Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 15, 1980)
H / ►esflubert-Miller conflict was key to firing administrators all said they were unaware of any tern in February. Miller resisted Hubert’s attempts nrpcidpnf Tbp Rnard bad been meetint? in dosed mfVic i-t11rf^r^rcfarii r yatir^n J [ by DILLARD STONE ^ "W Battalion Editor U K M t IBjjck greeted the announcement Thursday that ‘ » X Jarvis Miller had been relieved as Texas A&M iversity president. Mrd of Regents Chairman Clyde Wells told , been to the Patters that “problems’’ in working with System /e years and was PCellor Dr Frank W.R. Hubert and “com- lable PlayerinS ints’from state residents keyed reassignment of from the presidency to a new job as special dsh somebodyjpnt to the chancellor. on the field,”Bock, shock, shock,” was the reaction at all would writeahp °f the University administration, one vice n these lines. PeJB en t sa kk No one had any indication that the >ut drinkingawl^ was considering such a major personnel •ars or racing b«:»£ e > he said. ^»ck of harmony” in the working relationship also says the pros ^F en Miller and Hubert was the reason for the jgh roller"onlyi|# sac tk>n, Wells said - the times I yBiere needs to be a harmony that would be ■ited involving these two levels of administra- go out and plavB Wells said in referring to the relationship out of shape (help™ the offices of the System chancellor and >u and yon don't I 8 ™ W P resident - ’” Stabler said.‘ 8 ecause the problems that have been /ant to liveandli ^ghttous, we felt like there was a need for some Bstment that needed to be made,” the chairman Id. Bells refused to comment on exactly what prob- I or complaints led the regents to make their udent leaders, alumni leaders and several administrators all said they were unaware of any major complaints against Miller’s handling of the University. One regent hinted that there may have been less to the complaints than was made to appear. We get complaints about everything, he said. Just because No explanation was given to Miller for the action, and Miller was not given the opportunity to present a defense before the Board, a source said. game. there are letters of complaint does not mean they were a criterion for getting Miller fired, he added. In the past, regents had been critical of Miller’s handling of former football coach Emory Bellard’s dismissal and his refusal to shake the hand of female cadet Melanie Zentgraf at graduation after Zentgraf had filed a sex discrimination suit against Miller and the University. Hubert and Miller were known to have had dif ferences over Hubert’s reorganization of the Sys tem in February. Miller resisted Hubert’s attempts to strip the System agencies out from under the control of the president, which gave control of them to the chancellor. “I guess you could say it just didn’t work out,” a System official said. “I guess they were seeking to stabilize the organization. You can’t get anything done when you have to worry about politics in the organization.” Both Hubert and Wells did not say who it was who had brought the administrative conflicts to the attention of the Board. “I can only say that the decision was made by the regents and I’ll leave it at that,” Hubert said. Asked if he had any differences with Miller, Hubert responded, “I have none.” Just eighteen months ago. Chancellor Jack K. Williams resigned his position after working con flicts with the regents and Miller over the role of the chancellor in University affairs. Wells per formed the duties of acting chancellor until Hubert’s appointment in October. Regents meeting in committees throughout the morning gave no indication that they felt anything was amiss in the University. Nor did Miller or any of those close to him appear to have any feel for the impending decision. Miller was notified shortly before 6 p.m. Wednesday evening that the Board’s executive committee had voted unanimously to relieve him as president. The Board had been meeting in closed session of the Executive Committee since about 2:30 that afternoon. Miller was called into the closed session and informed of the regents’ decision by Wells, a source said. No explanation was given to Miller for the action, and Miller was not given the opportunity to present a defense before the Board, the source said. The “long and careful deliberation” Wells men tioned in his statement took place between the 2:30 ‘Because of the problems that have been brought to us, we felt like there was a need for some adjustment that needed to he made. ” beginning of the Executive Committee executive session and the 6 p.m. contact of Miller. Dr. Perry Adkisson, deputy chancellor tor agri culture, and Dr. Fred Benson, deputy chancellor for engineering, appeared before the Board for about one hour each after the 2:30 session began. Both apparently discussed how the System agen cies under them were operating after several months under Hubert’s reorganization plan. Miller did not appear before the Board prior to being notified of his dismissal. After being in the Board room for the short announcement. Miller went home and began call ing friends and associates, informing them of the decision. The University vice presidents and aides met soon after at the Miller home on campus. Miller has declined to speak with reporters since the dismissal, but his office did issue a prepared statement Thursday: “The President of Texas A&M University serves at the pleasure of the Board of Regents. I was informed yesterday by the Board that I was to be reassigned to other duties. I am extremely proud of my record as President of Texas A&M Universi ty.... I leave the position with a deep sense of pride and gratitude for the opportunity to have served this great University during these exciting years. I am confident that an extremely strong base has been laid for even greater achievements in the future. I look forward to the new assignment and the opportunity to continue to serve the University in a new capacity.” Hubert said he did not know yet what specific duties Miller would have as special assistant. “I in collaboration with Dr. Miller will determine the nature of his duties next week,” Hubert said. Miller vacated his office Monday morning. No indication has been given as to how long the Millers can remain in the president’s home on campus. The Battalion Vol. 73 No. 175 8 Pages Serving the Texas A&M University community Tuesday, July 15, 1980 College Station, Texas USPS 045 360 Phone 845-2611 brmer students blast regents by DILLARD STONE Battalion Editor he Texas A&M University Association Former Students sharply criticized the rd of Regents’ firing of President Jarvis Bier with a statement released Monday, nie statement, released in the morning in Dallas, was read to an afternoon press conference at Texas A&M by Raul Fernan dez, association president. “We regret and unqualifiedly disagree with the manner and method of termina tion of Dr. Miller as President of Texas A&M University,” the statement said. )30 is balance con- re cassette or ex as delegates bn’t want Bush United Press International )ETR0IT — A majority of Texas’ dele- . 5-es to the Republican National Conven- ;ut on. mos ^ J, ave mac le it clear they prefer that aid Reagan choose a more conservative ning mate than their Texas colleague whether down- ff or K e Bush. n a preference poll conducted by alter- :e delegate Jerry Smith — against the shes of delegation chairman Ernest gelo — 55 of the 107 Texans questioned d frequency re- sa|d they preferred Rep. Jack Kemp of New rk for the vice presidential nomination. Id 38 favored Bush. Smith also asked the delegates who they would most prefer that Reagan avoid in choosing a running mate. Forty-three said they would advise Reagan against picking Bush and 27 said they would recommend against the selection of Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee. Gov. Bill Clements said Monday he has no preference for the vice presidential nominee, but he said Reagan should make the choice with an eye toward how his deci sion will influence the November election. The statement termed the board’s action “ill-timed, ill-conceived and effectuated without any planning or thought of the con sequences or the future.” The statement was drafted during an emergency session of the association’s board of directors, held Sunday in Dallas. Fernandez said the purpose of the state ment was twofold. First, he said, the state ment was intended to make public the feel ings of the association’s board of directors. The second purpose was to inform the pub lic that the former students had no role in the reassignment of Miller. “People read newspapers and they understand “Former students did it again. ’ That’s not the case here. It’s something that shouldn’t be allowed to happen to a Univer sity as great as this one,” Fernandez said. However, Fernandez said that former students have the right “as former students and as citizens of this state” to offer com ments and criticism of University adminis tration. “I believe that the regents should be aware that this is a public institution of higher learning, and that there are many, many people that are affected and care ab out this University,” he said. Fernandez said the board’s action had angered many former students. Thursday, Fernandez had expressed his concern over the “volatile nature” of the decision, fearing that a “‘severe backlash” might in some way affect the amount of money the association contributes to the University. Monday, Fernandez pledged the asso ciation’s continued support to the Universi ty and its programs. “We re committed and we always have been. Fernandez expressed a hope that a search committee, including prominent former students, would be established to recommend a new president to the re gents. Board Chairman Clyde Wells has indi cated such plans do not currently exist. Other prominent former students were upset with the board’s action. “I think you’ll find that these things have hurt the University when you have this much turmoil, this much change, it will be difficult to find a responsible person who would replace him,” he continued. “It would be desirable to have continuity in leadership,” he said from Dallas. “It was evidently a very hasty action, evidently done without much deliberation. Given our recent history, this is a time when we particularly need stability.” AM/FM itereo most small cars sound! iller a victim of System politics I Removal is final step in chancellor’s consolidation ofpower labur ;e »ctor all bands, even i your position. by DILLARD STONE Battalion Editor The heat was on outside and inside the Board of Re nts Annex Thursday. Outside, the temperature was imbing to over 100 degrees; inside, the regents intro- ced, considered and approved unanimously the ouster of Texas A&M President Dr. Jarvis E. Miller. Miller’s dismissal as University president appears to be e final move in a series of maneuvers which have strip- dthe University president of his authority first over the ;encies of the System, and now over the University Iself. In contrast to the stated beliefs of the regents that anaging the University and the System are jobs too big rone man to handle, the Miller shuffle now puts virtual ly all the cards in the hand of one man. Complete control of the University and its System ?encies now rests in the hands of System Chancellor Dr. rank W.R. Hubert, who was appointed to fill that post in late 1979. Since being appointed to the post and given carte blan che powers over the System, Hubert has gradually Iroded the powers of the University president. Hubert as the blessing of the regents, who say management of e University and the System is too much for one man to andle. University sources are unsure whether the regents are ;oing against their stated intentions of trying to split the uties of System management, or whether Hubert is now a creation they can no longer control. For whatever eason, the sources say there appears to be an inconsisten- y in trying to decentralize the System and then investing ontrol of the University in the chancellor. Miller’s philosophy of the role of the land-grant institu- ion was evidently a major factor in the “lack of harmony” diich Board Chairman Clyde Wells said existed between filler and Hubert. Miller believes that the mandated services agencies diich accompany a land-grant school are so inextricably ntertwined with the school that separating the agencies rom direct University control is unworkable and unpro- luctive. Most researchers involved in the services are Iso instructors at the University. I The primary service agencies of the Texas A&M Uni- ersity System are the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, headed by Miller prior to his acceptance of the residency; the Texas Agricultural Extension Service; the exas Engineering Experiment Station and the Texas Engineering Extension Service. These programs com prise roughly half of the budget and half the employees of the System. So Miller was upset earlier this year when Hubert nveiled a plan to reorganize the System into the form it Miller's dismissal appears to be the final of a series of maneuvers which have stripped the University president of his authority. now has. Hubert’s proposal took the University vice pres idents for agriculture and engineering and gave them the title of deputy chancellors. No areas of responsibility were changed; the major change was in to whom the officers reported. Vice presidents report to University presi dents; deputy chancellors report to System chancellors. Miller, amid reports that the proposal was being inten tionally hidden from him before it was sent to the Board for approval, resisted the reorganization. Therein is the root of the “lack of harmony.” Wells also made reference to many “complaints” re ceived from people throughout the state about the way Analysis things were being run at Texas A&M. Wells would not elaborate on any of the “complaints.” However, one of the more interesting comments to emerge from the meeting was from one regent who alluded to Wells’ “complaints” statement. The regent said that just because there are letters of complaint does not mean they were a criterion for getting rid of Miller. So why did the regents reassign Miller as an assistant to the chancellor they said he couldn’t get along with? Uni versity sources agree that the regents couldn’t fire Miller outright and leave him jobless; the special assistancy is a purely cosmetic device to be nice to Miller and keep him on the payroll until he finds another job. It’s the same measure that the regents used when they forced out Chancellor Jack K. Williams. Williams was given the title of special consultant to the Board, then given leave to accept the directorship of the Texas Medic al Center. One of the factor’s hastening Miller’s demise apparent ly was the absence of Regent Joe Reynolds, a Houston attorney, who was one of Miller’s best supporters on the Board. Reynolds, who is also one of the more vocal Board members and more powerful regents, missed this session of the Board due to business requirements in Houston. University sources say the other regents would have had a harder time in getting rid of Miller so hastily had Reynolds been at the meeting. Reynolds himself has been extensively involved in legal matters over the last week, a source in his office said, and has not been available for comment. However, reports have indicated that the other regents did not inform Reynolds of their decision, that he learned through the media of Miller’s removal and that Reynolds was distres sed by the regents’ action. One of the most recent controversies surrounding Mil ler was his refusal to shake the hand of female cadet Melanie Zentgraf at the University’s commencement ex ercises in May. Zentgraf has filed a suit against the Uni versity charging sex discrimination in the Aggie Band, the Ross Volunteers and other military organizations. Students at the University haven’t forgotten the action, and many attribute Miller’s removal to that incident. Most University officials, though, dismiss the idea and concentrate their analysis of the issue on the power strug gle between the System and University levels. Yet another element in the scenario was the Association of Former Students’ position against Hubert’s reorganiza tion of the System. Association Past President Bob Smith of Dallas drafted a position paper which was presented last month to each of the regents. The paper used the name of the association to protest the reorganization of the system, and termed the move a reinventing the wheel”- type idea. One theory holds that the regents hastily used Miller as a pawn, in order to tell the former students that they should keep their noses out of the administration of the University. Association President Raul Fernandez disagrees with the idea, but maintains that former students have every right as citizens, taxpayers and as former students to make their feelings known about how a state university should be administered. No one can guess at how state politics will enter into the regents’ action. The boards of regents of the University of Texas and Texas A&M Systems are two of the most- sought-after appointive Boards in the state. Three re gents’s terms — those of Reynolds, Alfred I. Davies of Dallas, and Royce Watkins of Uvalde — expire in Janu ary, and Texas Gov. Bill Clements, a Republican, will have the chance to appoint replacements as he sees fit. All of the current regents were appointed by Democratic governors. Miller and Clements developed close personal ties dur ing a 1979 trip to Europe which concentrated on agricul tural programs. Clements is in Detroit, attending the GOP National Convention. An aide in Austin said the governor was aware of the regents’ action, but that he had not issued a statement. Dr. Charles H. Samson Jr. appears before the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents to accept the job of University acting president. The regents reassigned Dr. Jarvis Miller to other duties at their Thursday meeting. Staff photo by Bob Sebree Acting president ‘getting feet we f by DILLARD STONE Battalion Editor Texas A&M University’s acting president says the board’s action in naming him to the position “came as a complete surprise to me.” Dr. Charles H. Samson Jr. was named Thursday to be acting presi dent after the Board of Regents reas signed Dr. Jarvis Miller to other duties. Samson’s selection met with approval from several administra tors. “The regents could have done a lot worse than Chuck Samson,” one said. Another indicated his feelings that Samson was an excelleht choice to ease the transition betwen Miller and a new permanent president. No changes were planned for the immediate future, Samson said. “The thing I need to do is get in, get my feet wet and go from there,” Samson, 55, said Thursday. Samson is already doing just that. He met with the University vice presidents Thursday afternoon to be gin the transition period. The acting president also asked the members of Miller’s staff to stay on to ease the burden of transition. Most apparently will. And the University’s new head continued Miller’s practice of having Monday morning meetings with staff and vice presidents. One vice president said Samson was adapting quickly to his new duties. “The water’s still a little bit mud dy, but it’s beginning to clear,” he said. Samson said he had no idea he was being considered for his new job. “I didn’t have any idea that I would be considered, or what was taking place really until last night,” he said Thursday. Samson said he had been notified at about 9 p.m. of the board’s deci sion concerning Miller, and that the regents were considering him as an interim replacement. The regents notified Samson of their selection at about 10:30 p.m. Wednesday, Sam son said. Samson serves as the chairman of Texas A&M’s Athletic Council, and as president of the Southwest Con ference. He said he had given no thought to how his new duties would affect his old ones. Samson is a professor of civil en gineering at Texas A&M. He served as department head from 1964-79, relinquishing the position to devote more time to intercollegiate athle tics. After receiving his bachelor’s de gree in civil engineering in 1947 from Notre Dame, Samson obtained his master’s there in 1948. He re ceived a Ph.D. from the University of Missouri in 1953. He joined the Texas A&M faculty in 1960 as a professor of civil and aerospace engineering.