and therefore removed his name from the list there, and then we wound up with 3 to bring to the campus, which we did. The campus visits are well documented in the minutes, in the university newspaper and in the local press. And one of the candidates, Dr. Rollins eventually became the individual that was selected as President of Old Dominion University. As I stated previously, this--this search lasted for 6 months, it was a very strenuous exercise, everybody on the committee worked diligently. They worked very long and hard hours. Speaking for myself, it took me away from my studies more than I had hoped that it would. I knew that it was going to be time-consuming, but I had no idea that it going to be this time-consuming. In the future, I would advise any student that participates in something like this, to--to anticipate not being able to carry, what you might call a full load. If possible, he knows he's getting into it, I would say lighten his load and carry no more than 12 hours. You just don't have the time if you are going to be as conscientious as you need to be about an effort of this sort to carry any more than that and do justice to your studies also. And this is--this is, I'm speaking for a student that does not have an outside job, who is just nothing but a full-time student. It takes this much time, it takes much more time than--than one would realize. And it's not just the enormous amount of hours that are--are spent actively working on committee business, it's the many, many more hours you sp--that--that the matters are on--praying on your mind and you can't divorce yourself from thinking about what you are up to and what you are going to be doing in a meeting that you just left and a meeting that you are getting ready to go to or--or what have you. Or pouring over VITAS, etc., you--you spend a great deal of time just thinking about these things. So I would advise anybody that--that plans to get into such an--an exercise, to count on it taking an enormous amount of your time and energy. I would like to say also that the committee as a whole, all eight members got along fantastically well. Each, I would have to say, each member in his own right is rather opinionated, independent, almost stubborn and hard-headed type individual, and I don't think you can--you can operate a committee of this sort with any other kind of people. Anybody that doesn't have the--the, have firm convictions or opinions about things is going to be pushed around in a situation like this. And ought not serve on the committee. The danger of course of having too many hardheaded people in the same room is that you get in, you--you have too much conflict. Well, I would have to say that this committee with the personalities that were involved in it all coming from very wide and different backgrounds, looking at this thing through many different eyes, had one common thing in mind that kept them together and kept the camaraderie going and that was the betterment of the entire university. Now we did differ as to what our opinion of that betterment was and what form it should take and what was more important than something else, but we did at all times get along very well, we did at all times, I feel, keep the university foremost in--in our deliberations and in--in our priorities and for this reason I think we got along fantastically well. We--it was an enormous amount of cooperation amongst the members of the committee. On many occasions, when screening the files or screening the applications it would come time to decide at a meeting, OK now, how many of these applications are we going to eliminate this meeting? Somebody would say, "Well, I would move we eliminate Such-and -Such from active candidacy." And somebody else would say, "No, wait a minute. I think--I think maybe we ought to hold off on that, I think maybe we ought to wait awhile, and get some more information on the individual, or wait till his letters of reference come in." In every instance that this took place, the individual that wanted to wait, that wanted to keep the candidate active until he was doubly sure, in every instance, that--that wish was deferred to. At no time did anybody get arbitrary and--and insist upon eliminating somebody that somebody else wanted to keep as an active candidate for a while longer to investigate further. And it happened to all of us. Each and every one of us at certain times, this--this happened. So, as--as a standpoint of being the student member of the committee, there was--there was great fear initially, amongst the students and amongst the student government, that the student would be totally ignored on this committee. That the input that the student brought to the committee would just be ignored because after all you were only a student and what did you know, etc. I'd have to say that that did not occur, I was treated with the greatest degree of respect at all times, I was never talked down to, I was always listened to, and I did-- never did get the feeling that I was just being patronized. I just would like to say that in conclusion of this opening statement that the committee worked very closely together, many long hours, and in the greatest harmony for the betterment of the entire university. I can find no fault whatever with the--the cooperation amongst the various committee members.

Q: Now we are going to proceed to some questions that have occurred to me from what Dick Dahlseid said in his opening statement. First of all Dick, do you believe that having a student member of the search committee was a valuable thing in itself and a precedent that should be followed in the future?

A: I certainly do think it was valuable. First, mainly because the people that make the final decision as to who this new university president is going to be, the Board of Visitors, really don't have that much contact with the students, they don't have that much contact with what the students feel are important things on the campus, where they think that, or they feel that things have been neglected, where they think that things could stand improvement, and having a student on the committee, getting that input from the student viewpoint, to me, is--is terribly important. After all, of all the campus constituencies, the student population is the largest in number on the campus. And this President and his administration and whatever the tone of his administration is going to be is going to have to please and satisfy the students if--if they are going to get the education that they came there for and--and do things in--in a fine manner. So, from a standpoint of just having a student on the committee I think it's extremely valuable, it's--it's valuable to the other committee members. I think it, also, a thing I've found in interviewing, in talking to the various candidates, they wanted to know what the students felt about Old Dominion University. They wanted to know how the students reacted to various things on the campus, and what did they feel the problems were, etc. They wanted to know how the students felt about student services, the adequacy of it, the education that they were getting, they wanted to know what did the students feel were important priorities for the university, so far as academic and educational pursuits. Besides extra-curricular activities and--and things of this nature. So, it--it serves a two-fold purpose, well a three-fold purpose really. It lets the students participate, gives the student body an opportunity to participate and makes them feel as though they're--they're included in the university planning. Secondly, it gives valuable insight to the other committee members, and particularly the board of visitors as to how the students feel the running of the university is going and where it should go. And thirdly, it gives valuable insight to the next university President, or those people that are candidates as to what type of student body he's dealing with, what the students feel are important, and gives him insight when he comes on board as to how the students feel about things. Gives him a--an orientation so to speak.

Q: It was a two-part question.

Q: Well the other part I think that I was going to ask was about how did you come to be chosen, but I think you adequately described that in your initial statement. A follow-up question to the one I just asked, would be, are you satisfied that you adequately represented the students in your service on the search committee.

A: I think I did. When the committee interviewed me, in this--in the--the ad hoc committee during their selection process interviewed me and eventually I was selected, asked me because of my age, I guess this is in the record someplace, that I'm a retired Army non-commissioned officer, I'm 39 years old and not what you would term I suppose, your most typical student. The members of the ad hoc committee asked me, "Did I think I could adequately represent the student body?" And I answered them at that time, to the affirmative, yes that I could. And I still think that I did. And the reason that I think that I did, is one: Although I'm older than the average student, Old Dominion University does have a large veteran population amongst its student body. There are many, many older students, not just graduate students, but undergraduate students as well, people that have come back to school full-time. An enormous amount of--of housewives that I've run into as--as students, so maybe Old Dominion's average student is not as young as--as it is on say a resident campus at some other institution. But throughout my military career I was constantly in contact with younger people. And as I told the committee at that time, the selection committee, that I got older, but the people that I dealt with never did, they always remained the same age. They were 19-20 years old. That's the only kind of people that I ever knew while I was in the Army, at least to the ma--the maximum number, therefore I feel that I'm--was well attuned to the needs, the wants, the desires, and the aspirations of younger people. More so than just somebody else my age might be because of my background. Secondly, I didn't have a job, I don't work outside the university, I'm a full- time student, and I do participate in--in many things around the university. I've been an active member of the Young De--Young Democrats, I've been an active member of the Political Science Club, and the political science honorary society, I work with young people all the time in extracurricular activities on the campus and I think not only could I represent them, I could represent all of the students plus I think my age and had a great deal to do with allowing the search committee to feel more comfortable with somebody my age rather than a younger student.

Originally I think members of the Board of Visitors and possibly even the faculty caucus was somewhat leery of a student serving on this selection committee. They, I think, were a little bit afraid that there would be some long-haired, wild-eyed, fuzzy-headed, pot-smoking student would get into the middle of these meetings and disrupt things with demands and be unreasonable and do all those things that they imagined that young people do. And when they found out that I was retired military man and that I was 39 years old, I think they all breathed a sigh of relief. And they accepted me, and I think we got along very well, and I think possibly that was part of the reason that 1) they felt a little more comfortable with me and that, whatever input I had, there was no problem, it was well-listened-to and--and was taken face value.

Q: How did you maintain liaison with the student body while serving on the search committee?

A: Well to start with, as soon as we got started, I made an offer throughout--throughout the campus, that any group, any organization, any class, any one person amongst student body that wanted to talk to me about these matters, about the Presidential search that wanted input into this thing, all they had to do was ask, and I would be there. I talked to a number of classes, some--some instructors asked me to come to speak to their classes and--and receive their input, I did. Some organizations, student women's caucus, and the student caucus itself, and other organizations on the campus asked me to come and speak. Mostly what I did is went and listened. I told them what I thought we needed in the university president and I wanted their ideas and we just had some good dialogue and--and I got from them a lot of their feelings as to how they felt. Throughout the entire process, students stopped me continuously all over the campus. Wanting to know how it was going, how did--how did I feel about this, how did I feel about that, and they wanted to tell me how they felt throughout the entire process I had constant dialogue with a lot of students on the subject. The student caucus itself, which was the, I felt, the representative governing body of students I maintained contact with directly with Larry Step, the student caucus president. I was not at liberty to discuss with him candidates, individual candidates, or their VITAs or their folders or anything that we had decided would be kept confidential. However, I was able to communicate to him, and through him to the student caucus the feeling of what was going on, the ki--kind of progress we were making, and mainly what this--this did is permitted them to feel that they weren't being shut out and ignored and that the committee was--was trying very hard to be as cooperative as possible with the university community and to keep them as informed as we possible could without speaking about specific things that were forbidden to speak about. And it--it seemed to work, it seemed to allay any fears they had, that this was going to be a closed shop operation. And it, I think it helped a great deal that I had their confidence. They, I'm--I'm sure trusted me, that I was doing the best that I could for them, looking out for the student interests as well as the entire university community, but I talked with Larry at great length on many occasions mostly what it was is--is he wanted to know about this, that or the other, about input, he wanted to know, how do you feel about this, and how do you feel about this, and the university, the students want you to understand this is how they feel about this, and this is how they feel about that. And so we--we maintained very close contact and we, I think, accomplished a--a great deal in the way of communication without having to get into areas that--that we weren't allowed to talk about outside committee meetings.

Q: Did your 20 years of experience in the United States Army provide any special preparation for your duties on the Presidential Search Committee?

A: Oh I think a great deal. Just from a standpoint of having dealt with people for that length of time. I was--throughout my Army career; I was in a leadership position since the time I was 18 years old. I--I know a great deal about it, I--I can s--I can spot a n--a--a leader when I see one, and the university president is definitely a leader. I know what it--what goes into leadership, I know what sort of communicator a--a person must be. These things all come very natural to me, to--to deal in--in--in these terms. And this is the way I looked upon the job university president. He's the number 1 leadership position on the university campus. He's--he's not a clerk typist-type administrator, he's a--he's a--he's a leader, he's an inspirational leader, he's--he's an example-setter, he's a tone-setter, he's a trendsetter. I've dealt with this, seems like all my life, so I was well prepared in that regard to recognize this when I saw it. Also, throughout my military career, I very, very frequently had to evaluate other people, evaluate the job they've done, I've had to interview people for jobs. One occasion I had to set up a brand new unit from scratch with--with no precedent whatever for this sort of unit, and we had to draw from--from existing resources, personnel to staff this sort thing. It was a very ticklish-type situation, in that the--the people involved were dealing with nuclear weapons, and security requirements were enormous. And we had to get people that were just impeccable in--in so many ways, and it was my job to find these people within our existing resources. And it took enormous amount of time, record screening and interviewing, etc. So I think, yes, my military experience from just the standpoint of dealing with people, dealing in a leadership position, and dealing with people in a leadership position, dealing with human aspirations, and these sort of things kept me in very good stead. It--it provided, in fact, I could see the difference when I--when I dealt with the other committee members, that there were people on the committee who had not dealt in these areas, who had not been exposed to things of this nature and I do believe, in--in some respects, handicapped them.

Q: Did the search committee, in your opinion, accurately reflect the interests of the entire university community?

A: I think they did. On many occasions, we--we would discuss certain points and I don't think there was ever was a time that the various constituencies' feelings about a--a particular point or point of contention were not brought forward and laid out on the table and--and discussed at length. In fact, very frequently, particularly from the board members, we would be discussing a--a certain point, they wanted to know how did the faculty feel about something, how did the students feel about it, what did the Counsel of Academic Deans think about this particular area. As I--as I said before, I think that the committee worked very well together, cooperated very well with one another. Solicited opinion from everybody, and everybody had their--their opportunity to be represented in not only did they make sure that their constituencies were represented, their--their ideas and etc. were--were solicited. So I think--I think everybody got a good shot at it, and I--and I think it worked out very well.

Q: Could you evaluate the work of Mr. Francis Crenshaw, the Rector of the Board of Visitors on the Presidential Search Committee?

A: I think Mr. Crenshaw had a very tough job. But I must say, he--he handled it with the--with--with diplomatic acumen of a Bernard Baruch. He never had to get excited, he always kept the meetings moving, discussions never really got out of hand, they--they flowed generally in the direction that they were attend--intended. I think--I think he did a marvelous job. He--he really needed to have the patience of Job at certain times, and--and he exhibited it. He--he came across to me as--as most capable, but at the same time, at no time did he use his position of chairman to browbeat or to ram through proposals or anything of that nature. He was always just another committee member and on occasion would have to say, "OK now, lets make a decision or let's move ahead with this, or let's table that for the moment," but always in a very low- key sort of manner and I--I--I would attribute to him a great deal of the--the willingness of--of the members to cooperate with one another, he ke--sort of kept the lid on a couple of discussions and I think he did an outstanding job really.

Q: How did you personally react to the profile of the new President which the Board of Visitors handed down to the search committee? You might mention some of the qualifications that this profile stated.

A: Well it looked to me when I originally saw it as being very broad, allowing for ... allowing for the committee to go out and find the person they wanted. And if you found the person that you wanted, he would most certainly fit in to that profile. It was a ... it was a--it was a high-minded profile, it called for a-- an individual of--of stature, an individual that was definitely a proven quality, with the--the desire for the individual to have a terminal degree in his or her field, not necessarily a PhD, because some fields don't require a PhD. It turned out that way, but some people that we had considered were not academicians originally and they did have a terminal degree in their field although it was not a PhD. They didn't, you know eventually did not wind up as a final contestant but nobody was--was turned away just because they did not have a PhD. The items in the profile that alluded to the individual should be a communicator, should be person willing to deal in the local community, things of this nature I think were desires on the part of Board of Visitors to set a new tone for style of leadership at the university. And I think this was valid, and I think it was necessary. The style of leadership that had been there before or is still there currently was one sort-of of a closed-shop of an individual and an administration that does not deal, or appears that they do not deal openly with--with the university community. There was a great deal of--of desire on the part of the students and the faculty and--and all of the university community to open up the administration, to deal on a more open basis. Desire to have their--their President be of more inspirational leader, to deal more directly with the local Tidewater community. I think it was a broad profile, I think it was a--was a good profile, I don't think you could--you could get too specific or you probably would have wound up automatically eliminating a lot of real good people just because they didn't fit the profile. The one thing I thought originally that was going to be, as far as I was concerned, the most critical criteria in hiring anybody was--was his leadership ability. I was looking for somebody that was an out-- who was an inspirational and outstanding leader. And from past experience, I know, that anybody that fits that category automatically is a person who is a communicator. He is a person who does deal openly, who does delegate authority; he already knows that that's the only way he can deal effectively with a large and complex group of people. He knows that he's--he has got to obtain their trust, and he knows that he has to talk to them and solicit input from them, he knows he can not live in a cocoon and--and deal effectively with--with this sort of a situation so, to me, leadership qualities were--were top on the list, and then I would, you know, deal with the rest as they came along. I think the profile was realistic, I think it served the purpose, I think it gave us a gauge or a guideline to follow, at least initially, and I think we pretty much stuck to it unconsciously as we went along once we got into the--to the operation of and the procedures of the search, once we became more familiar and accustomed and--and fo--and comfortable with what we were doing.

Q: A corollary question to the previous question. Did you seem to be looking for the same qualities in the candidates as the other members of the search committee?

A: By and large I think so. Although I'm not so sure we--we all called it the same thing originally or we all labeled it exactly the same. I think we were all basically looking for the same type person. As proof of that, when it came down time to select those people to bring to the campus for interview, we were really getting down to the nitty gritty then and--and, knowing that the people that were brought to campus for interview were the finalists so to speak, we were pretty much in agreement, almost unanimous in agreement as to who those people should be. So I think in the long run, although we may have looked at it from many different eyes, and called it different things, or labeled it differently as we went along, in the final analysis we really were looking for the same sort of person, and the same type of--of qualities. Initially maybe, I don't know, maybe the female members of the committee had a different outlook; females tend to want knights on--on white chargers wearing shining armour to come rescue a damsel in distress. I was little bit more pragmatic than that and I just wanted a good solid leader that was willing to communicate and listen to people, delegate authority, and--and turn people loose and use the talent that was on the campus to do the job that they could do without interference. But I think most everybody was basically pretty much in agreement throughout.

Q: One point that you touched upon previously, but I think should be elaborated upon is the question of security of records. Search committee was vitally concerned with the security of its records, and this matter disturbed certain members of the faculty in the early stages of the search process. I wondered if you might comment some more about why the search committee was so much concerned with keeping its records secure and keeping information out of the hands of the public.

A: Well it certainly wasn't a purpose, the purpose I say, certainly wasn't that one of being secretive and--and not allowing the public to know what they could know. I think the--the problem originated in the manner in which President Buggs' resignation was handled in that it was leaked to the press prematurely by somebody, I don't know who. And this created quite a bit of consternation. And I--I this is the main reason that the board felt that secrecy or confidentiality or gag-rule or whatever label you want to use, came to be. They were worried that that things would be bantied around in the local press, conjecture, innuendo, names of people, etc. and that weren't true, people were just out guessing and would cause embarrassment. As a matter of fact it happened. A local Navy man, a Rear Admiral's name was placed in the press as being a candidate for the position and required the--the committee chairman Frank Crenshaw to write a letter of apology to the Admiral, hoping it hadn't caused him any embarrassment. I mean after all, the Navy sort of frowns on their employees out looking for a job and this--this reporter sla--put his name right in the paper and--and it did create a certain amount of embarrassment. I think this is the sort of thing that was--was the intent of--of trying to avoid. Now I can understand how the faculty and the students did too, felt uneasy and apprehensive about this. Initially they felt that, "O--OK here we go, we've got it sewed up it's--it's all cut and dry, they know who they are going to hire, they are going through this operation, make it look good for the public, and it's all a charade." Students were--students were worried about this initially also. And many of the student groups that I talked to at the outset of the--the committee's deliberations were much of what we had to talk about was an assurance on my part to them that, "No, this entire exercise was not a charade, that it was--was--was valid, that the Board of Visitors did not have the next President already picked out and hired and it was merely a matter of going through the formalities." I think this was the big reason that they were apprehensive about the gag rule, they were--they were worried that this is what had taken place and that they were going to be excluded, everybody was going to excluded as to what really went on. It was almost like a Nixon-type, White House deal. But that did not take place, the reason of the confidentiality was to protect the people that applied for the job, not jeopardize the positions they held now if in fact they were not selected for the job. And as it turned out, I think it was--I think it was proper. If I had it to do over again and I had the decision to make as to what should be done, I think maybe I would not make such a big deal out of confidentiality. It might be better had it not even been brought up. And that that be dealt with strictly by the committee itself, once the committee met and laid its ground rules, which we did, we had a ground rules of our own. That we would decide at that time then about this sort of thing, I think it got bent out of shape somewhat by being bantied about in the press before the committee even met. And this didn't do anybody any good, and I think it--it caused fears that really were not there.

Q: Could you describe the committee's reaction to the pressure applied by the ad hoc committee of full professors or the senior professors committee for additional faculty representation on the search committee?

A: Well, the--the impression or the--the way the committee felt about--about it, it was sort of a mild irritant, is about--about the only way that the committee itself felt about it. The Board of Visitors laid down their rules and their ground rules for selection of members of the committee, they said that we could have 1 academic dean, 2 faculty members and 1 student, along with 4 board members to serve on an 8-man committee. I personally think that was about the right size for the committee. Any many--much less than that and the work wouldn't have been spread around enough, and 1 person would have probably had more to do than he could handle. Many more members than 8 and you would have had a committee was too clumsy and cumbersome. Now the full professors wanted representation, the faculty caucus wanted an additional member; everybody would have liked to had more members and more representation than they already had. Personally, I don't think they were justified. First of all, they felt they were not being represented. To me, that's somewhat of a personal problem. The faculty caucus was represented--was representing the faculty. As far as I'm concerned, the faculty caucus, 2 members from the faculty caucus were representing the full profe--full professors as well they were the untenured instructors. They were representing the entire faculty.

So far as the full professors, the meetings that they had with Mr. Crenshaw, he reported back to the committee what went on in the meetings, they--that the full professors were concerned, that they were not being represented and what have you, now, I don't--I don't know and I don't understand, and I really don't care to know, all of the political inter-workings of the university faculty so far as why the full professors aren't represented on the faculty caucus or have adequate representation or whatever. But I can assure the full professors that they were adequately represented as were all members of the faculty by their--by their representatives. And I would also state, that although the students would have liked to had more than one student on the committee, they were told that they could only have one, so they settled for one and they went about their business, selected one and didn't worry about it. And from experience, having served on the committee, one is all they really needed. The students got as much input into that committee as did the board with four members or the faculty with two members. The faculty if they only had one member would have gotten the same sort of input, just as much input, just as much voting power, just as much of a voice in the final determination as if they had had five members. The only advantage the faculty had over the students in the matter of having two instead of one representative, was that on occasion, if a faculty member couldn't make a meeting, there was always a faculty member there. As it turned out, if I would have missed a meeting, no student would have been there. Therefore I didn't miss any meetings. And on occasion, it created somewhat of a hardship. But--but we lived through it, and there was no harm done. So I think the full professors in the long run raised a false issue. I think if the full professors would have been more in tune with the faculty caucus and dealt with them directly their--their concerns and their--their apprehensions would have been washed away without having to bother the search committee with it.

Q: There was a proposal made that a faculty advisory committee to the board be created. And this proposal was rejected by the search committee. Could you speak anymore on that question?

A: The main reason the faculty advisory board was rejected was because the search committee felt that we had been selected by the university community and all the constituencies of the community to be the advisory board to the Board of Visitors. Another advisory board to us would have done nothing more than muddy the waters, it would have taken more time, it would have allowed for more personal opinion into the--into the situation and decision-making. The people on the committee more than likely would have been supportive in pushing for their various departments and what have you, and in the long run would have been totally unnecessary and would have been time-consuming, etc. As it turned out, I still hold that view. It was unnecessary; it would have accomplished really nothing that wasn't accomplished anyway. The advisory committee as I--as I remember the recommendation for it wanted to insure that--that the School of Sciences, the School of Business, dental hygiene, and all the little facets of all the faculty was adequately represented, their views were adequately known, etc. Although both faculty members were from the school of arts and letters, they represented the school of sciences, and the school of business, the institute of oceanography, and everybody else just as well as if each one would have had their own representative. When you got right down to it, a faculty members' problem is a faculty members' problem, and it really doesn't--doesn't make any difference which school of the university it's from. You select good representatives, people that are good quality people to represent you; they are going to represent you no matter where you come from. And the faculty advisory committee would have been--been nothing more than doing what we were supposed to be doing already.

Q: How did the search committee cope with the problem of communications with the university community?

A: I don't know if cope's the right word. We realized right at the outset that there had to be as much communication as possible. And while I realize that many people in the university community didn't feel there was enough communication, we did very conscientiously work just as hard as we could to get out whatever information w--we had to tell when we could do it. Very often there was nothing to say other than we went through another 100 applications or 50 applications or the same old sort of thing. For a--for quite a period it was--it was administrative drudgery is what it amounted to. And there really was nothing to say. Every time that we arrived at a certain point that we felt we really had accomplished something different than what had been going on or we had something that we needed to say or something that was substantial to tell the university community a press release was prepared. And it was released. And it may not have been to the extent that some people would have liked, but it was what we coul--felt we could say when we could say it. And I think in that regard we did as much as we could do, I don't--I don't see how we could have done anymore than that. We were very conscientious in that regard, particularly the--the committee members from the university community were very conscious and very cognizant of how the university community felt about communication releases and they--they were released as timely and as--as in-depth as was possible.

Q: An interesting point that comes up when you consider committees of this kind is the influence and the power which is vested in the committee secretary who in this case was Dean John Weese of the School of Engineering. I wondered if you would comment upon his performance as secretary and also whether the committee leaned quite heavily upon him.

A: First off, I think Dean Weese did a fantastic job, and ... I don't know how he did his--his Dean of the School of Engineering during that period of time, but I know he devoted many, many long hours and--and enormous and--and tremendous service to the search committee. There were many, many things that, yes we did lean on him for. There were many things I don't believe under the circumstances you could have done differently. That the secretary's job automatically becomes the most burdensome, so far as--as time is concerned, of anybody on the committee. We tried very hard I think to help him out as much as we possibly could and alleviate as much of the load as we could from him, and I'm not so sure that that made much difference. I think that he still had a tremendous amount of--of ef--effort placed on his shoulders and he did carry it very well. One thing that helped him tremendously was his secretary, Miss Lochenko. They've known one another for many years, they've worked together for many years, she's an extremely competent secretary, a fantastic person. We did authorize the rental of a magnetic typewriter, which aided tremendously in the turning-out of the enormous amount of correspondence that goes with something like this. All I can say is they together as a team performed magnificently, they--they did yeoman work at everything they--they took on, spent many, many hours above and beyond the call of duty you might say. As much as we tried to help them out and as much as we tried to take the load from them, that job just inherently attracts the--the bulk of the workload. And there is so much of it that you can't do any other way. But they did do a fantastic job, and we'll be eternally grateful to them for it.

Q: I wanted to ask you a question about the advertising for the position. One would think perhaps that the best candidates might respond through personal contacts, but you indicated in your initial statement that the best candidates responded to the advertisements. Would you care to elaborate on this?

A: Oh no, one small point there. The--most of the candidates, the largest number responded through the advertisements, but not the best, not the best quality. I got the feeling that most of the people that responded to the ads, and I don't know where they saw the ads, they never, they did not indicate whether they saw them in the Chronicle of Higher Education or the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. But, the bulk of the candidates that responded and just applied from having seen the ad or it appeared that they had seen the ad were the ones that came in early, they were the--the largest number, but of the lowest quality. We got an enormous amount of applications from people that were just no way in the world were they qualified for such a position. That they even dared to apply for such a position was indicative of them not knowing what the job was all about or even you know half knowing. By and large, the--the finest applications we got, or the--or the most qualified people we saw, were those that were recommended by people from the university community or local citizens or from people at other universities that knew of the situation at Old Dominion and--and nominated somebody from another university someplace else. What it boils down to is the people that know what the job is all about, knew something about Old Dominion University, knew something about what Old Dominion wanted and needed, and then knew somebody that they felt fit that mold and recommended or nominated this individual, this--this is the source that we obtained by and large the real top quality candidates.

Q: Could you comment on your conference with Mr. Larry Step, the ODU student body president, which resulted from his letter of criticism to the search committee? Mr. Step was upset over the progress report that the search committee issued at one point, which he felt, gave insufficient attention to student input in the selection process.

A: Larry Step, the student body president, from the outset was quite apprehensive as to whether or not the student representative was going to be taken seriously in--in the selection process and on the committee. I don't think this is any fault of his, I think this merely points out the track record of the current university administration in dealing with students and in dealing with student-related ap--priorities or student-related problems. The student government has found in the past that more often than not, they are either ignored or merely given lip service and then ignored. And I think this is where his apprehension stems from and in response to this letter. The phrase that he was concerned with in the news release was one which spelled out, not spelled out but one in which the committee eluded to candidates coming to the campus and meeting with various campus constituencies and the wording of that release said something to the effect that the candidates, when they come to the campus, will meet with various campus constituencies, and the words, especially the faculty and also students, alumni, etc. etc. etc. The "especially faculty" is what upset him. In that he was worried that the faculty was going to get preferential treatment, time-wise and availability of these candidates to be interviewed and the "also students" indicated that the students were going to be shuttled to the rear of the bus along with a handful of other groups and one more time ignored. This was his concern. Well, when the news release was formulated, at the meeting it was for--it was formulated, I recognized and passed on and voted on that wording. It didn't upset me, and it didn't concern me. It came at a time shortly after the last meeting that Mr. Crenshaw had with the senior professors. I felt at the time, that the wording "especially faculty" was nothing more than a pacifier for the senior professors and that would ally their fears that they weren't being adequately represented, that their input was going to be looked at etc. I still feel that way. It may be--may be that it was a bad choice of words to say "especially faculty", and I think that's what--what got Larry Step upset. He wrote a letter to Dean Weese, explaining this objection that he felt that one more time the students were going to be ignored, or words to that affect. It was decided at the next meeting after the letter had been received by Dean Weese, that I should talk to Larry Step and straighten it all out at which time I did. I told Larry that I understood his concern, I didn't share his concern, but I understood how he felt about it and assured him as best I could that that was not the case, that the students were going to get as much input as anybody else, whatever candidates came to the campus we would be treated just as fairly and even-handedly as would anybody else. Nobody was going to get preferential treatment, etc. He was satisfied with that. And that was the end of that communication. And as it turned out, this was the case. The students and everybody else had equal representation to the time of the candidates, the students were very well satisfied so far as the time they were allowed to spend with the candidates, the input that they had to them, the question and answer session they had with them, and at this point they're--they're more than happy with the way they were treated when the candidates were on campus.

Q: Overall would you say that you were pleased or displeased with the selection of candidates that applied? Did they measure up to your expectations or not?

A: Well, I didn't have any particular expectations to start with, because I didn't have really much to go on as to who--who would or who would not apply for such a position. I think though as we went along personally I was a little bit disappointed in a large number of people that had the gall to apply for such a position who if they had any sense at all, it would seem to me, would--would--they would recognize themselves they were not qualified for such a position. But then again I suppose this--this is normal, and you're going to have this sort of a situation. I was a little bit surprised that we didn't have more highly- qualified people apply than what did. We had a goodly number. And I think having--having not done a search of this kind for this particular position though, one would normally and automatically be a little disappointed as you went along that some knight in shining armor on a big white charger didn't ride forth and slay your dragon. But I think when you stop and look back in retrospect and you think about what you are dealing with, the position you are dealing with, what the school is, where it's located, what stage of its growth that it's--that it's in, you begin to understand and get a better comprehensive view of who's going to apply for this sort of a position, who's interested in it, and who may not be interested in it. Then as we went along, and this--this point struck me as--as we were conducting live interviews with some candidates, it's not the number of highly qualified people that do or do not apply that count because there--there--there were an adequate number. The critical point is, of these highly qualified people that apply which is the one, or how many are the ones who are right for the university at that particular time. For instance, while we were in New York City, we interviewed 12 people, 4 of which were then serving as university or college presidents. None of which we felt were right for Old Dominion. And that's not to say that they're not good university or college presidents. That's not to say that they're not outstanding people, but what we are saying is that they were not the right person for Old Dominion at that particular time in history. Old Dominion had particular needs. There was particular things that they needed in a president. There are particular things that they do not need at that particular time. Some of these people had either qualities Old Dominion did not need, or they did not have the qualities Old Dominion needed. So really the issue is to find the--the few people, and this is what you find, not that you--you can't find many highly-qualified people, but that when you start selecting out those that would be right for Old Dominion University in 1976 and where Old Dominion University is going to go in the next 5 or 10 years, the number of highly-qualified people shrinks to a handful in a very quick hurry.

Q: I'd like you to comment more on the press coverage of the search committee's deliberations, particularly in what respect you felt the local press did a disservice to the search committee.

A: At the outset of the search committee's business, Mr. Frank Crenshaw issued a press release to all the reporters in the area that--that would normally cover the things of this nature. Kay McGraw from the Ledger Star, Marvin Lake from the Virginian Pilot, as well as those concerned with both university newspapers, the UNews, and the Mace and Crown. And in that initial release, he asked them specifically, not to mention names of candidates in the press for the various reasons I've out--I've outlined previously, that the reason they wanted to maintain confidentiality was that you put somebody in jeopardy who may apply for a job who already has a position and does not want the people he's working for to know that he's--he's out seeking position elsewhere. In the event that he does not get the job, he's in trouble at home. Also, if it--if it's known that if the individual does apply and his name is going to be bantied about in the press, he may not apply, and therefore you may lose the opportunity to have as a candidate some very good people. Well, the only, the only individual really that violated this--this request was Mr. Marvin Lake of the Virginian Pilot. I personally feel that he did a disservice to the university. Whether it really caused any harm or not, whether it caused some very viable candidate not to apply, there is no way of knowing. But he did name names, his information was not always correct, I don't know where he got his information from, he--he mentioned time after time sources close to the board, or sources close to the search committee, I don't know who he was talking about he never did say. But quite frequently his information was erroneous, then the search committee was asked by a lot of people, well what about this, or what about that. It was bothersome to have to explain that Marvin Lake doesn't know what he's talking about. I understand the--the business of first amendment freedoms, there is nobody around, I don't feel that's any bigger civil liber--libertarian than I am. But one must draw a line as to what is responsible and irresponsible journalism. Apparently Marvin Lake and I would draw the line in different places. I think he could have written his stories without mentioning any names and he could have done just as good a job doing it. Kay McGraw from the Ledger Star did the s--handled the news releases, never mentioned any names. And I don't know why he didn't. But in the long run, I--I think he made the search committee look bad, needlessly by--by putting names in the paper that weren't true. On one occasion as I stated before, he required Mr. Crenshaw to write a letter of apology to one of the local Navy Admirals, hoping that he hadn't been embarrassed. I don't know how it affected some of the other people that he mentioned in the--his-- his columns, and what sort of embarrassment resulted from that. But I'm--I'm sure that it didn't do them any good either. I can't even say it that it was sensationalizing journalism because it wasn't all that sensational. But in the long run I would say that--that it was not responsible journalism, this is exactly the reason that we had a rule of confidentiality, and I don't believe that in this particular instance, any--any purpose was served. The other newspapers cooperated, they printed what was released, they printed what we had to release, what we had to say, and I don't feel in that regard that they were handicapped in any way by not printing names or--or guessing, and--and as I say, most of what Mr. Marvin Lake printed was--was pure conjecture.

Q: Why did the committee decide that the search committee should visit the finalists in their home environments?

A: Well I think part of the reason for that stem from the current university administration, the current university president. I think I wasn't here of course, but I've--I've heard tell that right after President Bugg was hired it became very apparent as to what style of leadership he was going to exhibit, and it was a style of leadership that was not at all compatible with the majority of the faculty. Had they checked at the university that he came from, they would have found that this is the type individual that he was. Well that apparently was not done or if it was done, it was not--it was not made--made to feel that this should make any difference. To--to prevent that from happening again however, from--from the university community being surprised, it was decided that it would be good to--to seek information from the home bailiwick of any candidate that was determined to be a--a very viable and a very serious candidate, one of the finalists. And very often you get a different picture of somebody through somebody else's eyes than you do yourself. There were certain points that we wanted to make sure or--or ce--certain areas we wanted to get into that we wanted to make sure that the new president brought with him, certain talents, inclinations toward communication, delegation of authority, things of this nature. And what better way to double-check on these sort of things and find out how does the individual operate now where he is located, if he's--if he's doing that now, if he's a communicator, if he delegates authority, if he--if he is open, if he's not an arbitrary individual, but a just and fair person, now then he more than likely is going to be if becomes university president here. So it became mandatory actually to ... to--to check on in his home environs as to how he conducts himself now.

Q: To clarify something for me, these trips to the home environment of the individual under consideration, could you distinguish them from the search committee's trip to New York City, and the trips to Richmond in terms of the purpose of these journeys?

A: Well, really we didn't--we didn't travel physically to the--the home bailiwick of--of any of the candidates that were interviewed with the exception of three. All three of those were--were here in Virginia, 2 in Richmond, and one here in the Tidewater area. And the reason that we traveled to their home bailiwick is to conduct the interview, and it was--it was easier to do it in that fashion, and that's why we did it. The contact we had with the candidates at their--at their home--home base of operations was generally done by telephone. Now that--that differed in the--the trip to New York, in that the trip to New York and the other interviews that were conducted in the state of Virginia were interviews with the candidate themselves. We discussed various philosophical areas, their philosophy towards education, an urban university, what they thought of Old Dominion, what they thought Old Dominion was going to become, where it was going, relationships between Old Dominion and the various educational facilities in this area, Norfolk State, the Eastern Virginia Medical School, VIMS, William and Mary, Tidewater Community College, etc. The big difference was that in our trip to New York, we interviewed the individuals themselves, talked with the individuals themselves about what they thought, what they thought of Old Dominion, oriented them on how we felt about Old Dominion, and how we felt the new President should fit in to the scheme at Old Dominion. The double checking if you will, that was done in their bailiwick of those people we considered to be very serious candidates was with other members of that campus community. Faculty members, members of the university senate, or their equivalent in that area, Deans, etc. How did they conduct their day-to-day affairs, how did they handle problem areas, how did they go about communicating ideas, how did they go about dealing with the community surrounding the campus, the regular civilian community and things of this nature. That's--that's what was done at those places.

Q: I wanted to pursue a point that you brought up in your last answer, Dick, I want to ask you, what was the value of the Presidential Search Committee's members telephone contacts with colleagues of candidates for the position. Wasn't there a danger here of hearsay information, of personal animosities coming into play on the part of those who were telephoned?

A: I suppose you always have that danger. I don't know how you can avoid having that occur. However, I think the committee did an excellent job in, if that did happen, and it did happen on occasion, of screening that out, filtering that sort of information away and--and coming up with objective responses to their questions. For instance, Eliot Brenieser quite frequently called the chairman of the university senate, or their equivalent of that position at these other schools, to find out how that person dealt with the university senate, which has--has been sort of a bone of contention around Old--Old Dominion. When they talked to other faculty members, department heads, or--or whatever, they--they tried very--very hard, seemed to me, to ask objective questions about their personal, or their--their day-to-day dealings with--with these individuals, or how these individuals dealt with specific situations and tried very hard to stay away from--from personal dealings, or--or things that would lend themselves to personal animosity. In every instance where it was apparent that the individual responding had maybe an axe to grind or had some personal contact with the individual, pro or con, it was mentioned, it was brought out, it was--it was brought up and discussed and generally then it was--they went back to somebody else to double check to make sure that that wasn't the only way it was seen, or if that person was personally involved with somebody that we got response from somebody else at that school. So, I think the people that were involved in this, primarily two faculty members and--and Dean Weese, who had these sort of contacts on these other university campuses and knew who to talk to and what have you, did a credible job in weeding out information that was of a--a--a gossipy type or hearsay type response and--and getting to objective responses. Quite frequently when derogatory information would come in, or that you could tell there had been a--a sour grape situation or an axe to grind or on the other hand, where somebody apparently was personally involved with somebody and was overly solicitous of the individual, it was checked around in some other fashion to--to balance, to--to find out if this in fact was really the truth or that this person was--was personally involved and--and looked at it from that standpoint. And I'm--I'm confident that we weren't influenced by--by information that was--was of a hearsay nature or what have you. And I would say this, that we did not make any final decisions one way or another, on what somebody said at another institution. However, it did play, I think, an important role in helping us see the person on his home ground as other people saw him, that were going to be in the same sort of position that we are. It was an aid, and an aid only, but it never a final deciding factor and I think that takes it out of the realm of--of gossip and hearsay and--and puts it more in--in a proper perspective of being objective evaluation.

Q: My final question has to do with the final stages of the search committee activities. As I understand it, the charge from the Board of Visitors was that the search committee was to come up with three acceptable candidates for the position of President of Old Dominion University, and that the board would choose from among those three. As it worked out, the search committee was not able to recommend three candidates. I wondered if you would explain this and discuss what possible consequences this might have had for the selection process.

A: Well, through the entire proceeding, the search committee was very cognizant of the charge from the Board. We talked about it quite frequently. And we had hoped, and right up until the final few weeks, we had felt that there should be no problem in bringing maybe, as many as five or six people to the campus for interview. And then of that number, selecting three to present their names to the Board. However, all of us were rookies in this sort of procedure, we--we, none of us had done this before, and as it turned out when we got down to the final days, it--it boiled down to a fact that I have alluded to before. The problem was finding the right people or the right person that was right for Old Dominion University. It wasn't finding enough qualified people to be a university president that was the problem; the problem was finding the one that was right for Old Dominion. We selected four people that we wanted to bring to campus of all those that we'd seen and interviewed. Just before we made the final arrangements and appointments and--and what have you, to bring th--bring the four to campus, one of them called Dean Weese, and asked that his name be removed from consideration. The reason he stated to Dean Wiese for not wanting to pursue the matter, was that he was a fairly young fellow, he was in his middle forties, he was Dean of his school, he was Dean of a School of Engineering, one of the 10 most prominent largest sch--engineering schools in the country. He said that he was having too much fun being Dean of Engineering at the present time to take on the responsibilities of a Presidency. I certainly can understand his--his--his viewpoint and his position, and--and we accepted his withdrawal in--in all good humour, and that left us with three names. Well, the Board had charged us with giving them three names. Now that from time to time had been gone over and reiterated by Mr. Crenshaw, he said, "Well look, he said, now that was just an arbitrary figure that the Board picked out to start with, it didn't have any real rationale behind it. But that three sounded like a good number, so we--you know, for the time being, we're--we're going to go with that. If it turns out that we can't provide three names of people that--that we are going to be very comfortable with as university president, then I don't see the problem of only submitting, say, two names. Well anyway we'll handle that when we come to it." But there were three--three people left then, Dr. McKeefre from New Jersey, Dr. Rollins, from Vermont, and Dr. Kranch from New York, from--from Cornell University. Now personally, I felt that any of the three individuals would--would make a fine President for Old Dominion University. As--as any three people, they were different people, some had certain strengths in one area that the others maybe didn't possess in that magnitude. Others in another area. I think they all three would have done a--a wonderful job for Old Dominion University and they all three would have satisfied the university community. But as it turned out, each one came for an interview, spent two days here, and went through a very rigorous schedule, seeing and meeting with members of the administration, faculty caucus, department heads, the Deans, alumni, various friends of the University from the local community, student groups. In two days they--they had a real workout. But then after it was all over with, everybody had an opportunity to forward their impressions, either individually as individuals, or under the letterhead of a group, as the Student Caucus, or Faculty Caucus or whatever, did to the search committee their impressions of each individual candidate, which they did. There was, as the information came into the committee, it was apparent that there was quite a gr--a great deal actually of resentment or objection maybe is a better word toward Dr. McKeefre. The students, which I represented, in which I was present when he met with, didn't necessarily share that opinion. They did not see the things apparently that some other people did. They were perfectly happy with Dr. McKeefre. Liked him a great deal, and thought quite a bit of him. But after all three had departed, we had a meeting, and it was decided that we would not recommend Mr. McKeefre's name, Dr. McKeefre's name, to the Board of Visitors as a candidate for the presidency at the university. We did recommend Dr. Rollins and Dr. Kranch to be candidates for the board to consider. Now I--I just like to explain one--one--one point about Dr. McKeefre. I did not share the objections that were brought up about him. The students didn't; however, I could full well understand the foolhardiness bringing anybody here as university president that is--a particular segment of the university strongly objects too. It would just--it would be counter-productive, it would not--it would not prove anything and it would cause, it would seem to me, a great deal of trouble. So, for that standpoint, from that standpoint, I did not object at all when it was--a motion was made to not recommend Dr. McKeefre as a candidate. Where, personally I would have been comfortable with him as university president, I could see where it would not have worked out because there was quite a bit of opposition to him.

It was decided then to submit Dr. Rollins and Dr. Kranch's names to the Board of Visitors as candidates for the presidency. Again, I personally would have been very happy with either of--of the two gentlemen as university president. Been very comfortable with them here, I think they would both done an outstanding job. We had a meeting, the search committee had a meeting with the Board of Visitors on Thursday evening, the 15th of April, at which time we would officially submit the names to the Board for their consideration. We did this, and at that meeting they queried us at--at--at great length as to the procedures that we had gone through to arrive at this decision, to satisfy themselves and--and justify themselves that we'd done everything we could with the charge that they had given us, and that this decision that we have--had arrived at was a sound, just and a thorough one. Now, the day before we met with the board, on Wednesday, 14th of April, Dr. Kranch called Dean Weese and withdrew his name from consideration. I don't know exactly why, I knew that he was a little bit troubled about the situation at Old Dominion, that he did have an outstanding position at Cornell University, and the--the exact reasons, I don't know whether it was financial remuneration or--or others. But I think he just weighed the--the alternatives, pros and cons of his present position and--and what he would be getting into at Old Dominion and decided that where he was at the present time he was better off remaining. So, we went to the board essentially then with one name; Dr. Rollins. We had hoped for more. Up until a few days before that, we--we had more names. But as it turned out, we went before the board, actually, in essence, with just one name. This caused some of the board members a great deal of anguish. That they didn't have very many names to pick from. One is a small number, and they--they queried us at great length on this. What it boiled down to at the very end of the board meeting then was whether or not, did I as a committee member feel, was the proper thing to do. To accept Dr. Kranch as a viable candidate or continue the search. I stated that I would accept Dr. Kranch as a viable candidate, the only viable candidate, and I would discontinue the search. I didn't think there would be anything gained or any purpose served, time-wise or the availability of additional outstanding candidates, taking into consideration the time of the year that it was, contract time in the academic world is 1 July. They could fool around and lose Dr. Kranch, or Dr. Rollins and come up with nothing. Not to say that--that Dr. Rollins was--was a left-handed choice. I, if it was-- the decision would have been left to me alone, I would have hired Doc--Dr. Rollins and not gone any further. Well, they asked me and I told them, I don't know what went into their consideration to make their final determination, we met with them from 8-11 p.m. on the 15th of April, at which time they excused the university members from the board meeting and went into a closed executive session and what went on beyond that I--I--I don't know. A few days later it was announced that Dr. Rollins had been offered the Presidency. He graciously accepted and that's--that's the ballgame.

Q: Thank you very much Dick for a most informative interview.

Interview Information

Top of page