(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Serving the University in Sacramento : oral history transcript / 1969"



</ 



University of California Berkeley 



CALIFORNIA MONTHLY/ JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1975 



"For over 52 years as student, clerk, 
comptroller, and vice president Jim Cor- 
ley loved the University and devoted him 
self to its welfare, and like a very few 
others he became a part of the institution," 
said UC President Charles J. Hitch. "For 
me he was both a friend and valued advi 
sor, and I will miss him greatly. The Uni 
versity community is diminished by his 
loss and will remember him with special 
affection." 

JAMES HENRY CORLEY 26, vice presi 
dent-governmental relations and special 
projects, emeritus, died of heart failure 
early in the morning of December 26, 
1974. He was 70 years old. 

As an undergraduate, Corley was a var 
sity member of the track team for three 
years and a member of the "Big C" society. ! 
He first worked for the University in 1927 
as a student loan fund clerk, and in 1940 
became, at age 37, the youngest man ever 
to be appointed comptroller and general 
business manager. In 1959, President 
Clark Kerr appointed him vice president 
for governmental relations and special 
projects. 

Earlier in his career, Corley was a cen 
tral figure in trie loyalty-oath controversy 
here. He had successfully urged president- 
emeritus Robert G. Sproul 13 and a ma 
jority of the regents to require a non-Com 
munist oath from faculty members as a 
condition of employment. 

Corley was the first recipient of the 
California Alumni Association s 
"Alumnus Service Award" (now the Cali 
fornia Alumni Citation) in recognition of 
his unparalleled record of almost a quarter 
century (1940-63) as the Association s 
treasurer. While treasurer, he participated 
in virtually every major decision involving 
the expanding programs and activities of 
this organization. 

After retiring from the University in 
1965. Corley later returned to the Univer 
sity for a year of part-time duty under 
President Charles Hitch in 1967, mainly 
to lobby with state senators. Corley had 
represented the University during legisla 
tive sessions in Sacramento for more than 
25 years. He also represented UC in 
Washington, D.C., and was a member of 
a committee which carried out the Califor 
nia Big Ten study of unit costs of higher 
education, the first extensive analysis of 
its kind. His many civic activities also I 
included service as a Berkeley City Coun 
cilman and director of the Berkeley 
Chamber of Commerce. 

He is survived by his widow, Marcellene 
Merrill (whom he married in 1926); a 
brother, Peter; a son, James M. Corley 57 
(assistant vice chancellor-employee affairs 
at UC); a daughter, Mrs. David Cruik- 
shank 52; and seven grandchildren. 




Death Announced 



James Corley, Vice President, Emeritus 



OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 
James H. Corley, 70, UC alumnus and 
vice president governmental relations 
and special projects, emeritus, died of 
heart failure late last month. 

"For over 52 years as student, clerk, 
comptroller, and vice president Jim 
Corley loved the University and devoted 
himself to its welfare, and like a very few 
others he became a part of the institu 
tion," President Hitch said. "For me he 
was both a friend and valued advisor, 
and I will miss him greatly. The Uni 
versity community is diminished by his 
loss and will remember him with special 
affection." 

Corley represented the University 
during legislative sessions in Sacramento 
for more than 25 years. He also repre 
sented UC in Washington, D.C. and was 
a member of a committee which carried 
out the California Big Ten study of unit 



costs of higher education, the first ex 
tensive analysis of its kind. 

A native of Modesto, Corley grad 
uated from UC Berkeley in 1926. A year 
later he returned to that campus as a 
student loan fund clerk. 

In 1928, Corley became cashier in the 
comptroller s department. Four years 
later he was named assistant to the 
comptroller; in 1939 he become assistant 
comptroller. Later that year, he was ap 
pointed comptroller and general business 
manager, becoming at 37 the youneest 
man ever to hold this responsible post on 
the Berkeley campus. 

In 1949, Corley became vice pres 
ident business affairs for the entire 
University. In 1960, President Clark Ken- 
appointed him vice president -govern 
mental relations and projects. Corley re 
tired in July, 1965, but continued as a 
consultant for UC and others. 




University of California Bancroft Library/Berkeley 

Regional Oral History Office 



James H. Corley 
SERVING THE UNIVERSITY IN SACRAMENTO 



With an introduction by 
Robert S. Johnson 



An Interview Conducted by 
Verne A. Stadtman, University Centennial Editor 



Berkeley 
1969 




James H. Corley 



All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal 
agreement between the Regents of the University of 
California and James H. Corley, dated 5 July, 1968. 
The manuscript is thereby made available for research 
purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including 
the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library 
of the University of California at Berkeley. No part of 
the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the 
written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library 
of the University of California at Berkeley. 

Requests for permission to quote for publication 
should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 
486 Library, and should include identification of the 
specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the 
passages, and identification of the user. The legal 
agreement with James H. Corley requires that he be 
notified of the request and allowed thirty days in 
which to respond. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PREFACE I 

INTERVIEW HISTORY v 

INTRODUCTION BY ROBERT S. JOHNSON vii 

Interview #1 1 

Background of University of California Representation 

in California 1 

Regent Influence 6 

The Budget in the Thirties 8 

Contract Research 13 

Budget Presentation Under Various Governors 15 

A Search for Bases for Budget Growth Rate 18 

Santa Barbara Campus, and State College Development 24 

Interview #2 31 

Place of Politics in the University s Relations with 

the Legislature 31 

Interpreting the University s Work to the Legislature 35 

Legislative Reaction to University s Constitutional 

Immunity 38 

The Legislature s Understanding of the University s Role 43 

Some Loyal University Supporters Among the Legislators 45 
What Does the University s Legislative Representative Do?54 

The Legislative Analyst 62 

Interview #3 67 

The Effect of On-Campus Activities on the Legislators, 

and the Public 67 

University Image and the Press and Public 70 



Comptroller s Responsibilities 76 

University Building Projects 83 

The Comptroller and the Academic 86 

Interview #4 90 

The Power of the Comptroller s Office in the 1940 s 90 

Effects of Decentralization 96 

The California and Western Conference Cost and 

Statistical Study 103 

Summing Up the University Representative s Service 110 

Appendix: Questions Sent to Mr. Corley 114 

Partial Index 118 



University History Series 



PREFACE 

Under a grant from the University of California Alumni 
Foundation, the Regional Oral History Office has been conducting 
a series of interviews with persons who have made a significant 
contribution to the development of the University of California 
at Berkeley. A list of University History interviews follows, 
including an earlier group which had been conducted in cooperation 
with the Centennial History Project, directed by Professor Walton 
E. Bean. The Alumni Foundation grant made it possible to continue 
this University-centered series, of which this manuscript is a 
part. 

The University History interviews have benefited greatly 
from the expert advice and assistance of Richard E. Erickson, 
Executive Manager of the Alumni Association; Arthur M. Arlett, 
Intercollegiate Athletic Coordinator for Alumni and Public 
Relations; and Verne A. Stadtman, Centennial Editor. 

The Regional Oral History Office was established to tape 
record autobiographical interviews with persons prominent in 
recent California history. The Office is under the administrative 
supervision of the Director of the Bancroft Library. 

Willa Baum 

Head, Regional Oral 

History Office 

15 July 1968 

Regional Oral History Office 
Room 486 The Bancroft Library 
University of California 
Berkeley, California 



ii 



Interviews in the University History Series which have been completed by the 
Regional Oral History Office. 



Birge , Raymond Thayer 
Chaney, Ralph Works 

Hutchison, Claude B. 

Lessing, Ferdinand D. 
Lenzen, Victor F. 
Merritt, Ralph P. 

Meyer, Karl F. 
Mitchell, Lucy Sprague 
Olney, Mary McLean 

Neuhaus , Eugen 

Neylan, John Francis 
Pepper, Stephen C. 

Porter, Robert Langley 
Richardson, Leon J. 

Shields , Peter J. 

Sproul, Ida Wittschen 

/ 

Stevens , Frank C. 
Treadway, Walter 



SERIES I 
Raymond Thayer Birge, Physicist. 1960 

Ralph Works Chaney , Ph.D. , Paleobotanist . Conserva 
tionist. 1960 

The College of_ Agriculture, University f California, 
1922-1952. 1962 

Early Years. 1963 

Physics and Philosophy. 1965 

After Me Cometh a Builder, the Recollections of 
Ralph Palmer Merritt. 1962 

Medical Research and Public Health. In process. 
Pioneering in Education. 1962 

Oakland , Berkeley, and the University of California. 
1880-1895. 1963 " 

Reminiscences: Bay Area Art and the University oj 
California Art Department. 1961 

Politics, Law, and the University f California. 1962 

Art and Philosophy a_t the University f California, 
1919 to 1962. 1963 " 

Robert Langley Porter, Physician, Teacher, and 
Guardian f the Public Health. 1960 

Berkeley Culture, University f_ California Highlights, 
and University Extension, 1892-1960. 1962 

Reminiscences . 1954 

Duty, Devotion and Delight ^Ln the President s House , 
University f California. 1961 

Forty Years in the Office f the President , University 
f California, 1905-1945. 1959 

Correspondence and Papers on Langley Porter Clinic . 
(Bound into Langley Porter interview.) 



iii - 



Waring, Henry C. 
Woods, Baldwin M. 



Henry C^ Waring on University Extension. 1960 
University of California Extension. 1957 



Wurster, William Wilson College f Environmental Design, University of 

California, Campus Planning, and Architectural 
Practice. 1964 

I 

SERIES II 

Interviews fully or partially funded by the University of California Alumni 
Foundation. 



Blaisdell, Allen C. 

Cor ley, James V. 
Cross, Ira Brown 
Cruess, William V. 



Foreign Students and the Berkeley International House , 
1928-1961. 1968 

Serving the University ^n Sacramento. 1969 

Portrait _of an Economics Professor. 1967 

A Half Century in Food and Wine Technology. 1967 



Davidson, Mary Blossom The Dean f Women and the Importance f Students. 1967 



Dennes, William R. 
Donnelly, Ruth 
Ebright, Carroll "Ky" 
Evans, Clinton W. 
Hamilton, Brutus 
Hays, William Charles 

Johnston, Marguerite Kulp 

and 
Mixer, Joseph R. 

Lehman, Benjamin H. 
Towle, Katherine A. 
Underhill, Robert M. 

Wessels, Glenn A. 
Witter, Jean C. 



Philosophy and the University Since 1915. 1970 
The University s Role in Housing Services . 1970 
California Varsity and Olympics Crew Coach. 1968 
California Athlete, Coach , Administrator, Ambassador. 1968 
Student Athletics and the Voluntary Discipline. 1967 
Order, Taste, and Grace i.n Architecture. 1968 

Student Housing, Welfare, and the ASUC. 1970 



Recollections and Reminiscences of Life in the Bay 
Area from 1920 Onward . 1969 

A Life f Service; The Marine Corps and the 
" University. 1970 " 

University f California Lands , Finances , and 
Investment. 1968 

Education f an Artist. 1967 

The University, the Community, and the Lifeblood of 
Business. 1968 



- v - 



INTERVIEW HISTORY 



By Verne Stadtman 



These interviews were conducted as a cooperative venture of 
the Regional Oral History Office and the Office of Centennial 
Publications, University of California. To write a history of 
the University of California without talking to a man whose ad 
ministrative service to it -- mostly in very high positions -- 
spanned more than 40 years would have been unthinkable. To have 
failed to record those conversations for permanent reference 
would have been unforgivable. 

Most of the research in preparation for the interviews was 
done by Stephen Brier of the Centennial Publications staff. 
Twenty-eight questions were prepared to guide the initial inter 
views. Subsequently, 23 more questions were prepared. I was 
the only interviewer. 

Mr. Corley and I had known each other for many years, so 
our interviews proceeded on cordial and familiar terms. They 
began at the close of the 1967 session of the legislature and 
continued through the summer. They were a week apart at first, 
but then were separated by fairly long periods during which 
either Mr. Corley or I were out of Berkeley. The dates were 
June 15, June 22, July 20, and August 27, 1967. They lasted 
between one and a half and two and a half hours each. 

All of the conversations took place in offices on the 
seventh floor (where the president s office is located) in 
University Hall. he first office he occupied during our inter 
views was on the east side of the building, overlooking the 
campus and busy Oxford Street. Traffic noises were occasional 
distractions. The second one was on the opposite side of the 
building, overlooking downtown Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay. 

Mr. Corley did not occupy the offices full-time so they were 
not elaborately furnished. The desk, files, shelves, and other 
such items were of the grey metal variety found in hundreds of 
University offices. A touch of distinction was provided by a 
couple of hand-carved (in Japan) statuettes of some bears. 
These, I knew, had been given to Mr. Corley by a very close 
friend. They were on his desk and he was very proud of them. 



- VI - 



Our conversations were marked by candor and good humor. 
Mr. Corley s great concern was that he not take too much credit 
for achievements and that he not forget anyone when paying 
tribute to others. It took no special effort on his part to 
convey that his affection for the University of California is 
unbounded. 

Bob Johnson, a close friend and longtime associate of Mr. 
Corley s, agreed to write the introduction. As a special as 
sistant in the President s Office under Robert Gordon Sproul 
and then Clark Kerr, Mr. Johnson is especially familiar with 
Mr. Corley s work for the University. 



Verne A. Stadtman 
21 May, 1969 Interviewer 



Vll 



INTRODUCTION by Robert S. Johnson 

[Mr. Robert S. Johnson, in the thoughtful introduction that follows, 
traces his friendship with "Jim" Cor ley, and simultaneously shows us 
how Mr. Corley s career with the University developed over those years.] 

For a quarter of a century James H. Corley served as the University s 
representative to the State government in Sacramento. During this time the 
Legislature, year after year, without exception, approved all or more than had 
been requested for the institution. Annual appropriations for current Uni 
versity operations grew from $8,220,000 in 1939 to $180,660,000 in 1964. 
University properties for instruction and research were quadrupled with the 
addition of 30,000 acres; the book value of lands, buildings, and improve 
ments increased from $40,500,000 to $584,000,000. 

In this time, from three campuses and a medical center, the University 
expanded to eight general campuses and five medical centers. Student 
enrollments grew from under 30,000 to more than 71,000 students. Proposals 
with injurious implications for the institution and its students were defeated. 
Among these were bills to divide the University, to impose tuition fees, to 
proliferate and transform the state colleges into a rival university system. 
In 1960 the Legislature adopted a Master Plan for Higher Education which 
preserved and guaranteed the University of California s exclusive jurisdiction 
over training for the professions, its sole authority over the doctorate, and 
its primary role in research. 

In securing the constant bipartisan legislative support of the University s 
development over the twenty-five years, one of the most important factors was 



viii 



James Corley s close personal rapport and influence with State authorities 
of both political parties -- governors, leaders and other members of the 
Legislature, directors of finance, and legislative analysts. 

Jim was born in Modesto, California on April 18, 1904. His father, of 
the same name, was a locally well-known public auctioneer who took an active 
interest in civic affairs and was one of the initiators of the Modesto 
Irrigation District. The family was tight-knit, affectionate, disciplined. 
It was a happy home . 

When I first met Jim Corley, at Modesto High School in 1918, I was a 
skinny (my nickname) country boy, whereas he had entered surrounded by close 
friends from the town grammar school. He was large for his age, and interested 
in athletics -- as was I, despite my eighty-pound physique. He played first- 
string on the football team -- I was a substitute who seldom got into a game. 
He was a regular on the basketball team and a hurdler in track -- I was on 
the one hundred twenty-pound team. He was elected team captain in football 
and track, president of the student body, and student head of the local high 
school cadet battalion. I was a second lieutenant, and I edited the school 
newspaper. 

Along with our young coach, "Jumbo" Morris (later, junior college 
president), Jim and several other of the biggest athletes were great cronies, 
kidding, laughing, rough-housing, and practical- joking before and after the 
practices and games, although deadly serious during them, and particularly 
so when confronting our arch enemy, Turlock High School. He was easily the 
most prominent and popular student in our high school, and he took his 
responsibilities seriously and executed them with unusual faithfulness. 



ix 



His status in the student community was awesome, yet he was friendly and kind, 

Entering the University of California in 1922, Jim joined the Sigma 
Phi Epsilon fraternity. As a freshman he was on the football, basketball, 
and track squads. Later, he earned his Big C in track as a hurdler. His 
friendships extended across the campus. He was elected to Winged Helmet, 
Order of the Golden Bear, Scabbard and Blade, Phi Phi, and Delta Sigma Phi 
honor societies. 

Two years behind Jim, and unable to afford to go away from home, I 
entered the new local junior college. Each summer Jim tried to persuade me 
to come up to Berkeley, and I longed to, although it seemed an impossible 
dream. I continued to develop in size and speed on the track, and within 
two years my local times in the hurdles were bettering Jim s and the others 
at the University. Still, with no possibility of going on to school, I took 
a job as cub reporter on the local paper. But the summer of 1925 Jim was 
more persistent than ever. 

Finally, one day in August, upon his promise to help me find a job on 
the campus, I climbed into his Ford and headed up with him to register at 
the University. I had $30 in my pocket, no possibility of receiving help 
from home, and the registration fee was $27.50! But true to his promise, 
Jim found me a job -- checking books in the Student Union -- and moved me 
into his fraternity, with the understanding that I would pay my house bill 
at the end of the month. 

By the next spring, Al Ragan (also recruited by Jim from Modesto, and 
in the fraternity) and I were beating him each Saturday in the hurdles 
as he must have known we might do and we took his place on the track team 



traveling East to the national meet. 

Jim was the fiercest competitor I have known. In high school he had 
starred, but his natural ability was not of university calibre. He never 
entered a race that he was not confident he would win; and he was crushed by 
each defeat, which occurred regularly. He was Coach Walter Christie s favorite 
athlete. "Corley," he said to me one day, "is slow between the hurdles and 
awkward over them. He ll never take first, but he keeps placing ahead of men 
he has no right to beat. I wish I had more like him." 

As fraternity president, Jim was a strict disciplinarian and the best 
president the chapter ever had. Morale under his presidency reached an all- 
time high. The freshmen scrubbed the house clean each Saturday or were 
paddled. Any member appearing without coat and necktie at dinner was ordered 
to leave the table. To bring liquor into the house was to incur a heavy 
fine. 

I recall that at one of our chapter meetings it was decided that "water 
bagging" (dropping water-filled paper sacks from second and third story 
windows on unwary passers-by) must be stopped. We agreed upon the penalty: 
the "tub." The next day, a bag was dropped by Elmer Gerken, senior, track 
captain, and Jim s best friend. Some of the seniors advised that Gerken be 
let off with a warning. But Jim did not hesitate. A rule had been 
established, Gerken had broken the rule, and Gerken went into the "tub." 
(This penalty, the most severe of that time, but common practice, consisted 
of being held under water until half-strangled, and has long since been 
discontinued . ) 

Jim s academic record was adequate but undistinguished. He was graduated 



xi 



in May, 1926, from the School of Commerce. Soon after graduation, Jim took a 
job, a sales position with an industrial firm in San Francisco. On October 
30, 1926, he and Marcellene Burns Merrill, who had been in love since their 
sophomore year at Modesto High School, married. And, before long, Jim was 
back on the campus. During his student days he had come to the attention of 
Robert Gordon Sproul, then Comptroller and very close to undergraduate life. 
Sproul called him back to the University in 1927 and gave him his first position, 
loan fund clerk. 

Two years later I, too, was graduated, and I stayed on at the University 
as the paid secretary of the Big C Society. Bob Sproul and Jim were deeply 
interested in my mission -- to organize athletic recruitment for Berkeley, 
as had already been done at Stanford and USC. Subsidies of any kind were 
forbidden, as were any exceptions to regular admission requirements. As 
Sproul said, he wanted "students who play at athletics," not "athletes who 
play at studies." Jim helped me, especially with prospective student athletes 
from Modesto. Only one or two escaped to Stanford, none to USC. 

In those years Jim rose rapidly to become Cashier, Assistant to the 
Comptroller, Assistant Comptroller, and, in 1939, Comptroller. I saw him only 
occasionally after 1935, for I had left University employment and moved out of 
Berkeley. When I returned in 1943 to work toward an advanced degree, Jim 
was in President Sproul "s old job of Comptroller. In 1946 the President called 
me to join his staff. Now Jim was extremely busy with his responsibilities -- 
directing the University s business affairs and carrying its needs to 
Sacramento -- but we were only a few doors apart in the Administration 
Building (Sproul Hall) and I saw him often. 



xii 



We discussed not only University but fraternity problems. The chapter 
had suspended operations during the war, and with the return of peace a new 
house was needed. Thanks to Jim, we found and secured a building close to 
the campus , rounded up several undergraduate members returning from military 
service who recruited others, and organized a board of alumni. Within a year, 
a viable chapter was going again. 

By now Jim was Vice PresidentBusiness Affairs, the title he held from 
1948 to the end of the Sproul administration in 1958. In 1950 I was asked to 
draft a statement of the need for faculty salary increases. This was approved 
without change and sent on to Sacramento with the President s signature. 
The appeal proved successful, and each year thereafter I was asked to prepare 
a similar document. This led Jim to take me to Sacramento, on many occasions, 
as his "expert" witness in salary negotiations with the State Department of 
Finance, and to attend hearings before legislative committees, where I observed 
his activities. His popularity in the capital was enormous. He was as 
much an accepted part of the scene as the legislators, themselves. Several 
incidents are illustrative: 

In a hearing before the Senate Committee on Finance, in which the 
University sought a special appropriation, Jim was asked a question that I at 
once knew would be awkward to answer without damaging the University s case. 
His reply, as always, was absolutely candid, and I supposed the battle lost. 
However, after a brief silence, the Senator questioner said quickly, "Mr. 
Chairman, I move the bill out with a Do Pass." The favorable vote was 
unanimous . 

One night, in an unprecedented reversal of roles of legislator and 



xiii 



lobbyist, members of the Senate held a dinner to honor Jim, conferring upon 
him, with the banter he always enjoys, the honorary title, with plaque, of 
"Chancellor of the Sacramento Campus of the University of California." 

On a number of occasions, when I was with him, legislators secretaries 
would call Jim to their offices to give him the latest "tip" on the attitudes 
of various legislators toward a particular University cause, and to offer him 
advice and help. 

I remember, too, a night when Jim and I were dining at Frank Fat s. 
Leaders of both parties were meeting separately in back rooms to plan for the 
next day. As one of the groups broke up, the party floor leader walked over 
to our table and confided the party strategy for the next day. Some minutes 
after he had gone, the other party caucus broke up and its leader came over 
to confide its strategy The next day in the Senate chambers, I watched with 
Jim as the whole play on the floor was acted out according to both party 
scripts. 

During the two decades 1939 to 1958, Corley not only represented the 
University at Sacramento but was responsible for all business operations 
of the University on all campuses, and for all physical planning and building 
construction. With the development of research and training projects under 
contract with or grant from various Federal agencies , the negotiation and 
business administration of these were added to his responsibilities. 

The relationship between Sproul and Corley was extremely close, a deep 
personal friendship with mutual understanding, admiration, and trust. It was 
easy then for Jim to represent Bob at Sacramento. Whenever possible the 
President was consulted before each important decision, but when on occasion 



xiv 



Jim had to act without consultation, he did so knowing that Sproul would 
support him. 

By 1958, the University had increased vastly in complexity as well as in 
size. Moreover, the legislative sessions at Sacramento had lengthened and 
more and more trips to Washington were being required. The new President, 
Clark Kerr, aware of these facts and as part of an over-all administrative 
reorganization, divided Corley s previous responsibilities among several 
newly created vice-presidencies, and assigned to him the title and duties 
of Vice President --Governmental Relations. Loyal as always, he accepted, 
without voicing the slightest complaint to me, the loss of his former title 
and reduction of his former authority. But, although he tried to help the 
new president in every way possible, he appeared not to enjoy the same complete 
confidence that Bob Sproul had given him, and the close personal relationship 
between president and University representative at Sacramento disappeared, 
nor was it reestablished during the next six years. 

Although Corley s devotion to the University remained undiminished , his 
effectiveness was impaired. He requested retirement in 1964 when it was 
proposed that with the new title of Vice PresidentContracts and Grants, his 
Sacramento mission end and his representation henceforth be restricted to the 
Federal Government. I do not know what motivated President Kerr s decision to 
remove Jim from Sacramento. Nor does Jim, nor the legislators and others in 
Sacramento. He had continued to urge the University s cause loyally and 
effectively. I do know that the decision was made without consulting him 
and that the blow came without warning. 

Although Jim was offered continuing employment, this was with lesser 



XV 



title and lesser responsibilities. The offer was extended in such a manner 
as to leave him with no honorable alternative than to request early 
retirement, which he did, although at the time he was but sixty years old. 
His friends in the Legislature, as elsewhere, were outraged by the 
announcement and lack of explanation, and some of them were preparing to 
"give the University a lesson" when Jim intervened and persuaded them to do 
nothing to hurt the institution. 

We held a retirement party for Jim, a short time later, at the Hotel 
Claremont. Over six hundred of his old friends crowded into the Churchill 
Room, and we had to turn others away. They came from Berkeley, Sacramento, 
Modesto, and as far away as Kentucky, Arizona, and Seattle. President 
Sproul presided. There were eulogies and gifts, and a broken-voiced, 
heart-felt response from Jim. 

Almost weekly since his retirement, Jim and I have lunched together. 
I cannot describe how deeply he was touched when Dr. Harry Wellman, upon 
becoming Acting President, immediately asked Jim to be his personal consultant, 
nor how grateful he has been that President Hitch has continued the relation 
ship. He also has served as consultant to the United States Office of 
Education, the California State Colleges, the California Agricultural 
Conference, Kern County Land Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 
Bechtel Corporation, and Effective Citizens Organization. 

Jim Corley s public service has extended far beyond the University. 
For seven years (1940-47), he was a member of the Berkeley City Council. 
He was Treasurer of the California Alumni Association from 1940 to 1964, 
and received the Association s first "Distinguished Service Award." At 



XVI 



one time or another he was a member of the Board of Directors of the Berkeley 
Chamber of Commerce, National Grand President of the Sigma Phi Epsilon 
Fraternity, President of the Berkeley Breakfast Club, a Director of the 
East Bay Regional Park System, an Advisory Trustee of the Alta Bates Hospital, 
and a member of the National Committee of University Business Officers on 
Government Relations. 

He is a member of the Bohemian Club, the Commonwealth Club, and the 
Athenian-Nile Club. When time has allowed he has continued to pursue his 
interests in hunting and fishing, and in track. (With regard to the latter 
he has for many years been a judge of the finish at meets in Berkeley.) 
He and Mrs. Corley presently reside at Rossmoor in Walnut Creek and spend many 
weeks at their summer home at Twain Harte, east of Sonora, which they share 
and enjoy with their children, Mrs. Patricia Ann Cruikshank, and James 
Merrill Corley, and their seven grandchildren. 

Jim Corley is genial, unaffected, easy to talk to and to like. He 
has a fine sense of humor, an infectious chuckle, loves to kid and be kidded. 
He is considerate, especially of those in lesser station. He is perceptive, 
intuitive, and has an extraordinary capacity for judging persons quickly and 
accurately. He is not an intellectual. He depends more upon conversation 

than upon reading to arrive at a conclusion or decision. His judgments are 

> 
more common-sense than sophisticated. He is conventional, a moderate 

conservative. 

His predelictions are with the layman rather than the academician, the 
legislator rather than the professional educator. He speaks directly, replies 
candidly. He is a man of manifest integrity. He is not only careful with 



xvii 



facts; he tries to present the true picture. 

Of all his traits of character, the most striking is loyalty. A chief 
object of this is the University. The deep emotional attachment to the 
institution gained as a student has deepened with the years. During his 
extremely active career Jim s solicitude and anxieties were far more related 
to the University s welfare than to his personal status and future. He is, 
as would be expected, intolerant of those whom he finds disloyal, deceptive, 
disruptive, fanatic. His indignation toward such persons has not always been 
controlled by prudence. 

Let me sum up the way in which Jim has been an invaluable asset to the 
University. At Sacramento he early gained a deep appreciation of the 
responsibilities and problems of the legislator. For the large majority of 
them he had sympathy and admiration. With President Sproul he shared the 
conviction that the University should present only conservative budget requests, 
that it should ask only for what the State government could reasonably be 
expected to provide. He opposed asking for more in order to secure the right 
amount through negotiation. It was imperative, in his judgment, to retain 
the confidence of the Governor and the Legislature and their staffs in the 
University s management. He solicited nonpartisan support and communicated 
constantly with the leadership of both political parties at Sacramento. 
Even at critical times he. refused to play one party against the other in 
order to gain advantage . 

Jim Corley made a straightforward presentation of the University s 
needs, and refused to use either threat of personal reprisal or lavish 
entertainment to support his cause. He appeared before legislative committees 



xviii 



only when necessary or upon request. His testimony was concise, his replies 
direct and candid. The governors and the overwhelming majority of legis 
lators liked, admired, and respected him, and, equally important, so did 
their staffs. At this time, four years later, the University has not yet 
recovered from the loss occasioned by his retirement. 



November 12, 1969 

University Hall 

University of California, Berkeley 



XIX 



BIOGRAPHY - JAMES H. CORLEY 



Born: 

Education: 
Married : 

Positions held: 



Public Service; 



Special Services; 



Recreations : 



April 18, 1904, Modesto, California 

B.S. Degree, University of California, Berkeley, 1926 

Marcellene Burns Merrill, October 30, 1926 
Children: Mrs. Patricia Ann Cruickshank 
James Merrill Corley 

University of California, 1927-64 

Served successively as Loan Fund Clark, Cashier, Assistant to the 

Comptroller, Assistant Comptroller, Comptroller from 1939-48, Vice 

President-Business 1948-58, Vice President-Governmental Relations 

and Projects 1958 until retirement. 

After retirement, Consultant for: 

U.S. Office of Education - Washington, D. C. 

California Agriculture Conference - Sacramento, Calif. 

Kern County Land Company - Bakersfield - San Francisco 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company - San Francisco 

Effective Citizens Organization - Washington, D. C. 

California State Colleges - Washington, D.C. - Sacramento 

Bechtel Corporation - San Francisco 

University of California - Consultant 

Board of Directors, Berkeley Chamber of Commerce 

Councilman, Berkeley City Council, 1940-4? 

National Grand President of Sigma Phi Epsilon 

Treasurer of the California .Alumni Association, 1940-64 

Awarded the First "Alumnus Service Award" 1964 

President of the Berkeley Breakfast Club, 1937 (Founder Member) 

Director of East Bay Regional Parks 

Advisory Trustee - Alta Bates Hospital 

Member of: 

Order of the Golden Bear 

Winged Helmet 

Scabbard and Blade 

Big "C? Society 

Land Grant College Association 

Western Association of College and University Business Officers 

Cpntral Association of College and University Business Officers 

Member of the Board of UCLA Progress Fund 

Member of National Committee of University Business Officers 
on Government Relations 

Athenian-Nile Club - Oakland 

Commonwealth Club - San Francisco 

Bohemian Club - San Francisco 

Represented the University of California during Legislative 
Sessions at Sacramento, California for twenty-five years 

Representative of the University of California, Washington, D.C. 

Member of the Committee which organized and completed the California- 
Big Ten study of unit costs of higher education, the first study 
and the most extensive analysis of college and university costs 
for comparative purposes. 

University of California Track Team as undergraduate, Hurdles. 
Hunting and Fishing 



Interview 1, June 15, 1967 

Background of University of California Representation in 
Sacramento 



Verne A. Stadtman: We can start out with the question, "When did you become 

responsible for representing the University in Sacramento?" Maybe, 
Jim, you would like to get in first just when you joined the 
University. 

James Corley: I came to work for the University in July of 1927 as loan fund 
clerk in the accounting office, collecting loans. Six months after 
that I was made cashier of the University , in 1928. From 1928 to 
the time Bob Sproul was made President (he was then comptroller) I 
acted as cashier, and when Bob Sproul was made President in 1930, 
Luther A. Nichols, who was then assistant comptroller, was made 
comptroller. Several years after that I was made assistant comp 
troller. 

My first visit to Sacramento was in 1939 with Mr. Nichols, as 
his assistant. He resigned in 1940 and I was made comptroller of 
the University in December, 1940 and made my first appearance in 
Sacramento with the full responsibility of representing the University 
in January of 1941. I was then comptroller-- 
VAS : And chief business officer of the University. 

JC: That is what the comptroller meant at that time; it included ac 
counting and all the business operations. The part time job was 



JC: representing the University at Sacramento, which was then on a bien 
nial legislative basis and the budget then covered a two year period. 

VAS: When did that end? 

JC: I would have to check the exact time of the change in the legislative 

actions, but governors did call special sessions, sometimes every year. 
It became common practice until the law was changed, requiring annual 
sessions. There was a law, and I have forgotten the exact year that 
that change came, but then they changed to a regular session every 
two years and a budget session every year, so that I believe the even 
year was the budget session when all the fiscal matters could be taken 
up. Most frequently the governor called a special budget session so 
that emergency legislation could be handled at that time, for specific 
purposes. But that became so common, the call so broad, that they now 
have annual sessions. 

VAS: In your introduction to Sacramento as assistant with Nichols, were you 
actually involved considerably? 

JC: No, I was just a visitor. It was full time in 1941 when he had left 
the University. 

I have great rememberance of the only two friends I knew in 
Sacramento; one was Rufus Klawens , who represented the veterans organ 
izations and the fishermen, as a lobbyist, and he was an old time foot 
ball and basketball referee and very active in San Francisco and the bay 
area and the University s affairs and that is how I knew him. And a 
man by the name of Lynn Peterson, who is now retired but represented 



JC: the veterans and the breweries of Los Angeles. They took me on my 
first introduction to the Sacramento legislature and my first night 
out in Sacramento, and to this day they are two of the closest 
friends. Also Berkeley s assemblyman and my classmate, Gardiner 
Johnson and Senator Arthur Breed Jr., from Alameda County, also a 
Berkeley alumnus. 

FAS: Now to what extent did the President take a hand in legislative rep 
resentations in the 1930 s and 1940 s? 

JC: During that period of time Mr. Nichols represented the University in 
Sacramento, and I do believe with the exception of the introduction 
of the budget to the governor and to the director of finance, President 
Sproul allowed Mr. Nichols to represent the University. He did not 
appear except on request. 

VAS : Has the introduction of the budget to the department of finance been 
a standard practice from the beginning, that you know of? 

JC: Yes, the President and frequently a Regent or a group of Regents would 
show and make the original presentation to the governor and to the 
director of finance as a means of formal presentation of the Univer 
sity s request to the governor because the University s budget is the 
governor s budget once it is filed. It is part of the state budget. 

VAS: I thought this was a relatively new development. 

JC: No, the chairman of the finance committee, Regent Garrett McEnerney, 
I can remember frequently had gone, and I had sometimes gone to those 
early ones, and the President and sometimes one or two other Regents 



- 4 - 



JC: used to go and make a formal presentation to the governor of their 

request. This was in general frequently in the governor s office or 
in his conference room. 

VAS : This request was made pretty much under your supervision, was it not? 

JC: No. Under the budget office is the accounting office, but a direct 

arm of the President s office. The gathering of requests from depart 
ments is screened through the President and through assistants, not 
as elaborately as it is today, but through a system of budget pro 
cedure that was handled. 

The formal hearing of the University budget was important and 
part of the reason for doing that -- I think it was good -- is that 
it gave the full support of the Regents with the understanding that 
they knew something about it too, besides the person who was presenting 
it and the President. 

VAS: 1 presume, of course, that Sproul would appear in an emergency as 
needed? 

JC: I had only one experience when President Sproul was ordered to go to 

the legislature by the Regents and this had to do with the overhead on 
the government contracts which is still a controversy today. 

VAS: This would have been when, about 1955 or so? 

JC: All I remember, the exact date I would have to check, is that Ben 

Hulse was then chairman of the senate finance committee, and Jim Dean 
was director of finance. It was his office that raised the question 
of the state s entitlement to some of the overhead money. I recall 
very vividly my orders to hold all of the overhead money in the 



- 5 - 



JC: University s treasury and appearing before the senate finance com 
mittee, having all but one vote necessary to approve the budget. I 
reported to the Regents that that was the situation and they wanted 
some portion of it and the Regents instructed the President to ap 
pear before the legislature and tell them that it was University - 
earned money. 

President Sproul appeared before the committee and made one of 
his finest presentations. The committee thanked him, took a vote, 
and he was still one vote short of getting the budget approved also. 
The chairman of the committee thanked the President for coming and 
suggested to the President that he have Mr. Corley go and meet with 
the director of finance and the legislative analyst and if they could 
work out a compromise, they would be glad to approve the budget. As 
a consequence the agreement that now exists, on a 50-50 split, was 
agreed to by the director of finance James Dean, by Alan Post, the 
legislative analyst, and they took it to the chairman of the finance 
committee and he said there was no problem and they approved it. 
That has been in effect ever since. 

VAS : It is in danger now? 

JC: I think they settled it yesterday (14 June 1967). I don t know what 

the vote was, a vote on taking it all into the state treasury and then 
giving it back to us, whatever is needed. 

VAS: Was President Kerr s relationship to the legislature essentially the 
same as Sproul s? 



J: He changed it somewhat. President Kerr did go. The governor in the 

later Sproul years did not participate in the hearings, the director of 
finance always did. For formal presentation President Kerr did go to 
present the budget. In recent years the Regents did not go and the 
President and the vice-presidents and director of finance and the staff 
discussed the budgets in general principles and made the formal presenta 
tion. 

VAS : Have the presidents been able to exert much influence on the legislators 
in a formal way? 

JC: 1 am sure that they had influence, they had relationships, but to my 

knowledge they never used it unless it was called upon. It was always 
my philosophy that the President should not become involved, except in 
emergencies . 

Regent Influence 

VAS: Did you ever ask the President to contact any specific legislators? 

JC: Never. Frequently members of the Regents did contact legislators when 
things were difficult, and I assume the President did also. The Presi 
dent and the governors were generally on a first name basis. 

VAS: Members of the Regents would contact a^ legislator? 

JC: I don t know whether to tell this one or not, but it is a very humorous 
story and I will tell it to you because you will be interested. It just 
happened to occur to me. At one time we were having difficulty with the 
chairman of the ways and means committee who came from Marysville. It 
was when I first went to Sacramento and his name was Seth Millington. 



JC: His two boys were prominent athletes at Stanford. He turned out later 
to be one of my close friends and a good friend of the University, but 
he was a hard task master on the budget, as most of them are. I was 
not making much progress with him as an individual and so reported to 
the finance committee of the Regents. Regent Giannini at that time 
said, "Well, after all he is my legal counsel for the Bank of America, 
maybe I better call him." I said, "Well, it might be helpful." 

The next week when I went to Sacramento I saw Mr. Millington and 
he said, "Corley, my God, you didn t have to go that far. I almost 
lost my job." 

I said, "What happened?" 

He said, "I have never talked to Mr. Giannini, never ever expected 
to get that far up in the Bank of America. Over this weekend some 
blustering voice over the telephone said, is this Seth Millington? 
I said, Yes, who is this? 1 it is A. P. Giannini. I said, Yes, 
this is Jesus Christ, what do you want? He said, This is Giannini, 
what about this University of California budget? 1 Well, I said, 
everything is going to be all right Mr. Giannini. " 

Millington told the whole ways and means committee at the next 
hearing and it did help our budget. But I have always had the phil 
osophy, and I still have, that except in emergencies neither the Presi 
dent ir>r the Regents should participate in contacting legislators. 

VAS: So actually this has been pretty much your job all the way through. 

JC: I have assumed it to be the most important responsibility I retained at 



JC: the University, 24 hours a day 365 days out of the year, and to every 

member of the legislature and the state government. I think that is how 
important it is to this day for the University. 

The Budget in the Thirties 

JC: Now let us get back to some of this earlier budget, the period of the 

\ 

30s. 

VAS: I think one of the things in the 30s that is important as it might 
even relate to today is that the fiscal problems of the state were 
very serious and when the actual warrants were issued by the state in 
lieu of cash because there just wasn t any cash in the treasury, the 
governor found it necessary to economize on the budget and called on 
every state agency to do so. At that time the Regents and the Presi 
dent agreed to take, I believe it was a 5 per cent cut in salaries, 
for everyone across the board, which set the pattern for the rest of 
the state agencies. That was a real serious fiscal situation in the 
state and the University joined to try to help. I remember distinctly 
because I received a promotion in title with no increase in salary. 

VAS: As I understood it the faculty took voluntary decreases but very 

shortly after they took it they reinstated them. I understand it was 
just about a month. 

JC: I m not certain, I believe it was several years. I don t know the 

exact relationships that were worked out but I know that a cut in the 
budget took place on that percentage; whether with taking an additional 
work load they were able to increase the salaries over that year I 



- 9 - 



JC: don t recall because I do know that the restoration of that cut that was 
taken in the budget at th time took several years to build back up to 
the total of the University. The transfer of funds within the University 
could have happened. 

VAS : At about what rate did it go up? 

JC: Well, as fast as the state could provide it. But I think if you look at 
the record, one that Tom Holy prepared, if you could get a copy of his 
report when he left the University -- he made a study of the growth of 
budget appropriations of the University over a period of years and how 
much was paid and how much was asked for and how much had been gained -- 
it was a very good picture of how well the legislature treated the 
University over a period of years. 

VAS: You are talking now about how the legislature treated the University 
generously; was there in your opinion a considerable amount ... 

JC: I think we have to recognize that certainly in the earlier days when I 
went there most of the members of the legislature had a very high regard 
for the University and its service to the people of the state. It was 
dominated by rural senate and many rural legislators in the assembly. 
The service of the College of Agriculture to the people of agriculture 
had a very, very dominating influence on their attitude and I would say 
that probably without exception almost every year there was some special 
program for agriculture that we had not included that the legislature 
said we must take care of this problem in agriculture. I think it is 
very significant that those people were strong; they felt it was the 
state university and the people s university, that the proportion of 



- 10 - 



JC: the appropriation of the state support varied from two thirds to as high 
as 80 per cent from the state government. So they felt that they had a 
part interest and so did their constituents. If somebody at home was 
not happy with the University it generally came through the legislator. 
But having it dominated by the rural section of the state, and it was 
predominantly agriculture then -- today it is not controlled by the 
rural senators, it was changed by reapportionment -- I think you can 
say that there was hardly a time they didn t feel that they were part 
of it. They used to come and hold their committee hearings on the 
campus and have visitations to agriculture and engineering labora 
tories on campus. 

VAS : How long ago was that? 

JC: Oh, we used to invite them all the time, but it started when Judge 
Albert Wollenberg was chairman of the ways and means committee. He 
wanted his committee members to see an operation of the state agencies 
and we had the first one on the University campus and then they went 
to the mental hygiene institutions, prisons, etc. His idea was to start 
a program so they knew how they were spending their money in the labora 
tories and classrooms, in the fields. 

VAS: How did we cope with this budget cut in addition to salary cuts? I read 
about not cutting the grass for years. 

JC: Oh, yes, we did, we just stopped watering the grass, we stopped planting. 
We didn t replace employees. Other people carried extra loads in every 
phase of the University. Some research was delayed and postponed. All 
of us worked many times overtime because we didn t replace people, we 



- 11 - 



JC: couldn t because there wasn t any money available. We just had to take 
on more of a load. Sure it slowed the University down but it didn t 
hurt much, now looking back. Everybody rose to the occasion to try to 
meet it. There was nothing else to do, you couldn t raise taxes, no 
body had any money to pay it. People didn t have money. 

VAS : And there was no building? 

JC: No, very little since the bond issue for UCLA. There was no building 
until just before the war. There wasn t any then to amount to any 
thing. There was just a beginning program and capital outlay started 
with the accumulation of the rainy day fund .during the war. We had an 
appropriation approved, 1941, the first two million dollars ... 

VAS: Did this complicate the problem with UCLA, for instance, which was right 
at the vital point in physical development at that time? 

JC: Oh yes. The southern part of the state was just coming into its own. 

*i cn*f3^/j_^ 
UCLA had elected its first two public officials with Fred Hawser as 

lieutenant governor, and Phil Davis as the assemblyman and they were 

very bitter toward the northern part of the University because of the 

dominance of Berkeley. 
VAS: UCLA opened in 1930, didn t they, with their new buildings? You are 

saying H awser and Phil Davis were resentful of the fact that nothing 

could be done between that start and ... ? 
JC: They weren t so resentful, everybody was resentful of the fact, but 

money was so limited that they had to wait to build up a fund somehow. 

Hardly any funds for anything. 
VAS: This is probably another question that we will get into later but do you 



- 12 - 



think that the Ph.D. program and some other things that UCLA wanted 
would have moved any faster if money had been available? 

JC: If money had been freer, I think probably. I think so yes. From the 

30s to the 40s I will just have to say that I just realized the fiscal 
situation was very rough and everything was done to economize in any 
way we could. Many of our grounds were delayed in any kind of plantings 
and landscaping, that was the last thing that we would have money for. 
And travel was cut to an absolute minimum. 

VAS : During the war you had some service training? 

JC: No. 

VAS : Then you carried this whole thing through the war and how did this change? 

JC: Of course, during the war there was a great boost in economy as a result 
of war activity; the income of the state was fantastic compared to what 
it had been without any change in tax level, and Governor Warren decided 
to set it aside for a rainy day. The rainy day turned out to be a boon 
to capital outlay for all state agencies; development of the state is 
what that money was used for. Our first 30 million dollars was really 
a boon to the University and it carried for a number of years after that. 

VAS: Were there any day to day operations in Sacramento that were affected 
much by the war? 

JC: Not except travel and gasoline to get back and forth. We went by train 
generally. For the" 5 enator" that went up at eight o clock and came back 
at five it was generally a way to get to and from Sacramento. 



- 13 - 



Contract Research 

VAS : How about these Washington transactions? You know we got into contract 

research, etc. Was that Underhill s baby almost entirely? 
JC: Almost entirely. I assisted when I could on the contracts, on housing, and 

feeding. We worked together on them because they were in joint fields. 

He did more of it directly than I did. 

VAS: Things like the AEC program? Was that in your bailiwick? 
JC: Well, we worked them together. We were joint negotiators on many contracts, 

The AEC he handled almost entirely himself. 1 did participate in some of 

them. I had a high clearance and could participate in them but those were 

handled with as few people knowing about it as possible. 
VAS: President Sproul didn t even know about some of them. 
JC: That is correct. He didn t want to know. Many of us didn t want to know. 

We knew something was going on; I am frank to admit that I had an idea but 

I didn t know. 

VAS: Had you been out to Los Alamos before the test? 
JC: No, but I have been there after. I took my orders from Underhill and 

General Groves. I can remember distinctly his saying that he wanted to 

get the work done and no bids to be taken. 
VAS: Was this the General? 
JC: This was the General. Underhill was present. He said, we have got to get 

the job done and he said we haven t got that much time. Let s get it done. 

We got it done and I knew that was important and that was the first time 

that I knew it was important. We did everything they asked and we were 



- 14 - 

JC: the one agency in the state government, I guess in the country, that they 
felt that they could say let s get the job done "with no red tape". 

VAS : What about secret contracts that occupied University facilities? These 
came under your -- 

JC: Yes, there were a number of them that were 100 per cent security and the 
faculty joined and everybody joined in an all out effort to provide what 
they could to stop the war as soon as possible. 

VAS: Let me get something clear then. Now, material for Los Alamos, for in 
stance, this was ordered almost exclusively by their business people and 
cleared through Underbill? 

JC: Yes. It was handled almost all by Lou Baker, chief purchasing agent. 
Mr. Underhill was in charge. Mr. Baker was on my staff. 

VAS: And you didn t even see it? 

JC: No we didn t worry about it. They just went ahead and gave them and got 
what they needed to do the job. Every one of us at the time realized 
that this was not just a normal purchasing procedure, program or competi 
tive bids. There was frequently only one supplier anyway, one supplier 
that was cleared. I think one of the great accomplishments in this pro 
gram was that security was maintained all during that long period of time. 

VAS: All of which has been sort of a mystery to me for with the maintenance of 
that security picture, I think too, on programs as big as some of these 
were, the security was really the University s responsibility to main 
tain. 

JC: That is right, all persons had to cooperate. 

VAS: It was so good and yet we were still so suspect in some quarters after the 
war was over. 



- 15 - 
Budget Presentation under Various Governors 

VAS: Would you describe the differences in budget presentation through the ad 
ministrations of the governors since your contact began? 

JC: It won t take long, for the differences in presentation of budget between 
governors only came by a desire for them to know more of the details of 
the justification of the budget they received. You may not know that the 
University s budget is a single operating line, that is all the appropria 
tion is, beginning with $18 million to now $264 million. The director of 
finance and then the legislative analyst, like Roland Vandergrift, all of 
them have wanted to have more justification than just a single line for so 
many millions of dollars, an explanation of what we are doing, not an in 
terference. An explanation of how this money is being spent. They felt 
that the public was entitled to know this. Vandergrift who was a very 
good friend, as is Alan Post, believed in the University, as does Post to 
this day, but they believe in having some explanation of how this money is 
being spent because it is public funds. 

VAS: Of the five governors, Olson, Warren, Knight, Brown, and Reagan, was there 

a noticeable difference in their personal interest in the University budget? 

JC: I think the man that took the greatest interest in the University budget 
was Earl Warren. I don t think there is any question about that. The 
others all had an interest but generally they left matters to their di 
rector of finance. I think that is partially our fault by not insisting 
on a little more liaison with the governor by the President and the Regents. 
This is my personal opinion. Now, one of the problems is that if his office 
knows as much about it as you do then it is his budget, not yours; not the 



- 16 - 

JC: University s budget, it s the governor s budget. I always felt that the 
governor was on your side and if you sold him the first time around you 
had him on your side, and the director of finance and department of 
finance people. Maybe the only one that you had to oppose was the legis 
lative analyst. I still think that is good philosophy. 

VAS : That has been pretty much the case up until this last and we have had 
the governor on our side most of the time. 

JC: Generally so, maybe with a few exceptions, yes. We tried to iron out 

everything even with Alan Post, but there was a later change as he rep 
resents the legislature, he cannot commit himself. He makes his report 
after the governor makes his. 

VAS: But he usually participates in this initial presentation, doesn t he? 

JC: No, that depends on the governor. He has not always been invited. In 

the latter years of the Brown administration, Alan Post was not invited to 
the preliminary discussions. He was not in on the preliminary discussions 
with the department of finance. At one time we had them all together, at 
the first presentation, that was good. But, I think the legislative com 
mittees said, don t go along with them. You can go and observe, but don t 
participate. 

VAS: So you think this may have been at the request of the legislature? 

JC: I know it was. 

VAS: Rather than at the request of the governor. 

JC: The legislative analyst has nothing to do with the governor. He represents 
the legislature. 

VAS: I mean the fact that he was not there may not be because he was not invited. 



- 17 - 



JC: There is friction between the director of finance and the legislative 
analyst. They clash very frequently. 

VAS: I see. 

JC: Alan Post represents the legislature. The director of finance and his 
staff represent the governor. 

VAS: This happened particularly during the Brown administration? 

JC: I think it happened during the Knight administration, too. But there are 
two separate functions and you have to recognize it? 

VAS: It has clearly occurred in this administration, but we don t know the end 
of the story on that. 

JC: No, oh, no. The present governor accepted the job with a deficit 
treasury. He has to do something about it. 

VAS: Did you work personally with any of these governors? 

JC: I worked with every one of them. Well, except oh yes, I did, I used to 
talk with Governor Warren all the time and Governor Brown. I have not met 
with Governor Reagan, but I have met with his staff. Yes, I had access to 
the governor s staff with every one of them. Some more personal than 
others, particularly during Governor Warren s administration. 

VAS: Governor Warren was an exception because he was an alumnus. 

JC: Yes, and so were many of his staff members. One of them happened to be a 
very close friend and a fraternity brother of mine, so I had personal ac 
cess to him for consultation. And they were very strong, all of them 
were very strong in support of the University. 

VAS: This workload principle, did you inherit that change? 

JC: Each legislative analyst Vandergrift talked about it when I first went to 



- 18 - 

JC: Sacramento. He never was sure that the nine months operation was a fair 
deal when everybody else worked twelve. Many people do not understand 
it and it is hard to explain. They do not know why a faculty man needs 
time to research his field and to improve his talents for making the job 
better, and they always say, why can t everybody else do the same. 

A Search for Bases for Budget Growth Rate 

VAS: I have reference to something a little bit different, Jim; that is, ap 
parently there is a sort of understood base in the budget. 

JC: That was developed afterward. It came along as ways and means of trying, 
when the great growth came to the University, to tie it to students. 

VAS: So this came when? 

JC : Oh, it was a gradual development. I think Ellis Groff, who is now with 
the University, was one that helped start that kind of a program. 

VAS: So initially, then, when you started going to the legislature, you did 
not go with anything but a sort of a cost accounting 

JC: With hardly any of that. We had to develop that. George Taylor, who was 
formerly the chief accountant at the University, was very helpful to me 
in developing cost figures which did not exist to any extent. Now there is 
a brief outline summary of the University budget, showing costs and com 
parisons, developed by George Taylor and myself with pictures and charts 
to help show cost figures. 

VAS: In other words, you went to the legislature each year, to each budget 
session, simply saying that in order to do the job it is going to cost 
this much money and there was never until, as you say, a later period, 
there was never any attempt to relate this to students. 



- 19 - 

JC: Oh yes, we always gave figures on students, from the first day I went 

there, on how many students are involved, the story of research, we al 
ways tried to give it, but it never was presented in a formalized manner. 

VAS : Did you ever attach any cost figures to enrollment? 

JC: No, but everybody always divided figures by the enrollment we gave them. 
They said it cost so much 

VAS: Were you consistent? 

JC: It had to be changed because as the University grew you had to refine the 
figures to explain: a student, one unit; a graduate student vs. an under 
graduate student. Numbers were not as great in the graduate school as 
they are today, and the evaluation of a freshman vs. a graduate student 
has developed as the complexity of the University has grown. 

VAS: Was a sufficiently consistent figure arrived at, by division of students 
into cost, that the legislature came to regard that as a sort of funda 
mental base figure? 

JC: That was really all we had to go by, because there was almost all an under 
graduate field and if you compared it with another institution you were 
comparing apples with apples, so there it was not so difficult and we 
did not have comparisons to amount to anything. 

VAS: So actually what I am trying to get at is: you know the whole problem of 
the legislature in its question for support of the University; was it 
thought in the beginning that they could wind it up and get it going 
and it wouldn t need any support? And all sorts of devices, penny tax, 
etc., to try to stabilize the kind of support the legislature was going 
to give. Somewhere along the line I get the impression, and I am trying 
to get you to correct me if I am wrong, I get the impression that the 



- 20 - 

VAS : legislature finally latched on to what I call workload, which is number 
of students that have to be serviced by an institution. 

JC: No, that formula is a recent formula. There were several ways that were 
considered, that maybe we ought to try to put a tax on certain elements 
of our economy to support the University. There have been a number of 
suggestions as a means of saying, why do we have to go up every year and 
defend our budget? Personally, I always thought it was healthy. If it 
isn t any good you can t defend it and we never have had any trouble ever 
defending it. The record of support shows the state has recognized that 
the University has done an excellent job in management, in spending its 
money. 

I have always thought the formulas were wrong. Other states that 
have wondered many times how we could do so well, they have talked to 
me about changing formulas they had on some portion of a tax. And you 
have asked one question in here about the horse race fund, which was a 
portion of the tax that came to the University for agriculture. The 
Regents and the President voluntarily said, we don t believe in special 
taxes for special purposes, special funds; it all should go to the gen 
eral fund and everybody defend themselves every year, as to the justifica 
tion of the budget request. 

VAS: When did that happen? 

JC: I wish I could remember dates, but I can t, but it was 1960, I guess, 
61, somewhere around there. 

VAS: Was it a sizable fund? 

JC: Oh yes, it was about 3 or 4 million dollars guaranteed a year for ag 
riculture. We presented a budget for it, explained it, but it was a 



- 21 - 

JC: free fund we could use any way we wanted to and it was very helpful for 

the capital outlay for agriculture. 

VAS: That came along actually in the 30 s sometime. 
JC: Oh yes, well 40 s, I think late 30 s, no it came before, it was enacted 

just before I went to Sacramento when the racing first started. 
VAS: One of our Regents was very active in racing. I am trying to remember 

who it was. 
JC: One of the ways they got it through the legislature was the purpose for 

which the racing benefits went, and that was for education. Cal Poly and 

the College of Agriculture here generally got a large share of the money. 
VAS: What I am really getting at is that when you first started going to 

Sacramento, you weren t guaranteed anything. 
JC: No. 

VAS: The legislature didn t have to give you a dime. 
JC: No, you don t get guaranteed anything today, absolutely. 
VAS: But according to what we say, isn t there an understanding there is a 

certain base for instruction. 
JC: No. 

VAS: There is not. 
JC: You still defend the total budget every day. They don t go into everything 

that you are doing. We generally start from the base of the last year, so 

that your growth is so much and that is the way 
VAS: So there is no gentlemen s agreement and never has been. 
JC: Never has been. Well, you cannot do it. One legislature cannot commit 
the next, so the University as such must defend its budget every day, 
every year. 



- 22 - 

VAS: Neither the legislature nor the legislative analyst has any kind of an 
understanding with anybody at the University 

JC: Absolutely none, as far as I knew. 

VAS: -- as to how, as to any kind of a minimum that is necessary to the opera 
tion of the University. 

JC: No. We have established a precedent, I would say, that we start from the 
base that we had in the previous year and there are now formulas on first 
students, recognizing the difference between the freshman and sophomore, 
freshman and junior and the graduate student on formula basis. Per 
faculty appropriations are now developed, so there are some formulas in 
which they overrate on at the moment, but that is not a requirement of 
the state. They could start all over, go from the bottom to top on the 
total operational budget. 

VAS: The thing that kind of puzzles me is that in a way this is a continuation 
of the policy that inbetween 1911 and 1915, you may have read about. 
During that period, you know, the petty tax went out, three penny tax 
went out in 1911, and it went out at a time when the University was 
counting on it. What the legislature did was say we will give you this 
year s budget plus seven per cent each year until 1915, and so without 
strictly guaranteeing the seven per cent, we have been operating on that 
same basis ever since. Is that a fair statement? 

JC: Oh, there is no percentage whatsoever. 

VAS: No, but the fact is that we are still operating on an increase over last 
year, although there have been decreases as well. The fact is that we 
have still been operating on the basis of last year s budget being the 
figure you start working with. 



- 23 - 

JC: I don t think there has ever been a decrease except one year during the 
30 s, I have forgotten the exact year, where the budget of the second 
year was less than the one of the previous year. Our budget requests 
have been cut, but I don t think a budget has ever been cut below a pre 
vious year in my experience at least. I know that some of the requests 
have been reduced, but the legislature in my opinion has never failed 
to give us the budget of the previous year plus something for our growth 
or for a new program or for a new school or new campus or something. 

VAS : So actually what I said is essentially true, except for the fact that 
there is no specific amount, no specific rate. 

JC: There never has been. The demands of the growth expansion of the state, 
demands of all parts of the state, all campuses have been handled on a 
priority basis by the administration and the Regents. 

VAS: To what extent have you taken into consideration, in general, in terms 
of making out the budget, etc., the general condition of the state in 
making out the budget? 

JC: 1 think it always had to be recognized. That would depend on the attitude 
of the President and the Regents and the priority or urgency of the pro 
ject. Sometimes it has taken one, two, or three years to get a project 
included in the budget or an expansion of a new field or a new school. 
If funds were not sufficient to do that, or the President or the Regents 
didn t agree, or the governor or the legislature didn t agree, the legisla 
tive analyst didn t agree you have all those critics of the budget from 
the day it is presented by the department. 

VAS: Has there been much conference with the analysts before the presentation 
of the budget? 



- 24 - 

JC: There used to be a great deal. 

VAS: I mean before the presentation to the governor. 

JC: By me, there used to be, yes. I used to talk with him. We agreed to 
send him the same material that we give the department of finance so 
he knows as much about the budget as the department of finance and has 
full access to anything that he wants to criticize. 

Santa Barbara Campus, and State College Development 

VAS: What about the Santa Barbara and state college development? That 

is a fairly long story, and you probably know it as well as anyone. 
It was right there in 42 I guess. 

JC: That is right. That was one of the first real legislative involvements 
in which the University became--well, when the legislature wanted to do 
something and certain people in the legislature wished that not only the 
Santa Barbara campus but the San Diego campus and the Fresno campus were 
state colleges. They were in the bill originally and a Stanford man by 
the name of Robertson from Santa Barbara was the author of the bill. 
Senator Burns, president pro-tern of the Senate, was also a co-author 
on the bill and Fresno was in it at that time. A group in Fresno wished 
to transfer to the University, and a group in San Diego wanted to transfer 
San Diego State to the University. The state college system I think even 
at that time they were very critical or jealous of the University system. 
The legislators from Fresno and San Diego decided they didn t want San 
Diego and Fresno as a part of the University of California, so they finally 
pulled out Fresno on the last time, but Robertson went ahead with Santa 



- 25 - 

JC: Barbara and then transferred it to the University. 

VAS: There was a constitutional amendment circulated about 1942 in the 
University-- 

JC: That was after the fact, but that was a constitutional amendment 

VAS: --that would have made the Board of Regents the board for both the state 
colleges and the University. 

JC: There was a discussion of it, but I don t think it was ever presented to 
the people. 

VAS: Oh, I don t think it was. This was an internal thing-- 

JC: The constitutional amendment that prevented the transfers which would have 
taken place later after Santa Barbara was transferred, I am sure. But 
the constitutional amendment that stopped all future transfers, that 
was a salary raise for the teachers of the state and there was a little 
clause in it that no further state colleges could be transferred. That 
was done by the state department of education. They were afraid, as it 
was expressed to me, that as they said, all of the state colleges would 
want to enter the University system eventually. They didn t want that 
to happen. 

VAS: Even though San Diego and Fresno apparently did not. 

JC: It was a very divided opinion, I have learned since. But the presidents 
of the state colleges did not wish to go under the University system. 
They along with some of the alumni stopped it. 

VAS: There at Fresno? 

JC: Yes. 

VAS: How about San Diego? 

JC: I don t know how that happened. Senator Burns was the one that told me 



- 26 - 

JC: this story. He thought it was a good thing and he still thinks it a 

good thing and wishes Fresno State College was a part of the University 
system. 

VAS: Do you have any recollection at all of what might have been going through 
people s minds in 1942 when this draft that I have seen of this amendment 
was circulated to the educational policy committee and the senate or 
similar group. 

JC: I think they thought there should be one system to control the bickering 
and fighting that went on for position in Sacramento. 

VAS: Was that particularly intense, that particular point? 

JC: Definitely so, definitely so. 

VAS : Why? 

JC: Oh, I think it was purely a matter of, as it is today, jealousy of the 

University vs. the colleges. The University was making apparent progress 
in development under the Regents where they were not making that progress 
under the department of education. This is where the state colleges rest; 
they had a separate grouping but they were not of academic equality. 

VAS: Not of academic equality. 

JC: Not of academic equality and they were not intended to be. They were 

established as teacher training institutions solely, but they wished to 
expand, the faculty did, as they do today. As a consequence, on the 
floor of the assembly today is proposed legislation to change the name 
to university. 

VAS: And you think this was what there were only about six state colleges 
about that time, weren t there? 

JC: Humboldt, Chico, San Diego, Fresno, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, 



- 27 - 

JC: yes I think that is right, six or seven. 

VAS: But even at that time they were 

JC: As it exists today a legislator is very conscious of his own community, 

his own constituents, and one of the main supporters of their activity was 
the state college faculty and the community surrounding the college, and 
that was an important asset to his community, as it is today. It is a 
very strong political influence when those people go and express a com 
mon interest in something, say against the University. You say, in your 
questions, "Where are our opponents?" Our opponents are situations like 
that, not necessarily against the University but against the University 
in contrast with their own local college. 

VAS: So actually we were really confronted in 1944 with essentially the same 
kind of thing that finally forced the master plan in 1958. 

JC: Well, personally I was one of the strongest advocates of doing something 
to avoid this legislative conflict. It was not helping education at all 
and it was not in the best interests of the University or the state col 
leges that we had to continually wrangle and fight, everyone wanting a 
new state college, everyone wanting a campus of the University. Fighting 
for funds was just undesirable. 

VAS: Assuming these colleges had gone along, would you have had any difficulty 
getting that through the legislature? Was the legislature at all worried 
about the University getting too big? 

JC: Oh, yes. Many of them were critical of the University because of this. 
Critical not in a serious sense, but in the way they think it is unsound 
education. 

VAS: Even then? 

JC: Then, even then. Oh, yes. Frequently the University has been tagged as 



- 28 - 

JC: the big octopus; they have all kinds of names for it; the sacred cow, it 
has been called that. 

VAS : Are they afraid of it because it is big and powerful, or are they afraid 
of it because it is big, as you have indicated, and difficult? 

JC: Oh, I think it is not big and powerful. Sure we have accomplished a great 
deal, and it is a very important influence in our state s economy and our 
political life, if you want to say it that way, because of the number of 
alumni. Even today, I noted that the newspapers said that the most 
powerful lobby in Sacramento was the University of California, in today s 
paper. It is an old story that the most important lobby in the state is 
the University of California. They can t possibly mean individuals who 
represent it in Sacramento; they mean, I suppose, the alumni influence 
and the importance of the University to the state of California. 

VAS: I think you are being modest because you are part of it again and I think 
perhaps that is one thing that they have reference to. 

JC: You are very kind but I don t think that it is true, but it is unfortu 
nate, and it is unfortunate today, that we have a clash between the state 
colleges and the University, and the coordinating council is not resolving 
it. They should have resolved it, they should never have allowed the bill 
to get on the floor of the assembly. 

VAS : To change the name? 

JC: Yes. I think it violates the master plan and the principles of the master 
plan. 

VAS: We will be talking more about that later. What do you think right now 
the chances of survival of the master plan are? 

JC: I think it would be most unfortunate if we don t have either a single 



- 29 - 

JC: board or a coordinating board. There is no way out in my opinion. You 
cannot fight a political fight, it isn t good for education, by having 
segments fighting each other even for dollars. It is absolutely wrong 
in my opinion. The state colleges are doing an excellent job and should 
be helped and supported as much as they can be. 

VAS : What about the transfer of Goleta to the University? Did you get in on 
negotiations? 

JC: Yes, part of it. Underbill and 1 both worked on that. It was surplus 
property. There were trips to Washington for main negotiations; it was 
much easier to get surplus property then. Right after the war this was 
an abandoned marine camp and it was an ideal location from some people s 
point of view, but they said students would never go there. Of course, 
it has turned out to be one of the finest campuses we ever acquired. 

VAS: Was that offered to us? Or did we ask for it? 

JC: We heard about it. We had access to this information from Washington. 
It was made known to us. It was going to be made surplus and when we 
found this out it was suggested that that campus should be expanded be 
cause we would never make it on the hill, couldn t make it on the hill. 

VAS: Did we have any competition for the site? 

JC: Yes, I think the local community wanted it, if I am not mistaken. I 

would have to check back, but I believe the city of Goleta wanted to get 
it and I think even the city of Santa Barbara. 

VAS: For expansion? 

JC: I assume for expansion, yes. It was an ideal location for the development 
of the community or for anything, it was sitting right out there on that 



- 30 - 



JC: point on the mesa, just as level as it could be and had dozens of 

buildings that could be used. When we moved I thought it was an ideal 
set up, even though the boys and girls that pioneered out there lived 
like soldiers in the barracks. 



-31- 

Interview 2, June 22, 1967 
Place of Politics in the University s Relations With the Legislature 

VAS : pid partisan politics affect the University s reception in Sacramento? 

JC: I think, with the exception of recent years, that I don t recall ever a 
position taken for or against the University on a partisanship basis. I 
think both parties feel that the University is an important element in 
the political side of the state; it is the state University, and I think 
they wish to support the University and defend it as much as anyone else. 
Our alumni are both Democrats and Republicans. 

I just don t recall a single controversial item the budget as a 
whole maybe, but not the University budget. We might have been a part of 
the budget as a whole as we are today and that is partisanship, not on the 
University but as a part of the state budget. When there is a shortage of 
funds, which has happened before, it has never to my knowledge been a 
partisan problem--sometimes part of a partisan trend but more general 
than the University. Now if it came to some kind of a political issue, 
which hadn t happened in recent years, where a party has taken a position 
on a social subject or a law enforcement subject or something of that sort 
or a public health matter, it might have leaned that way. By and large, I 
think that all through the Republican and Democratic regimes we have been 
free of partisanship. I do think there is an effect on the action by 
some of the things the University does, such as the appointments to the 
Regents when they are made on a partisanship basis. On some occasions 
that has happened. 



- 32 - 

VAS: I want to get to that a little bit too because, as I understood it, 

theoretically, since 1918 anyway, partisanship was not quite so important. 
JC: Not since 18, I would say. 1 say this not because it was Democratic, 

but it started with Culbert Olson; he gave the University a whole series 

of very active Democratic Party people. They were good people, most of 

them. 

VAS: Who were some of them? 
JC: There was Pauley, for example. You couldn t have a more dedicated alumnus. 

There was Brodie Ahlport. But some of the others that were appointed were 

not the caliber of some of the older Regents we had in those days. 
VAS: This always has mystified me a bit, Jim, because there is little to be 

gained for a party on the Regents. 
JC: You do not recognize that most people in California feel that the highest 

prestige appointment by the governor, I guess including some of the court 

appointments, would be to the Board of Regents. 
VAS: I appreciate that. In other words, you are just saying that as patronage 

this is 

JC: This is one of the highest gems in the whole appointment field. 
VAS: But aside from that, in terms of actual value to a party because of the 

separation of the Regents-- 
JC: There should be none. 
VAS: There is relatively little value-- 
JC: There is no money involved, prestige involved, there are no votes involved. 

There are 24 Regents. The Regents do not influence the voting of the 

students or the faculty or the administration. Outside of the prestige 



- 33 - 

JC: of being one of the finest appointments that there is in California, I 

don t think there is anything else. Partisanshipwise I do not understand 
it, and to bring partisanship into the Regents I think is a sad mistake. 
It has not happened until recent years. 

VAS : You think that it really began with Olson. 

JC: The people who were appointed definitely had a party label on them. Now, 
it is true that in the Warren days and the Knight days they also appointed 
Republicans. But I don t think they were repayments for political support. 
Maybe they could have been when somebody raises the question why Knight 
appointed three newspaper people in a row, Mrs. Chandler, Mrs. Hearst, 
and Tom Storke. But two Republicans and one Democrat, now that wasn t 
partisanship. This was hopefully, I suppose, support of the press for 
the University and also for the reelection of Knight, I assume. Or for 
the support they gave him for his election. But they were good, out 
standing, sincere people, but they were not on a partisanship basis. 

VAS: But basically a University is a politically neutral institution. 

JC: It must be, it must be. 

VAS: The things that it does are apolitical and I have just wondered that is 

why the question is in here if there has been any attempt to change that. 

JC: I think not. I only say this because up until recent years there has been 
very little concern for partisanship on appointment to the Regents. 

VAS: Along these lines, there is really no particular reason for a Regent to 
be loyal to the man who appointed him. 

JC: Absolutely not, because he has nothing to gain by it except the prestige 
of being the president of the Board, and having the full support of the 
alumni, students and faculty by what he does to the University in re- 



- 34 - 

JC: lationship to the budget, or legislation, or what leadership he gives to it. 

VAS : The man who appointed him then has virtually no 

JC: Well, except if you want to consider friendship and contribution to cam 
paigns and things of that kind, leadership on the outside by alumni by 
providing political machinery for reelection. 

VAS: I understand, for instance, that Ahlport and Olson were at odds. 

JC: That is correct, and I understand that Pauley and Pat Brown were at odds 
near the end. I am told that Pauley supported Reagan for governor. I 
don t know whether he did or not, I don t have the slightest idea. But 
I have a real firm feeling that the University should be absolutely free 
of politics and it should begin at the top with the Regents and the Presi 
dent and everybody else, the faculty. 

VAS: How could you get it out of politics? 

JC: By individuals acting as individuals and not as a part of the University. 
I had this discussion just yesterday on the philosophy that everybody 
should be free to express their own opinion at any time and place. I 
said, "Yes, that is right, but they don t have to use the name of the 
University of California when they express their point of view." That 
is true of politics, true of social events and social affairs. I just 
say that people misuse the University, students do it, faculty do it, 
politicians do it. If a professor wants to start a campaign for the 
support of Pat Brown or Ronald Reagan he can do so as a professor of 
sociology, professor of history, but not a professor of the University 
of California. 



- 35 - 
Interpreting the University s Work to the Legislature 

VAS : What were some of the hardest thing for you to get legislators to under 
stand about the University? 

JC: Oh, I think the complexity of the University is probably really the 
most difficult for them to understand, the workload problem. When a 
professor teaches six hours the legislators perhaps don t want to give 
him credit for preparing for that, doing research that leads to the 
preparation of better teaching programs. Research is a difficult thing 
to explain, basic research. Most people think of research to solve their 
problem, not to get to the basic cause of the problem, but to solve the 
problem. Make fresh water out of seawater; not find out what composes 
seawater and how you separate it, all basic research. That is because 
you don t have time. 

Remember, when you are presenting the University case, they come 
from every part of the state of California, they have local interest. 
If there is not a campus of the University there, they may never have 
been on a campus except to a football game. They may look at the 
University s football image rather than its Nobel Prize winning or its 
chemistry department, or the great atomic energy research that has con 
tributed so much to our country. Or if he is an agriculture man he may 
know the answer because they have solved some disease or some irrigation 
problem in his area. Or he may have a daughter or son that has gone to 
the University and maybe has flunked out and that is always our fault, 
never the student s fault. Or he may have had somebody that was sick 



- 36 - 

JC: at the medical school and died there and that was the doctor s fault. 
Some of those impressions are human impressions, they are human beings 
the same as anybody else and it is only their exposure that they have 
had to University people or what has been in the press or the radio 
that has given them the University image. 

VAS : When you are speaking of the complexity of the University, are you 
speaking of its organizational complexity? 

JC: Yes, and its budgeting procedure, and its research, and what is teaching, 
and what is public service. And if we buy land in an area which has been 
apparently controversial in the community, why did we buy the land against 
the taxpayer s desire in that area? That has happened in Richmond. Yes, 
that is a good example, and that is what is happening with the Black prop 
erty in San Diego right now and those people are quite disturbed at the 
University. 

VAS: For taking it off the tax rolls. 

JC: Taking it off the tax rolls when they see there has been no apparent use, 
no program developed, and it makes a great deal of difference to the local 
community on their income. In Berkeley, for example, the amount of prop 
erty that is off the tax roll has been a real bone of contention since 
the beginning, I guess. 

VAS: But we don t get much sympathy in the legislature for trying to reimburse 
cities for different -- 

JC: No, there isn t because of the precedent. The reason why they do it is 
for the precedent of paying for service, public services which everybody 
is entitled to. With the general agencies, they don t charge the federal 



- 37 - 

JC: government; in some places they pay in lieu taxes, and some properties 

that we own we pay in lieu taxes, at least --possessive interest if we are not 
using it for educational purposes. We do in certain investment property. 

VAS : Do we do this voluntarily? 

JC: The county or the city or the community charge you possessive interest 

on it. You have income so they charge not as much as the normal, but they 
do charge a tax. 

But every person connected with the University creates the image in 
the minds of the legislator that he had any contact with or in the press. 

VAS: How many of the legislators do you think really have much contact with 
the University? 

JC: Not enough, I will say that. That has been true all along. There should 
be an opportunity for a greater association so that they know more about 
it. This is difficult to do unless they have the special interest of a 
daughter or a son or a relative, some kind of a relationship. In their 
community they have their own problems and that is their special interest. 

VAS: I suppose that even legislators who are alumni find it difficult to 
comprehend the whole system. 

JC: Yes, but they all have a great interest in trying to be of service. Some 
of them have had bad experiences, they have failed to graduate or had 
some bad experience with the University, and sometimes that is hard to 
overcome. All kinds of happenings may create in their minds the feeling 
of the University: contact on an alumni tour, a meeting with the President, 
meeting a professor, a controversy with some member of the University 
family over some thing they were especially interested in. This sometimes 



- 38 - 

JC: leaves a lasting impression. They don t always act on it but we fre 
quently have to overcome that by explaining the situation to them. It 
is important. 

VAS: This is an occupational risk of the people representing the University. 
You can t stand over the shoulders of everybody you want to. 

JC: No, you surely can t, but there is one thing that I can emphasize and 

to me it is very important; that these public officials are entitled to the 
respect of all the public. I mean respect in a way that is defined in 
the dictionary. These public officials are devoted to their job. The 
word politician sometimes has an unsavory name, especially in the minds 
of some people. I know a lot of my friends say, "How can you get along 
with those politicians?" Well, they are good people, they have the same 
human reactions, human relationships that all of us have except one that 
maybe we don t have, for they have to be elected if they want to go back. 
They like public service. This is a devotion to public service that a 
lot of people could expand in their own thinking. It is an important 
element in our own democracy. 

Legislative Reaction to University s Constitutional Immunity 

VAS: Is there much resentment in the legislature over the University s con 
stitutional immunity? 

JC: Sometimes when we misuse it, yes. Or display it in an attempt to say, 

"Well, you can t do this because of the constitutional immunity." Some 
times I have heard that a reason for our apparent arrogance and high 
handedness is because of our position in the constitution and maybe we 
should change the constitution. That has been said to me a number of 



- 39 - 

JC: times, but I think the constitutional independence of the University is 
our greatest asset. I hope it is never destroyed. 

VAS : I was puzzled at something I was reading the other day, Jim. You were 
here at that time, maybe you can explain it. Do you remember the film 
strike episode at UCLA in 1945? In trying to cope with that incident, 
the Regents introduced a resolution that did not pass but which asks the 
legislature to pass laws empowering the Regents to do certain things. 
Do you remember if there was any discussion of that? This would seem 
to be asking the legislature to come in to manage the University affairs 
in a way. 

JC: Well, first, I am not a lawyer, but I do disagree with some of our legal 
advisors that say that we must get more permission from the legislature 
to do things that the Regents should do. I have always taken the posi 
tion that if a piece of legislation names the University, if it comes to 
the management of our affairs that we pay no attention to it, that we 
say it doesn t affect the University. We used to ask for exemptions, 
but I convinced the attorney that if we asked for exemptions then we ad 
mitted that the legislature had some responsibility over us, and I do 
not believe the constitution says so. It is very clear that the manage 
ment of the affairs is in the hands of the Regents and we should not ask 
for legislation of any kind unless it relates to the fiscal affairs of 
the University. 

VAS: We seem to have been asking for such permission. 

JC: This year, for instance, Jay told me that we had 400 bills tabled. I 
think it is disgraceful. The University is watching 400 bills. 



- 40 - 

VAS: Four hundred bills! That we asked for? 

JC: No, but many of which we asked for. I explained to him my feeling on 

this, that I think it is a mistake to ask for legislation. I think the 
problems are within the jurisdiction of the Regents. 

VAS: Even Mulford s bill, for instance, in the last session on non-students 
on campus? 

JC: No, I just think that we have the right to remove anybody from campus 

that causes us any difficulty and we used to do it. Maybe interpretation 
of the laws of the courts have changed; it is not clear to me why we are 
asking for so much police legislation; but I think the Regents can set 
up its police force with the local community and the county sheriff and 
do its job. Now the lawyers apparently disagree with me, because you are 
trying to promote police legislation. I just think it is a mistake be 
cause it begins to weaken your constitutional immunity. 

VAS: Four hundred bills? 

JC: That is what he told me. I used to think it was terrible when we had a 
hundred. 

VAS: But these range-- 

JC: These range to everything from what might affect employees, employees as 
sociations, to the labor unions negotiating, forcing the Regents to come 
to the bargaining table. Those in my opinion, even if they passed, would 
not affect the Regents, even if we were named, if the Regents desired 
not to do that because this is an interference with the University s af 
fairs. I would recommend to the Regents that they pay no attention to it 
even if they passed the bills. I would try to get the name out. I am 



- 41 - 

JC: sure you would have to try to avoid that, because if the name was in 

the law you would always be faced with that challenge. But it shouldn t 
be in the bill. 

VAS: Normally would you try to get that out with the author? 

JC: The author, oh, yes. 

VAS: Have you usually been successful? 

JC: Generally successful. I would have to say, without boasting, that 
generally we were successful. 

VAS: Is it true, that very often when it appears it appears on the part of 
the authors . 

JC: That is correct. And frequently we have to go to the legislative counsel 
and argue it out from a legal point of view there. That is where I began 
practicing law without a license in arguing with them that the constitu 
tion did prevent that kind of interference with the University operation. 
Somebody with a pet peeve couldn t come and pass a law against the 
University on a specific act that irritated. 

VAS: This, of course, is why we have been so leery of anything that forces 
changes into the constitution. 

JC: That is right. One of the things that is forcing that issue at the 

moment, in the minds of some people, in my opinion, is what they con 
sider the attitude of the University in regard to its relationship with 
state government, and this could force a change in the constitution. 

VAS: But this isn t because of any particular policies of the University, is it? 

JC: No, but I think it might be termed a lack of response to public demand; 
not any individual legislator but the general public attitude toward the 



- 42 - 

JC: University, and I think that is what these people represent in Sacramento. 
It is the opinion of the people throughout the state from the various 
districts. Now, just the night before last this man talked about a 
whole series of letters he is getting from his district, where a campus 
of the University is located, attacking legislators and attacking the 
governor on the budget, a whole series. He says he knows they come 
from a University family and he is quite irritated about it. 

VAS : But as I say, this isn t a policy, this is a diplomacy. 

JC: That is right. Well, it is a lack of judgment on the part of a segment of 
the University family that has decided that they are going to attack. 
This makes the job of the President, Regents and representatives at 
Sacramento that much more difficult. I am sure that we have lost this 
legislator for this session. 

VAS: You certainly don t advocate that the University have to just accept 
everything. 

JC: Oh, no never. No, but they should recognize some segment of public 

opinion in their actions, in my opinion. Now I know that I am overly 
sensitive in that field because I have spent my whole life in it and I 
think I have had more responses from public opinion than anybody else 
in the University over a period of years. Now, I know that I am very 
sensitive to public demands. It would not interfere with the University s 
operation to conform, and yet I know there is a resistance to conform to 
politicians expression of opinion whether from the right or the left -- 
it doesn t make much difference which way it is. 

VAS: Doesn t this say, Jim, that the University has to go with the tide? 

JC: Not necessarily. I wouldn t recommend it. If it was to the detriment of 



- 43 - 

JC: the University, no, I would say not. But just to be defiant, and what 

some people call arrogant, though I don t like to use that word when it 

has been used too many times to me in the last few weeks... There is 
always a diplomatic way to say no. 

The Legislature s Understanding of the University s Role 

VAS : Actually 1 think you may have answered this fifteenth question about 
whether in fact the legislature tends to emphasize teaching, research 
and other activities. 

JC: I think they feel there are two ways: First of all they feel that we 
should take care of the citizens of the state, students who want an 
education, that we should give the first emphasis to those young people. 
They also believe we are a research agency of the state, and we should 
do the research job. That is why it has been kept away from the state 
colleges. They believe the problems of research and to solve problems 
should be done by the state university. Basic research is fundamental 
to advance higher education. 

VAS: Is there any feeling up there that the University should be more recep 
tive to proposals from the state for research than we are? 

JC: Well, I don t know how it is working now, but I do know that there has 
been, at times, difficulty in getting people to resolve problems at the 
University, for they felt that it was not basic research, it was problem 
solving, and it was an engineer s job, or somebody else s job, not a 
scientist s job. This, I think, is a mistake. They expect the University 
to assist in these problems. This is one of the conflicts, for example, 
in the department of public health, and this has been said time and time 



- 44 - 

JC: again in committee hearings on budgets, "Well, the University is not in 
terested, so in order to solve the problem we had to do research in the 
department of public health." There has been great challenge as to the 
number of research employees in state departments. The argument every 
time is that we can t get anybody else to do it, we have to resolve the 
problem, why doesn t the University do this? The answer by the state 
agency is that the University is only interested in basic research and 
not resolving the problem. 

VAS : Which, in this context, we did pretty well when the base of the center 
was the agricultural districts-- 

JC: We are going to do pretty well this time, even though we shifted the 
center to metropolitan areas; I think the senate is going to help us 
restore the research money to agriculture or a large portion of it. 

VAS: What I am getting at, Jim, is, do you feel that with the shift we may 
be using that tit-for-tat relationship with some of the legislators we 
had when we had a strong emphasis on agriculture in the legislature and 
the apportionment of the legislature was such where the rural areas were 
more in control? 

JC: Well, I think I can answer it with, for example, what happened this year, 
the appointment of the senate agriculture committee. Each senator has 
five choices for committees. Forty senators, that is 200 choices. 
There are nine members of the senate agriculture committee; there were 
formerly 13, but they had to cut it down to nine because they only had 
8 requests for the committee on agriculture out of 200. I think that 
answers the question as well as I can. Now, counter to this, on the 



- 45 - 

JC: assembly side they had a greater interest and had many more requests 

for the committee on agriculture on the assembly side than they did on 
the senate. 

VAS : What is this likely to mean to the University s program? 

JC: It is hard to say at this stage. There are enough of what I call the 

old-timers returned to the senate to keep the University in good shape. 
I don t think the University would have been hurt if they had not re 
turned, because the assembly did very well by the University too when 
the final chips were down. But part of that was on a partisanship basis 
against the governor s cuts. But it is pretty hard to rationalize in the 
first freshman year. 

VAS: But it wouldn t hurt if we had experiment stations in industry and urban 
affairs. 

JC: I may be old fashioned, but I have always said, thank God for the senate 
of the state of California. They have been tremendous in their service 
to the University, the way we were treated over a period of years, 
and I think they will continue. 

Some University Supporters Among the Legislators 

VAS: Actually, Jim, what I would like to get in my questions about the legis 
lators who have supported the University, etc. is to have you spend some 
time telling me about some of the people, both the supporters and op 
ponents, that have impressed you during the years. Tell me something 
about them, what kind of people they were. 

JC: You know, it is awfully hard to name names. We have had 120 people in 
the period of years when everyone has been a friend. I think I would 



- 46 - 

JC: have to begin with the Breed family in the senate. Arthur Breed, Sr. 
preceded his son Arthur, Jr. and both were leaders in the senate and 
automatically carried the flag of the University whatever the subject 
might be, not only finances. 

VAS: They were senators from Alameda County? 

JC: Alameda County. Art Breed, Jr. was an assemblyman from Oakland. I don t 
know about the senior Breed, but Arthur, Jr., was an alumnus. I can re 
call the chairman of the senate finance committee, on frequent occasions 
when I would come into the committee room, would turn to Senator Breed 
and say, "Here comes your boss." On occasions when the University was 
in discussion in the committee he would turn to Breed and say, "What 
does your boss say?" You couldn t ask for greater cooperation than 
that. He did not resent it at all, he was glorified in the idea that 
he could be of service to the University. He felt that way and there 
was a devoted person to the University and to its cause. 

VAS: Did he take initiative in programs for the University? 

JC: He waited for us to set the program, as did so many of the others. And I 
could go to Gardiner Johnson, when I first went to the legislature. He 
was in the assembly, a classmate of mine, was the leader as far as the 
University s program was concerned and looked upon by the other 79 mem 
bers of the assembly as the leader. Lloyd Lowery, who was also a class 
mate of mine, was from the Davis area, and when it came to agriculture or 
the University he headed up the sub-committee on the budget for ten years 
or more and everybody looked to him to get the answer of what was good for 
or against the University. And there were dozens and dozens of people who 
took their own individual leadership. 



- 47 - 

JC: One man that I know has been most significant, for he was also 

chairman of ways and means and representative of the Berkeley area, was 
Tom Caldecott, now a judge in Alameda County. Tom McBride, who now is 
a federal judge in Sacramento, was helpful all the way, though he was 
only there a very short time. Some of the others that came to my at 
tention were Senator McBride from Ventura, who was very much interested 
in the medical and health sciences, and particularly rehabilitation. 
The new building at UCLA was developed as a result of his efforts on 
rehabilitation. Ray Williamson, a San Francisco attorney, was ter 
rifically strong in his support of the University. He was before my 
time. Albert Wollenberg, a judge in San Francisco, was the one that 
started the program of visiting campuses at budget hearing time to see 
the operation of the University first hand, the medical school at 
Berkeley or Davis. Former lieutenant governor and senator, Harold 
Powers. I could go through the whole senate finance committee, gov 
ernmental efficiency committee. Bill Rich, upper Marysville area, great 
friend of Dr. William Kerr s in the San Francisco Medical School. 

I might cite the story of the first time we had a capital outlay 
item in San Francisco. I brought Dr. William J. Kerr from Eureka, 
Humboldt County, and several other doctors to testify, and Dr. Kerr was 
my first witness, and as the chairman of the committee, Bill Rich looked 
around at the finance committee, and he said, "You, Senator Hatfield, you 
Bill, Ralph Swing and six of you fellows -- you are alive because of this 
man. What are you going to do with this request for two million dollars?" 
Dr. Kerr never said a word. The bill went out without any question, but 



- 48 - 

JC: there were six members of the committee who had been treated by Dr. Kerr s 
medical staff for heart conditions. Fred Hawser, Bill Rosenthal from 
southern California, Phil Davis, George Hatfield, Hugh Burns who is still 
there, George Miller, who is still there, Richard Dolwig from San Mateo, 
Randall Vicky from Alameda, Gene McAteer who just passed away, Ralph Brown 
from Modesto, Jesse Unruh. I would have to name almost every legislator 
that took a special interest in some phases of the University operation. 
By and large, the ones that took the leadership and greatest interest 
either came from a district like Berkeley or Alameda County or San Francisco 

County where the medical schools were located, that was the beginning. Los 

I^O^-^t^i 

Angeles was just beginning and when UCLA started Phil Davis and Fred Hewer 

were very strong from that area. We never had any trouble with the San 
Diego people. In Riverside, Regent Phil Boyd, when he was in the assembly, 
was a very strong member of the ways and means committee in the assembly. 

VAS: How did we go about picking people to support legislation you were after? 

JC: Generally I selected an Alameda County man, if it was a University program. 

VAS: University-wide? 

JC: University-wide, it came from one of the segments of the campus, wherever it 
might be. 

VAS: Even if it were a Los Angeles problem? 

JC: No, I would try to get a Los Angeles man, but we generally had no that 

kind of legislation wasn t introduced where it would affect a specific campus. 
It might affect a specific subject, but generally not a campus. Oh, if it 
came to a medical school, sometimes special bills were introduced not by the 
University but by the alumni from the area, particularly on Los Angeles. 



- 49 - 

JC: A law school at Los Angeles, a medical school at Los Angeles, handled by 
the local people. 

VAS: At alumni request? 

JC: Well, at their own instigation. In the early days we had special appropria 
tion bills, but I guess 15 years ago, maybe 20, they decided to do away with 
those special items. Special items became part of the budget and amended 
into the budget. Special money items could not be passed until the budget 
was approved or unless you obtained a letter from the governor. So no special 
appropriations can be handled until the budget is approved. 

VAS: Which in effect gives the University more control. 

JC: That is correct, and a number of controversies over the expansion and develop 
ment at UCLA occurred because the Regents were not willing to move so fast; 
the bills were introduced but I had unfortunately to oppose them. Some 
people in southern California have never forgiven me for that. 

VAS: On the medical bill and law school bill? 

JC: Law school bill. Primarily the law school was one year ahead of time and it 
was a real unpleasant experience for me to go against a good friend, Phil 
Davis. To the day he died I am sure he was very unhappy with me. 

VAS: Is this Tom Davis 1 brother? 

JC: Brother, yes. 

VAS: Was this the kind of thing that was responsible for some of the antagonism 
against President Sproul? 

JC: One of the things. It shouldn t have been against Sproul because it was the 
Regents action or lack of action. They were the ones that instructed 
President Sproul what to tell me to do. 



- 50 - 

VAS: I understand that Sproul was in hot water in southern California. 

JC: Anybody that came from Berkeley was in hot water in southern California. 
I graduated from Berkeley and so did President Sproul, and Phil Davis has 
told me time and time again to my face, "You never think of anything but 
Berkeley," which I always resented. I never took that special interest. 
Surely I was an alumnus, but T never acted in Sacramento for Berkeley only. 
I did exactly what the president of the Regents told me to do, and this un 
pleasant experience with that group of alumni made it difficult all the way 
along because certain of the Regents felt that way also. 

VAS: There was an alumni Regents block. 

JC: That is right. 

VAS: How about in the senate now? It seems to me that Rumford sometimes carried 

JC: That was in the assembly, Rumford was in the assembly. He carried some public 
health matters because he was chairman of the public health committee, and an 
alumnus of the pharmacy school in Los Angeles. 

VAS: Wasn t it a governing factor, the committees that they were on? 

JC: Oh, this would be subject matter that would be of interest to public health. 
If you had someone who was an alumnus or a good friend of the University and 
interested in its affairs, you would pick that man to do the job. Sometimes, 
I might say, there was great jealousy over these special appropriation bills. 
I recall experiences that were as funny as they could be with the two 
authors present at the same committee, and the bill of the same subject, and 
the same amount of money, being prepared by the same committee at the same 
time and each with the pride of authorship of who was going to get credit 
for being author of the bill. That was one of the times that I hoped they 



- 51 - 

JC: would vote the co-authors and they would pass one bill and then they would 
both be co-authors. But there was great jealousy at that time of getting 
credit for passage. 

VAS: Was this a University bill? 

JC: Yes, a University bill. Then, let s say, I would introduce it from both 
sides, the senate and the assembly. Who gets credit for it? Now, we did 
have some people with special interests, like veterinary school. That was 
started by people on the outside, people interested in horses. Some of the 
racing people were interested in having a veterinary school in California 
because the closest one was Washington State. There are several people that 
take credit for that school. 

VAS: Wasn t the whole Santa Barbara campus deal that kind of a deal? 

JC: Yes. That came from the desire of Santa Barbara, Fresno, and San Diego to 
become a part of the University of California. 

VAS: The University never initiated that? 

JC: The University did not. That came from the local area, and was carried by 
Assemblyman Robertson of Santa Barbara. But Fresno was in it and so was 
San Diego. 

VAS: How about the California College of Medicine? 

JC: That came from outside also. That came from Senator Teale and the osteo 
paths that wanted to become a part of the medical activity of the University. 

VAS: Was the medical school at Los Angeles instigated by the University? 

JC: It was in the University program and it was moved ahead by Phil Davis, who 
felt that it should go ahead more rapidly than the Regents said that they 
were planning. 



- 52 - 



VAS: On this question of the Regents, I know in the early days the Regents 
practically carried the ball in Sacramento. How did they do it? 

JC: That was before Sproul s day. At least that is my understanding of it. In 
the short time that I had with Sproul as comptroller, he carried the load 
there, and Luther Nichols after that. I recall few times where the Regents 
got into the act except by personal relationship to legislators -- both by 
electing them and personal contacts with their own business. They never 
failed to give the University a boost, but how much some of them did act I 
would not know or other people would not know. The Regents would take a 
position on certain legislation primarily the budget in which they had 
an interest. 1 think the man who has participated the most in recent years 
or since my time is Ed Pauley because of his great interest in the University, 
and his great interest in the political field. He always has been one of 
the outstanding Democratic leaders in California and in the nation as far 
as that is concerned. 

VAS: To what extent is the job of the University s representative in Sacramento 
complicated by the fact that the speaker of the assembly is a Regent? 

JC: Very helpful. They have never interfered in any way. I do have to say that 

//iX-tO^^ 

Fred Harre-er, the former student body president, alumni president at UCLA, 
was lieutenant governor, and he took a very active part in legislation for 
UCLA in spite of the Regents action of which he was a part. That complicated 
things slightly, but 

VAS: Have they tended by and large to follow the Regents? 

JC: Almost 100 per cent. I think at the present time you find independent action 



- 53 - 

on the part of the speaker because he has certain ideas about education, 
and apparently has expressed it to the Regents in a way that he is trying 
to do what he thinks is right for the University. By and large his defense 
of the University on the floor of the assembly was tremendous over the name 
change for the state colleges. 

VAS: We lost that one. 

JC: Yes, we lost that one, even with the speaker s help. 

VAS: Are we liable to lose that one in the senate? 

JC: No, sir. I think it is dead right now, thanks to one of the old timers on 
the agricultural side. A long, long time friend of the University and of 
the state colleges said that this is wrong, and almost everybody that voted 
for it was wrong last Monday. Don Mulford made a terrific pitch, and so did 
everybody else who spoke against the bill on the floor; the 41 votes were 
there. Plus the fact that it had been lobbied from one end of that floor 
to the other by state college people. They had done an excellent job. 

VAS: Do you know how many legislators are in state college districts? 

JC: Well, at least 19 of them. 

VAS: Some districts have more than one legislator. For instance, in San Francisco 
you can assume that almost all of them would be for San Francisco State. 

JC: There is no question about that. 

VAS: And in Santa Clara County, practically all 

JC: All of them would support San Jose. Oh yes. You can develop a real scare, 
political power program, if you start to handle it that way. In San Diego 
County you could do it the same way. Fresno County, Sacramento. You take 
the big state colleges; I would say they would run up to 25, maybe 30, 



- 54 - 

JC: legislators without even half trying. To get an alumnus of the state col 
lege in the picture, they wouldn t pay any attention to that, but that is a 
local interest affair. 

What Does the University s Legislative Representative Do? 

VAS: Now we get to this whole area that you asked me a question about the last 
time. What I am really asking in these interviews, Jim, is what the job 
of the University representative involves up there. 

JC: I wouldn t know what to put first. The first and the most important thing 
is that you know your subject matter. You must know as much about the 
University as you can. (I had the fortunate experience of spending most of 
my life with the University, working with it while I was working with the 
legislature, and having the operating responsibility of spending the money 
I tried to get out of the legislature.) Then, besides knowing as much about 
the University as you can, you should know each legislator as much as pos 
sible, personally. I have always considered this a man to man job, a per 
sonal job of relationship between human beings, and endeavoring to gain the 
confidence of the individual, so in talking with him on any subject that he 
would believe what I was saying. I think it is a 24 hour, 365 day a year job. 

VAS: This is certainly more than just walking in and introducing yourself in 
a man s office. 

JC: That is right. If you have an occasion, go to lunch, or go to dinner, or 
take a chance to be more intimately acquainted. Always be prompt with 
favors or questions, as accurate as you can be in presenting whatever he 
has as a problem to be resolved, whether it is a medical school, or housing 



- 55 - 

for a friend or constituent, or admissions of the University, or a sick 
animal at Davis, or whatever -- football tickets, track meet, some kind of 
little special favor that they don t know where to turn, so they call on 
you. If you respond in a willingness to try to do the job, do it as 
promptly as you can. Answer a letter on a problem that he had in his com 
munity, that may affect the University. 

Prompt communications is a very, very important factor. I find this 
a problem, at the moment, an effort to get a prompt response to a letter 
or a question. And that is one of the things to try to explain to the 
existing staff, and it is true with people like Mrs. Gibson and Clive 
Condren who have worked with me so long, Mrs. Byerly and Jim Miller and 
Bob Kerley. One of the first orders of business, of priority, was to get 
an answer no matter how trivial it was back as promptly as possible. 
This brought a closer relationship, a human relationship; ninety-nine times 
out of a hundred I delivered it personally, or one of my staff did. Now 
this is, I suppose, called lobbying. I don t know what it is we call lob 
bying, but I have tried to make it more on a personal basis and I have felt 
all along that my relationships with the people were more personal. 
VAS : And you believed that you never developed any enmity within 
JC: I have never felt it. Surely there are several people that I didn t care for, 
and I didn t associate with them, but when I used to give social events at 
my home or the University Club at Los Angeles, I did associate with them. 
No one was ever rejected, race, color, creed, or whether I liked him or 
didn t like him. I think you cannot do this job and create any feeling 
against an individual. Regardless of how you feel personally, the University 



- 56 - 

JC: is more important in relationship than you are as an individual and 
in your attitude toward them. I just don t know how you can do it 
otherwise and do it successfully. 

VAS: How do you do this when you know sometimes that you are helping one 
guy out against his enemies that are also your friend s political 
enemies? 

JC: Well, I try to balance it. If I am going to oppose one man and be for 
another I tell them both, when I have to oppose a bill, when I have to 
oppose his position. I say I don t agree with his point of view and 
try to explain why. It is more than salesmanship, trying to sell the 
University s importance to people. 

VAS: Did you cooperate with other representatives much? 

JC: The third house -- what I call representatives of other business or 
industry, racing or liquor, including Arthur Samish was always 
willing to help, and they are to this day willing to help this University. 
If we really got into a jam you could call on those people to help you. 

VAS: Is there any lobby hostile to the University? 

JC: I think not to the University. Maybe to some of its activities, to some 
of the events that happen. No, I jus.t don t believe that is true. Now, 
maybe I am na lve, maybe I just haven t been aware. 

VAS: How about the Taxpayers Association? 

JC: That is a budget situation, that is an expenditure. Yes, I have had 

challenges by one of my best friends in Bob Brown, head of the Taxpayers 
Association. On several occasions he and I debated budgets and ex 
penditures of the University not only before the Taxpayers Association 



- 57 - 

JC: but before members of the legislative committee. But he was not 

against the University; he was a graduate of the University, I believe; 
he wouldn t hurt the University. But he thought our spending program 
was too deluxe in certain fields. He still does to this day, but that 
is his business. He is not against the University, or antagonistic to 
me as an individual, because after our conflict before committees, be 
fore the Taxpayers Association, we would always go to dinner somewhere. 
VAS : How about some of the unions, professional organizations? 
JC: They were not against the University as such. They were against our 

attitude toward unions, our attitude toward organized groups, and this 
is the difference, I believe. 

VAS: So you would always disagree over specific points. 

JC: Yes, I frequently disagree with many, many individuals, many legislators. 
But as such they were not against the University as a whole, just some 
activity. The activity of every individual associated with the 
University a Regent, the President, a professor, a student or an 
alumnus made generally a point in impressing some legislator on the 
University s image. 
VAS: This is sort of an obvious question, but did you feel that most of your 

work was done in the lobby physically? 

JC: By personal contacts, by material we provided and supported by our budget, 
a general outline in as brief a form as we could, pictures and charts 
and graphs to show costs and give a picture of our complex organization. 
VAS: How much of your time in Sacramento is actually given over to this kind 
of formal presentation? 



- 58 - 

JC: This will surprise you. We have a sub-committee in the assembly, main 
committee in the assembly, a sub-committee in the senate, and main com 
mittee in the senate. 

VAS: This is education? 

JC: No this is for the budget alone. This only goes to the financial side 

of ways and means. If it was an educational item and it went for policy 
to the educational committee, then to the ways and means committee, it 
would involve dollars. But by and large we had four chances at every 
segment of the budget if it was controversial. Now the sub-committees of 
the budget committee, ways and means committee, finance, are generally 
the ones that decide what you get. 

VAS: How many presentations might you make during a session? 

JC: Well, for the whole budget, it takes a half a dozen appearances but many 
meetings . 

VAS: For one committee? 

JC: For the sub-committee. It might take that long to cover the whole budget. 
If it is smaller sometimes you might handle it in one meeting, one after 
noon. Frequently they are so busy at these sessions of the legislature 
that you have to come back at night, or you have to come back the next 
day, or the next week, and you have to conform; I mean we do conform. 
It makes some people very, very unhappy because they don t understand 
it, this hurry and wait. You go to a committee and the chairman shows 
up and nobody else shows up for a good fifteen minutes and the next guy 
comes fifteen minutes later. They are busy people. Sure they make ap 
pointments (commitments) but they also have other appointments (emer- 



- 59 - 

JC: gencies). 

VAS : What is the purpose of these meetings, just to get an explanation of 
some point? 

JC: Of the budget as a whole. You present your entire budget. 

VAS: You say that in addition to these formal presentations to the sub 
committee there are other meetings. 

JC: Oh yes, that is on a specific question that is asked that maybe was not 
clearly understood. You go and meet with a member who raised a question 
or maybe objected to something seriously. You try to straighten it out 
before the next meeting. So that is a continual process, all day long, 
every day. There is generally some question that somebody has on their 
mind to resolve before you get to a formal committee. 

VAS: Basically most of the organization in the University s behalf is done 
this way? 

JC: Individual conference or in small committees. 

VAS: So your technique is basically to hear what the questions are and try 
to answer them with the individuals concerned. 

JC: Well, and to give sufficient information in advance. Not on the day of 
the hearing but in advance, so that you cannot be accused of, "Why 
didn t you tell me this?" "How was I to know?" "You just gave me this 
yesterday, and I haven t had time to read it." If it is a long bulky 
document they won t ever look at it, but if it is short and concise, 
maybe has a chart or a picture or graph or some kind of comparative table 
that will show something that will give information to justify action on 
the budget, it can help. This is a matter of presenting your subject so 



- 60 - 

JC: that the legislator understands it in the short time he has. It may be 
two or three hours, or it may be six hours, it all depends, depends on 
how busy they are, how much time they devote. You get controversies 
like the overhead that they don t understand, they just don t understand. 
It is hard -- 

VAS : Do you have to explain this in meetings? 

JC: You do it both places, you have to. You should do it as much as you can 
to the individuals before the meeting. I have always said that you don t 
save many souls on Judgment Day. 

VAS: How do you find out what the problem areas are before the actual presenta 
tions? Clairvoyance? 

JC: No, Alan Post s reports generally point up the subject of the controversy. 
They get most of their subjects of controversy because he analyzes the 
budget and presents what he thinks are the controversial points, the 
questions to be raised, and you ll find that most of them go along 
unless somebody has an idea or a question in his mind that he wants to 
raise. 

VAS: Any of those ever surprise you? 

JC: Oh, Christopher, yesl Those are the things that upset you really when 
you don t know that it is coming and these frequently wait until the 
formal hearing when the entire committee is there. If you want a good 
example, I will give you one. 

Several years ago, we were discussing salaries for the faculty, and 
they generally went to the committee-as-a-whole. A member of the assembly 
ways and means committee said to me, "Mr. Corley, don t you think your 



- 61 - 

JC: salaries are high enough now, to a point where you can steal away from 
one of the good institutions of California their top faculty?" 

I countered with the policy of the University, saying, "It is not 
the policy of the University to recruit in California, and we try always 
to refrain unless there is an agreement with that institution and the 
University. I don t think we have done it." 

He said, "You are mistaken, Mr. Corley, you have done just that. 
You have taken the entire department of a private institution for your 
University, and you did it entirely on the basis of salaries." 

I said that I would be very much surprised if that were the case. 
He said, "I knew you would. That is why I saved it for you." And 
he said, "If you don t believe me, I wish you would investigate the 
mathematics department." 

I did investigate, and it was true. They took three members of a 
private school away for one of the branches of the University of California. 
I did go and apologize and I got a letter of apology from the President 
that it was contrary to University policy. I didn t know that it hap 
pened. Now those are the surprises that you have to roll with. But he 
still voted for our budget for our salaries. 

VAS: Probably because you ... 

JC: Yet he wasn t happy with the attitude of one of the branches. Now those 
things didn t happen every time, but they happened every once in a while. 

VAS: How early before these hearings start are the analyses made? 

JC: It generally comes out in the first month of the session. 

VAS: So it would come out some time in January. 



- 62 - 

JC: January or February. 

VAS: But the hearings start almost immediately, don t they? 

JC: Yes, frequently they start early, but they can t start those hearings 
until his report is out, about thirty days. 

VAS: So really what I am trying to get at is the time lag. You really have 
to start humping after you get that report. 

JC: That is correct. That is when you know where the vulnerable spots are 
as far as he is concerned. 

VAS: Because it might be what? Just a few days after they get that report to 
you? 

JC: No, it is generally a week or two. You have sufficient time. The only 
problem you have is in preparing your sales program, what we called the 
highlights of the budget, which we started many years ago, to explain 
the budget as you saw it. You frequently are not able to pinpoint the 
objections that come from the legislative analyst. He is their employee 
and that is what his job is, to pick spots in the University that he 
thinks are weak. 

The Legislative Analyst 

VAS: Let us talk about that position for a minute. When was that job first 
started? 

JC: I think Roland Vandergrift was first. Legislative auditor, they called 
him, hired by the legislature to analyze the budgets of all the institu 
tions of the state. He examines their operation, expenditure basis, 
management basis or any other basis he wants to and he reports direct to 
the legislature, free from the governor, free from the department of finance, 



- 63 - 

JC: free from everybody. So he is really an auditor of management and fiscal 
affairs and he has a big staff and does a good job. 

Vandergrift was the first one that I had to deal with, and he was 
formerly a director of finance, so he had great knowledge of the budget 
process, departmental budgeting. He knew where the weaknesses were. 

VAS : Then Post came in. Post, as I remember, was an auditor too. 

JC : He was auditor, and then they changed it to legislative analyst, and he 
has quite a staff. He has almost as big a staff as the budget division. 
But they are all budget analysts. 

In this analysis, they try to get comparisons from other schools. 
They try to compare the cost of maintenance of grounds and buildings. 
They get rumors of information on what people think are wasteful expendi 
tures, and they explore those. They study the work loads, they try to get 
comparisons from other schools. One of the greatest weaknesses in the 
United States is the lack of comparative costs in higher education. I 
have always thought so, and that is why we started the program of the 
Big Ten schools to make comparative costs. That was one of the greatest 
experiences of my life when we wrote a book on costs study of higher 
education. 

VAS: Has the attitude of the legislative analyst changed over the years? 

JC: No. He was very friendly, but very thorough. If he finds us wrong with 
something we do he states it. 

VAS: It seems to me I remember particularly one year when he was upset about 
parking facilities on the campus, for instance. 

JC: Well, he has been critical of a number of our management operations and 
our fiscal operations. In spending of money, one of the crises at the 



- 64 - 

JC: moment is the overhead money we get from contracts. 

VAS: This is just an ideological difference isn t it? 

JC: No, he feels that the state has a responsibility for the review of the 
handling of monies of the state. I always disagreed with him. 1 have 
always felt that when he gets into management affairs it is in complete 
violation of the constitution and he somewhat agrees, though he thinks 
that the legislature, the state government, has the right of review of 
expenditure of all monies, including gifts and endowments. The constitu 
tion says, "the safety and preservation of the funds, "and he interprets 
that as the right of review, sometimes before, sometimes after. At the 
moment, thus, the controversy on the overhead. He wants them to tell in 
advance how the money is going to be spent and nothing more. He won t 
tell the Regents how to spend it but he thinks the legislature has the 
right to review what the trustees of the public money are doing with 
public money, whether it is overhead, gifts, or anything else, and that 
is where the challenge is with the Regents. I talked to Sacramento just 
today; they think they might get the overhead money restored with a fifty- 
fifty agreement. 

VAS: Which still isn t too satisfactory. 

JC: No. The Regents still feel it is their money. But when you stop to look 
at it from the other side, and I have had to wrestle with it since 1953, 
the state provides 70 per cent of the support of the University and al 
most all of the capital outlay. If the overhead money is based on the 
use of the facility that the people of California provide, they have the 
right to look at these funds. 



- 65 - 

VAS : How long has that percentage been -- 

JC: Oh I don t think it has ever varied except during the war years. What s 
below 65 or 60 per cent, they have always provided. 

VAS: Where are these figures of 47 and 57 we used to hear. 

JC: It has never been in my life, unless during the war when it was about 
50-50, it seems to me, because we were getting so much from tuition of 
trainees. I include fees as being Regents responsibility. Talking 
about state appropriation, now Post disagrees with me on that. He thinks 
these are part state money too and the Regents just act as the agents to 
collect, but that is not true. The Regents assess the fees. This would 
be a real test for lawyers in the court, but I hope we don t ever have to 
do it because, as I said to him this morning, let s reach a compromise 
agreement rather than have to go to court. For under the present condi 
tions I am not sure the court would support the Regents. I think we 
ought to avoid a conflict that forces us into court on this fiscal control 
bill. I think we need not have fiscal control by the state. It is true 
that they have tightened up more, but of course they feel that they have 
a public responsibility to review what has been spent and to review in 
advance some of the expenditures. It is clear to me that some of the 
expenditures that have been made have not been approved by some of the 
people of the state government and the legislative auditor and that is 
how these things have happened. 

I could name one current example, the purchase of the Black property 
in San Diego County. That has stirred up a real rumpus in the community, 
and the assemblyman has had the pressure from down there, Mr. Stull, 



- 66 - 

JC: and he has raised quite a rumpus, but this money was allocated out of 
the overhead money. It was free money that the Regents had and they 
used that free money for a good pupose for the University. 

VAS: But it took land ... 

JC: I don t understand the relationship in San Diego, but this is the type of 
thing that stirs up one man to get to Alan Post, and he gets to somebody 
else and somebody else, and before you get through you find here they are 
spending a large sum of money that they just think isn t justified in 
some people s mind. 



Captions for the three pages of illustrations following 
(read left to right, top to bottom) 



Page A. 

1. Jim Corley. track star, 1925 

2. Mr. Corley with Director of Finance, Jim Dean, at the 
dedication of Lewis Hall, 1947 

3. Mr. and Mrs. Corley, guests of honor at the celebration 
of Mr. Corley s 25th year at the University of California, 
1952. The bear (Hokkaido Bear) is the gift of William 
Neufield, 1925 track team captain. 

Page B. 

CM*WCO4t. 

1. Mr. Corley, and Preoidont Clark Kerr, with Baldwin Woods 
at his retirement dinner, 1955 

2. Dedication of the University of California Medical School 
Metabolic Research Lab for the study of Arthritis and 
Allied Diseases, March 25, 1952: J.H. Corley, F.S. Smyth, 
M.D., R.J. Stull, William J. Kerr, William Rich, W.B. Hall, 
Peter Forsham, M.D. 

Page C. 

1. Gathering at the John Lawrence family hunting lodge, annual 
duck hunt, 1955, Los Banos : Dr. Cornelius Tobias, Dr. John 
Northrop, Dean Edward Rogers, Dr. Luis Alvarez, Dr. Donald 
Cooksey, James H. Corley, Dr. Wendell Stanley, Dr. E.O. 
Lawrence, Mr. Walter Sullivan, Jr., Dr. John Lawrence, Dr. 
William G. Donald ^ ESlt)t ^r 

2. Mr. Corley with.Richard M. Nixon, Washington, 1960 



B. 





- 67 - 

Interview 3, July 20, 1967 

The Effect of On-Campus Activities on the Legislators, and the Public 

JC: Now I don t know where we ended last time. 

VAS: There are about six more questions on this first batch. 

JC: You sure did a lot here. I spent a lot of time yesterday going over 
each one of the new questions they will be interesting. 

VAS: Let s go to the questions: What kinds of activities on the campuses of 
the University provide a helpful and positive picture of the University 
in the minds of the legislators? What ones tend to hurt the University? 
I think you have touched on that but I wonder if you would like to go 
further. 

JC: Well, I think that the type of activity no matter what it is or who it is, 
where the public generally disapproves -- and I mean the general public, 
not political as such--is what hurts. The current things, not student 
pranks or normal young people s activities, but where people talk about 
pornography and four letter words, a lot of people disapprove of these. 
What shocks the people and doesn t represent in their opinion the thing 
that the University should hold -- student action, faculty action, employee 
action, whatever it is, action of the Regents, action of the President, who 
ever it is; if it challenges the public s opinion of decency or proper 
dignity representing the University, those kind of things hurt, no matter 
who does it, connected with the University. 

Marijuana and those things of current action are very serious in the 
minds of some people, for they feel that we are kind of custodians of the 



- 68 - 

JC: young people, even though they are mature adults, most of them. Some of 
the public still feel that old school responsibility of, "Well, they are 
away from home, and you have to be the mother and father and disciplin 
arian of them, to keep them in line." I think a lot of that trend is 
changed in the minds of the students certainly the graduate student 
doesn t want to be disciplined but the public thinks the student lives 
in the society of the University, a little different from the community 
from which he came, or even the community that surrounds the institution. 
The public generally expects life here is lived at a higher level, and the 
conduct of individuals within our sphere is expected to be on a higher 
level, particularly when some of them say we are paying the bill too. 
"We provide this environment for you, let s keep it on a high level. Do 
your job with getting an education." 

I had one experience since I have seen you last that caused me some 
concern. I was at a hearing in Fresno on the state wage stabilization 
board, farm labor, and there were two sides being presented on the subject 
of whether they ought to shorten the hours or increase the hours. In the 
discussion was the grower s and the farmer s side, versus the union side. 
Presentation was made: one side vigorously applauded, the other side 
raucously booed. One of the members of the board said, "Gee, I thought I 
was at Berkeley at the University." Well, that is an image that is created 
of the University, that the public generally didn t approve of that kind 
of demonstration, even though it is the right of everybody to demonstrate 
or protest, but they felt that they were in an environment around the 
University. That is what people disapprove of. He said it in a disparaging 



- 69 - 

JC: way to everybody in the audience. That is the kind of thing I am talking 
about. I use that as an example because it is a recent one. 

VAS: In the same context, have there been instances that you remember of the 
legislators taking umbrage at anything that was done in the classroom? 

JC: Oh, yes. There have been protests at the conduct of the faculty and such, 
particularly on political issues or on subversive issues. 

VAS: Are these misinformed? 

JC: Sometimes misinformed, sometimes factual where students have gone home to 
their parents or to friends and raised the question of whether this type 
of thing should be presented in the classroom. Sometimes there have been 
investigations afterwards. Generally protests come through any citizen on 
that type of thing. People in charge have tried to investigate the facts. 
You never hear about the disciplinary action, discussion between the ad 
ministrator and the faculty, teacher assistant or whoever it may be, but 
I am sure that has happened. I have no idea what has been done, but I am 
sure it has been done. 

VAS: Then you have been aware. Has the legislature ever in a sense threatened 
to withhold support of the University for these reasons? 

JC: Oh, somebody might vote no because he was rankled for some reason. Oh, 

yes, there are fellows that have voted no because they disliked something 
the University has done or somebody in the institution 

VAS: Have they ever demanded disciplining of a faculty member as a condition 
of their vote? 

JC: Oh, no, never to me. I think my opinion would be that we have no business 

about that, that it is up to the University. It has never been on the basis 



- 70 - 

JC: that if you don t do this I will vote against you, but there have been 

"no" votes, and just accept them as "no" votes. 
VAS : The understanding is that the reason for the "no" vote is some incident 

there. 
JC: It could be, yes. Or some feeling toward general philosophy or something 

that happened, but they are not very petty. They generally are kind of 

major in the opinion of the individual. 

University Image and the Press and Public 

VAS: How much public antagonism now do you think is due to the desire of the 
legislature to be punitive on graduate students and teaching assistants 
in the fact that last year the Regents found money to pay teaching as 
sistants after the F.S.M. ? 

JC: That has caused considerable discussion because they said that they had a 
legislative directive or resolution about teaching assistants and the 
Regents ignored it. Some people feel that if they didn t have so much 
free money, such as the overhead, then they couldn t do these things in 
complete disregard of what the legislature and the governor recommended. 
There is apparently going to someday be a showdown between the Regents and 
the state government. I just hope it never happens because I am afraid 
that the public will not support the Regents in this case. 

VAS: Don t you basically believe that the Regents need to have free money? 

JC: Yes, and they always will have and they always have had, but they also 

should regard what is due. They are representatives of the public of the 
state of California, the same as the legislature, and they have some re- 



- 71 - 

JC: sponsibility back to that public. If they feel that they are above that, 

which some people say they act like they are, then the people on the politi 
cal side are going to take action and 1 would hate to see that clash come. 
I don t say that they have to act like politicians, but they ought to have 
some concern of the public in what they do and what public reaction might 
be on the spending of what they consider as public money. 

VAS : You refer to, "in the condition that we are in now," as being 

JC: No, I have said this all along. 

VAS: You say that you hope this doesn t come to a test under the present cir 
cumstances; you have said that a couple of times. What circumstances? 

JC: I think we are at the lowest level of public opinion. I am sorry to say 

that, but I do think that if it came to a challenge between the government 
of the state of California and the Regents, that the government of the 
state of California would win today. And I would hate to challenge to a 
public vote today the constitutional amendment to take from the Regents the 
independence they have. I think we would lose, I am sorry to say it, but 
I am afraid we would. 

VAS: This would not have been true up to about three years ago? 

JC: In my opinion, yes. I think we started before that time to go down hill 

because I don t know how to say this without being critical of my former 
associates of the University and of the Regents, but I am going to quote 
one other person who said, "The arrogance of the Regents in defying the 
sentiment of the public, the interest of the public, can t long endure." 
I don t say we must cater to the politicians, that isn t what I mean. In 
talking about the public it is California people, parents of our children, 



- 72 - 

JC: and I am afraid that there is more of it than most people who are con 
fined to the campuses realize, and the Regents don t realize. They live 
in the environment that is not the hostile environment that I think is 
created, and I give you the example of Fresno as one of those places. 

VAS: Yes. 

JC: Because it was in an audience of three or four hundred people when the man 
made the statement. Disrespect, in my opinion, of the University. 

VAS: So, actually there is much more than just this year s budget that is at 
stake. 

JC: That is right. You have a long way to go back, we all know that, all of 
us that are now associated. I am glad to be back to do what I can, but 
we have to rebuild a new image in the public s mind. It is going to be 
hard work. It is going to take everybody to do it, not just public re 
lations officers, news releases, public gestures. We have to get every 
student, everybody in the University family, to start to work and con 
vince the public that the University is back on a serious purpose again. 


I don t think it has ever changed, but the people think it is changed. 

I think our publicity has been most, most unfortunate. A great good 
in the University has been hurt by a very small group. The great things 
we do are sidetracked because somebody is caught smoking marijuana, does 
some silly thing, but the good of the University can t get in the front 
page and when it is in there somebody says they are trying to explain that 
there is something else beside those crazy people there. I am sorry that 
that is the way the public reacts, but that is the way they do react. I 
will give you an example that happened just within the last month in 



- 73 - 

JC: somebody giving the figures out on the drop in enrollment in the University. 
A week later or ten days later you try to correct them, and nobody paid any 
attention to the correction. That is the public s reaction. They re 
member that first one, that the University is going downhill in enroll 
ment. You can t convince anybody now, even with the correct statement as 
good as it was. 

VAS : Including the governor. 

JC: Right. They won t accept it. They say they are trying to cover up some 
thing. That is the reaction that was given to me and I think that is 
public generally. I am not being pessimistic. I think I am being real 
istic in the way people react to this kind of thing. When you get a lot 
of good things happening and the kids do a great job with the underpriv 
ileged, one person s reaction to that is, what are they trying to cover up? 
Those other kooks? And they still think because the press will carry it 
the next day that a wild harum scarum group in Berkeley has done something, 
or Los Angeles or Davis, or something, there it is again. 

I don t know how to convince the press that they should appreciate 
the University. It is going to take a lot of hard strong work with the 
publishers and the press and radio and television to give the right image 
of the University. I agree a little bit about the statement that was made 

, 

by General Westmoreland about the Vietnam War, that he wished they would 
give some of the good things about the war and not all the time the bad 
things. I don t know what can be good about a war, but at least some of 
the accomplishments. I am fearful that our communications system is giving 
the image of the University that it doesn t deserve. You can t criticize 



- 74 - 

JC: the press and the communication system, but I do think we might help to 
educate them in some of the things. 

VAS: Don t you think that some of this abnormal behavior, this behavior that is 
bad for the University s image, is somewhat natural to any institution of 
this size, this complexity and with as much intellectual stimulation? 
Isn t some of the problem from that, and not a problem of elimination, but 
of perspective? 

JC: That is right. Well, I think we have an overabundance, we have more than 
our share of this kind of thing, and we have had three years of very un 
pleasant publicity and agitation and continued agitation, because we are 
large, because we are the greatest institution in the country. There is a 
concentration of these types of people, and the campanile will make head 
lines throughout the world where any other institution may not even get 
off of first base, and they may be ten times as bad. Somebody said to me, 
"Look at San Francisco State College." Well, so what. San Francisco State 
College is a good school, but it doesn t draw nearly the publicity of the 
University of California. 

You can name any one of UC s branches and the people that are deter 
mined agitators, demonstrators and revolutionists, as I call them, will con 
centrate where they can get the most publicity. The governor of New Jersey 
said the other day he definitely would not have had the trouble for so long 
a period in Newark if the press and radio had not built it up, and I think 
that is what happened at the University of California. He got rid of his 
in four days but it has taken us three years to slow ours down. If you 
start anything over here on the Sproul Hall steps and they tell, the 



- 75 - 

JC: people who are putting on the show, tell all the newspaper people that 

we are going to have a show, you will have more there than you would have 
for the President of the United States, almost. That is where we have to 
start to try to correct it. 

I told the President that just yesterday. I feel very keenly we 
can t just stick in this building, we have to go right to the publisher, 
right to the head people and say what we are doing. I feel that is very 
essential. You may disagree with me but I just feel that this is where 
we have to start to get some help. 

VAS : I don t disagree, I only share your concern about how hard it is going to 
be to reverse the trend. I think there is something else going on within 
the society that is reflected here, this generation gap. 

JC: In California, particularly, we have a revolution and everybody is taking 
advantage of it on both sides. We are having a complete shift of public 
opinion in what really they want. You say, in society, there are different 
standards, there are different levels that are changing completely. This 
is kind of a social revolution. I am not talking about the racial situa 
tion, I am talking about the standards on which you and I were born and 
raised being quite different. We will survive it, and so will the 
University, but it is going to be rough. 

VAS: How long do you think it is going to take? 

JC: A great deal will be determined by the appointment of the new President, 
by the two Regents in 68, or three. I think it was a disgraceful per 
formance of the Regents at the last meeting by some of them. If we con 
tinue to have this divided Board, it will take until some of those members 



- 76 - 

JC: get off of the Board, either resign or die. 

VAS : We have had divided boards before, Jim. 

JC: Yes and it hurt the University because they divide on everything, not 
just the issue that started the fight. I think it is healthy to have 
differences of opinion. If you don t, with 24 people, there is something 
wrong with the organization, you can t always agree on everything. But 
when you continue to bring the political picture into the Board of Regents 
every time you have a meeting, I think it is a mistake. You can t win. 
We must bring back public support, public sentiment, for the institution, 
for then they will want to send their sons and daughters here; otherwise 
they won 1 t. 

You know how I feel about the University. I feel very keenly that 
there is somehow or other a barrier between communications with the people. 
If I can help lower it, I will. I made this same speech to Harry Wellman 
yesterday, and he agrees with me, and he is trying to get it to the Regents, 
and I think we are on the road back. Whoever is selected as the new 
President I hope has the right philosophy, that is all I can say. That 
in my opinion is the key to how soon we will get back on the track. 

Comptroller s Responsibilities 

VAS: Were you an officer of the Regents between 1940 and 1959? If so, how did 
the fact affect your relationship with the administration? 

JC: While I was comptroller I was an officer of the Regents, officer of the 
Board. 

VAS: And that lasted until 59? 



-77- 

JC: The exact date I don t remember, but I think that is right. 

VAS: Were you consulted about the change? 

JC: Oh yes, sure. 

VAS: Did you agree to it? 

JC: My job grew like the University, and the job which was only the secondary 
part of the comptroller s responsibility, representation in Sacramento, 
grew in such proportions as the state grew. Competition for funds became 
extreme, not only for higher education, but for all, and I felt that I 
should spend more and more time on it, and so did the President, and I did. 
I spent not just a couple of months in Sacramento, but 24 hours a day, 365 
days in the year. This became paramount as service in my office to give 
100 per cent attention to the people in Sacramento. 

VAS: Did this begin with Kerr, or did it antedate that? 

JC: It was long before that. When I first took it over I thought it was one 
of the most responsible positions a person could have. The obtaining of 
the money and the spending of the money were two of the major issues of 
the University, and that was the comptroller s job. At the beginning it 
wasn t very much in dollars; then the business management and the function 
of the comptroller wasn t anywhere near what it turned out to be after the 
other campuses started growing and expansion started. There was only so 
much that a human being could do; accounting and auditing was separated, 
and it was perfectly agreeable with me, no problem. Mr. Lundberg took 
the accounting and auditing in 1949 and I was business manager. 

VAS: That was 1949? 

JC: Yes. For about ten years I had the full function of the business operation, 



- 78 - 

JC: including accounting. 

VAS: This shift in the Regents was really a new break with tradition, 

wasn t it? In the old days the Regents made the representation to the 
legislature pretty much for the most part. 

JC: No. President Sproul, Comptroller Sproul did the job. 

VAS: I was thinking before that Jim. I was thinking in the old days, when 
the secretary of the Regents did it. 

JC: I would guess so. I haven t done that far back. I know when W.W. Campbell 
was President, President Emeritus Sproul was comptroller. (L.A. Nichols 
was his assistant.) They handled legislation almost 100 per cent at the 
time. I think it began when Sproul was made comptroller that the Regents 
and the President pushed the legislative side. How far back when Sproul 
first went to the legislature I have never asked him, whether he went im 
mediately when he became comptroller, or several years afterward. I don t 
know which President sent him there. He did have the job and his successor 
was L.A. Nichols and I know he went because I was his assistant at the 
time. And he spent a lot of time in Sacramento and then when change came 
and Nichols resigned, I got the position. It was always a full-time job, 
particularly during the session. 

VAS: Did you work directly with the finance committee of the Regents most of the 

time? 
JC: Let s be specific on this. The comptroller s responsibility, when I first 

took the job, was jointly to the President and jointly to the Regents. In 
the finance committee, which met every Tuesday, the President had a report, 
the secretary and treasurer had a report, and the comptroller had a report. 
We had items for approval. These were fiscal and management affairs, and 



- 79 - 

JC: things like that. Underhill had the investments, the President had the 
academic side and budget transfers. 

VAS: The President did bring up academic matters at this committee meeting? 

JC: Oh yes, financial matters relating to appointments. Many of the things 
that are now delegated were then the responsibility of the Regents. You 
see, they met every Tuesday, they were a management committee, they knew 
everything that was happening. 

VAS: Were they, in effect, an executive committee of the Regents? 

JC: Yes, they were really assigned that kind of a responsibility. Now, if it 
was something that required Board action the rules were pretty clear; they 
wouldn t act but would recomment to the Board. But many of the things were 
assigned to the committee to act on, to give guidance to the administration. 
Frankly I always looked forward to it. It was real healthy to deal with men 
like Garret McEnerney, Sidney Ehrman, John Francis Neylan, A. P. Giannini, 
Mortimer Fleishhacker. You couldn t have better guidance of the operation 
of fiscal affairs, management of the University. It was a real experience 
to go every Tuesday at 11 o clock, one hour. Then frequently you went to 
lunch with a Regent and then they discussed things unofficially. 

VAS: Did they discuss things in great detail? In other words, were they kept 
informed so that they could -- 

JC: Well, the President, or Underhill, or I, would make a recommendation or 

report or make a statement on an item that we thought that we should have 
their concurrence in or approval on, or their guidance. 

VAS: Did they do any independent study on these questions? On their own? 

JC: No, these were generally judgments that after you presented the facts, they 



- 80 - 

JC: asked questions. If they were not satisfied with what you presented, 

they would question. It was healthy for you, it gave you some thinking 
of five or six brilliant men, high standing in your community, with a 
great interest in the University. 

VAS : Now this gets to this question of your freedom to implement policy they 
decided. How did this work out with respect to them and with respect to 
the President? Did you have any authority, autonomously, from the 
President? 

JC: I had complete authority to operate within the policy of the University 

set by the Regents and the President. Although I had joint responsibility 
I never, never, used it in conflict with the President. If he and I had 
a difference of opinion we settled it before we went to the Regents. 
Never in my experience did I ever have -- and I don t think it would 
have been healthy to do it, but I did have the independence of action. I 
was frequently called by him on policies that I might have set that might 
have interfered with the academic side, but I generally cleared whatever 
policy program I had. After all, the comptroller s job was one of being 
of service to the faculty and to the academic side, not to interfere, and 
this was one agreement that President Sproul and I had. The basic philoso 
phy of our job was one of service to the University and to the faculty 
primarily to get their job done and not to interfere with it. Frequently 
they thought they were interfered with when they couldn t buy what they 
wanted to or do something that violated the Regents rules or the Presi 
dent s rules, but it was our job to be the policemen, to guide and control- 
fiscal control -- but not to interfere. 



- 81 - 

VAS: Your negotiations on the government research contracts we talked about 
this a little bit earlier. Underhill did most of that, as I understand, 
on the war stuff. 

JC: Well, much of it was joint. Of course he had a lot of relationships 

during the war for two reasons. First of all he was the senior officer 
and under the AEC there were some security problems in that regard and 
the fewer there were in the act the better off we were. He did the job 
and there was no conflict. On the training contracts, we cooperated on 
that. Don t forget we had legislative sessions also during the war and 
there was partly a question of division of labor. We worked together 
many, many times. The joint negotiations of the AEC I didn t get into 
until after the first contract was developed. On the training contracts 
there were joint negotiations many times, at Salt Lake City, Los Angeles. 
The housing and feeding on the campus was done by my staff, the business 
managers on each campus. And there were assistant comptrollers when I 
first took the job on every campus where it was big enough to have them. 
So it was a joint effort, but there was no conflict, as far as Mr. 
Underhill and I were concerned. 

VAS: All of the building projects were under your supervision? 

JC: Handled primarily by Roscoe Weaver, the University engineer, and a very 
dedicated person, one who did probably one of the finest jobs this 
University had in that field. He was an engineer, he was a hard worker, 
very meticulous, and developed a relationship with the construction people 
and public works department in Sacramento, that to this day is paying great 
dividends -- Dave Keller, for example, who reviewed all the plans, all 



- 82 - 

JC: the lists -- 

VAS: Part of the state building commission? 

JC: No, he represents Alan Post on the construction side. 

VAS: I see. 

JC: And only this last week he mentioned the fact that he hadn t seen him for 
six or eight months ( they are both boat owners and occasionally they see 
each other on the Sacramento River). He had great admiration and respect, 
as I do. Once we got started in this program I let R.A. Weaver run the 
whole show and he did a terrific job. We consulted frequently. We main 
tained a close relationship, we always went to Sacramento together, many 
times he went by himself, but we made a joint effort, that was true of all 
our staff. This got to be a real big operation statewide, with construc 
tion, purchasing and all of the business operation and servicing. 

VAS: What was his official title? 

JC: University engineer. He never wanted any other. He was doing the work 
that Vice-President Morgan did, but he supervised, with Bob Evans, the 
employment of architects, granting of the contracts with the attorney, 
letting of the contracts and taking bids. At the beginning I used to go 
to the bid openings but it became such a volume of work that we had to 
divide it so that when our major expansion and construction program be 
gan it was decentralized and the staff people opened the bids, but under 
the rules set by the Regents and the attorney. 



- 83 - 
University Building Prelects 

VAS: What specific building projects on the various campuses did you think 

most important to the development of the University in general and to 

the specific growth of the individual campuses? 
JC: I think the most important one was the first one finished, but I think the 

medical center in San Francisco was the first two million dollar project 

that later became 20 million dollars before we took the bids. We got to 

two million dollars before the war and we couldn t do any construction. 
VAS: Was that because of expansion of the project? 
JC: Yes, everything. The whole idea had changed over almost four or five 

years. Costs had gone sky-high. 

VAS: Has there been anything comparable to that? 
JC: Well, every other building from then on was 20 million dollars or more 

for medical. I think it was that, and the medical school at Los Angeles. 

Of course, the law school there was important, too. The first building 

to be finished was a chemistry building on the Berkeley campus, Lewis Hall. 

Governor Warren and Finance Director Dean were there, we had quite a 

ceremony. 

VAS: There really wasn t much building during the war. 
JC: Only temporary. 
VAS: In other words, after you became comptroller, until after the war, there 

was virtually no -- 
JC: There wasn t any material; except for emergencies or for war activities, 

you couldn t get anything. They turned us down on the steel even for the 



- 84 - 

medical school. There was a priority on everything, so we couldn t get 
it. We had to give up. The veterinary school at Davis was an important 
factor; that came early, and that did major things to the Davis campus. 
And the telescope at Mt. Hamilton is probably as unique an item as any 
thing we ever, tried to get through the legislature. Try to explain to 
a legislator why they should build a telescope. It was difficult. 

VAS: Especially a big one. 

It cost a million dollars, or whatever it did, I have forgotten the exact 
figure now. But every building, I think very keenly of every one of them, 
for we had to go through every single building that we presented on our 
list and justify it, not only to the auditor and the department of finance, 
and the governor, but both houses of the legislature, and they went through 
each item, item by item, what it was to be used for and how much classroom 
space. And of course there again started around that time how we had to 
get s_.quare foot costs, comparisons of the use of space. It goes back to 
the start of the study of the Big Ten, one of the reasons why that 
started, for these people were asked for comparisons. If you want two 
million dollars for this building, why does it cost three million dollars 
on another campus for the same type of building. Different laboratory 
facilities, housing, what is going to be in the buildings. Names got to 
be a real serious problem. 

VAS: Naming of buildings? 

JC: What you called buildings when you put them on a list. Well, any specific 
department. 

VAS: You had trouble with anthropology, as I recall. 



- 85 - 

JC: Yes. Why anthropology, we ought to build a lot of classrooms and they 
can be used by everyone -- you only have so many students in anthro 
pology. You had to be careful about not misrepresenting what you are 
doing, for by any name it is a matter of interpretation to someone not 
familiar with the campus. When you explain what is in the building, they 
say, "Why didn t you say something else in place of anthropology?" The 
windows on the anthropology building were the biggest headache. $18,000 
for the architect s filigree on the outside of the windows cost me more 
trouble than any $50 million dollar appropriation. The Regents said we 
are going to do it and the legislature says you are not going to do it. 
The Regents said go back and get the $18,000. Then it became an issue 
before the senate finance committee as to who could have the right to 
say; the legislative auditor said no, and we said yes. Thank God, in 
Senator Howard Williams we had a friend. He said, "Well let s not tell 
the University how to run their business." We finally won it but those 
kinds of things are just differences in how much detail they go into. 

VAS: Really the cost -- 

JC: It was millions and millions of dollars. 

VAS: Were our architects made aware of the problem? 

JC: Every time we had a problem we would get the message out to them to avoid 
these things and we tried to screen it before they ever went to the state, 
to get them out so that we knew where the weak spots were. But architects 
are architects and they are going to build their building that way, and 
they didn t care very much how the legislature or anybody else wants it. 
We tried to guide our people in that and I think trying to satisfy faculty 



- 86 - 

JC: committees, administration and Regents and legislators it is not a 
bad job in all parts of the University. But it is a pretty tough job 
to screen all those people and keep them all happy. And we didn t keep 
them all happy. There was very little interference except on things the 
legislative auditor thought were unnecessary, architectural, and expen 
sive things. They felt classrooms were no problem. Everytime we could 
justify classroom space, library space, we got it. I think it is evident 
when you look on the campuses; there is not another institution in the 
country with as many campuses as we have. In the new ones we started we 
had generous treatment, including the public support of the bond issue. 
We congratulated them for being so generous on their bond issues. I 
think the future will hold. 

I think we do have to be sure that we are making good use of the 
space we have. Now this is one of the challenges on the amount of govern 
ment research that is taking up the classroom space for students. I am 
afraid it is going to be your next issue, the utilization of space in 
that regard. 

VAS: For government research. 

JC: Yes, as taking away classroom space, which could be converted more econ 
omically than building new buildings. But this is a judgment that has to 
be reached by the Regents and the administration. 

The Comptroller and the Academic 

VAS: Well this kind of leads into the next question, this fourth one in terms 
of how the comptroller then relates some of his problems to the faculty 
and research people on the campuses. 



- 87 - 

JC: First of all, we didn t have much of this government research at that 
time; it was primarily the purchasing, accounting, general management, 
the service department, that was the comptroller s function. 

VAS: What kind of things were you finding yourself having to say no to? 

JC: Only where competitive bids were required. The lowest bidder with equal 
quality would get the job. 

VAS: Did you ever try to make judgments on research projects? The value of 
research projects? 

JC: No. That was an academic matter, that was handled academically. If it 

came to the utilization of space, expense where it might be involved with 
University expense, we would be involved. We would raise the question of 
those kinds of things, but not on the project itself. Oh, we had to 
frequently on things when Admiral Nimitz was on the board, because he 
perused every navy contract, first word clear on through. He even called 
the secretary of the navy in Washington to know why we were studying the 
love life of the chipmunk in Nevada which they were doing, an actual 
fact. He wouldn t let us approve the contract. He said the navy shouldn t 
be in that kind of business. Well, it turned out to be a survival study, 
research study on the survival in desert areas. He was satisfied and we 
approved it the next week. And I think we had more questions on these 
kinds of things in the finance committee of the Regents at the time be 
cause each one then had to be approved there; today they are approved 
academically. But they were costly and they still are costly to the use 
of space and manpower facilities at the University. 

VAS: What about the faculty s general reaction to your specific office of the 



- 88 - 

VAS: University? Do you think they accepted it pretty well? 

JC: Oh, I think in general, sure. We had some questions. We had a question 
on judgment and purchase of a certain kind of microscope once that went 
clear to the Regents. It is the only time that I remember where I went 
that far. It was a difference of several hundred dollars for each piece 
of equipment we were buying for classroom work. Oh, I think there were 
three or four hundred of them, a couple hundred dollars difference in 
price, they happened to be the first of the Japanese microscopes. We 
took the whole thing before the finance committee of the Regents. The 
President said I could do it and we did it with all the experts we could 
get in the field, the Regents making the decision. That was the only one 
I won, that is one that I remember very distinctly. 

VAS: Did you generally have the confidence of the faculty personally, Jim? 

JC: It is kind of hard for a person to say. There was no evidence that I had. 
I know people disagreed with me and thought I had too much control over 
what they did, but there were rules set by the Regents and the President, 
not by me, fiscal control rules. We wouldn t allow them to make purchases 
after May 15 each fiscal year unless for current expenses, not to pile up 
equipment at the end of the year just to spend money. That was a rule 
that had been in effect when I became comptroller. Those kind of business 
practices -- it looks like interference, but it was not. I don t know. 
You would have to ask faculty people. I would prefer that you ask them. 

VAS: One brief final question, did President Sproul initiate a lot of fiscal 
policy, or was that done more in your office? 

JC: When you met with the finance committee every week they set policy every 



- 89 - 

JC: week on different things. I think you might say the Regents had a 

great influence then on setting the fiscal policy, certainly on the 

management side. 
VAS : I had forgotten those meetings, for apparently the University was run 

week to week pretty much at those meetings. 
JC: That is right. You could take anything up there of any consequence at 

all. If you had a problem you could talk about it every week. I always 

tried to be at the meetings just to have them quiz me on things how they 

were going. It was a very close relationship. 
VAS: How long did these meetings last? 
JC: An hour: Sometimes 11:00 until 12:00, and they would go sometimes until 

12: 30, an hour, or an hour and a half, or two hours. But it was an every 

week relationship. 

VAS: Was it held over in the city? 
JC: Yes. In the Crocker Building, we had an office there. Mr. Underhill, 

the Secretary of the Regents, had an office in San Francisco, and so did 

the University attorney. There was a suite of offices there and we met 

in the Crocker Building every single Tuesday. 
VAS: Was that discontinued after a while? 
JC: Yes. Some people felt that it was too frequent. As I recall, it slowed 

down during the oath controversy because then it meant a confrontation 

and a crisis with the President every week. That was almost more than 

anybody could take. 



- 90 - 

Interview 4, August 27, 1967 
The Power of the Comptroller s Office in the 1940 s 

VAS: It has been said that in the 1940 "s the three most powerful and influ 
ential offices within the University were the Regents, the President, 
and the comptroller. Do you think this is by and large correct? 

JC: Oh, I think that was correct. The fiscal administration was considered 
then to be an important factor in the management, the Regents insisted 
on it. The comptroller s office was still a service organization, but 
as the word comptroller indicates, it was to guide and direct the ef 
ficiency and economy of the expenditure of the public funds and the private 
funds, donated funds that had come to the University. The Regents in set 
ting up the organization originally, set it up on that basis, and the 
comptroller, as I think I stated before, was a member or was an officer 
of the Board of Regents, as was the secretary and the President. Those 
three officers were the responsible persons to the Regents for the opera 
tion and management of University affairs. The fact that the Regents 
established the comptroller, who was then really the business manager of 
the University, at the Board level, meant that he had to report and was 
responsible to the Board as well as the President. They considered 
that an important factor in the maintenance and operation of the University. 

VAS: Didn t the comptroller, just in the normal course of things, begin to 
adopt more of a role in policy-making? 

JC: I think when President Sproul was comptroller that was true. I think he 
developed a pattern that the comptroller s office carried as long as I 



- 91 - 

JC: had it. It maintained a strong administrative position with the support 
of the President and the Regents in the guidance and maintenance and 
operation of the plant and collection and handling of the funds and ex 
penditure of funds, which was the primary responsibility of the comptrol 
ler at that time. The treasurer was treasurer as such, keeping the funds, 
making the collection of the funds. The expenditure of the funds was by 
and large in the hands of the comptroller, on authority of the President 
and the Regents . 

VAS: It seems to me from some of the things that I have read, that the comptrol 
ler s office, you in particular, assumed considerable responsibility in 
the management of the outlying campuses. 

JC: That is correct, through the business manager that was on each campus. 
Most of them then were assistant comptrollers, on each campus, and the 
staff of the comptroller s office worked with the chief campus officer , 
in maintenance and operation of the campus, the same as originally the 
comptroller did just with Berkeley. For a long time we didn t have as 
sistant comptrollers. I think when I came on the job there were two, 
one at Los Angeles and one at Davis. But afterwards, as other campuses 
grew, responsibilities became more important. They had accounting of 
ficers on every campus. Assistant accountants on each campus, though 
they were named as assistant comptrollers, acted as business managers 
or assistant comptrollers in the fiscal affairs and the management, the 
maintenance of grounds and the handling of all of the functions of the 
comptroller. There was an office on each campus, or field station as 
Riverside was considered at that time -- and even at the medical school 



- 92 - 



JC: the superintendent of the hospital acted as the chief campus fiscal and 
business officer at that time. 

VAS: Now in 1942 do you know why Sproul made the accounting officer report di 
rectly to him instead of through the comptroller s office? 

JC: Well, I believe it was the desire of the President and the Regents to 

separate the function of accounting and auditing from the business office, 
the handling of funds. They thought this was a more important function 
and they would like to have somebody reporting directly to them and to 
the auditors. There may have been other reasons that I don t know of, 
but they wanted to establish a strong fiscal control in the accounting 
and auditing system. The standing orders were to have the chief accounting 
officer report directly to the Regents; however, I think he reported to the 
President and in turn he did make reports, independent of everybody, to the 
Regents on fiscal matters. 

VAS: Despite the technical organization. 

JC: I think it was understood that that was the way it was to be and it was 
an understanding between President Sproul and myself that that was the 
way it should be. I was collecting the money and spending it, too, and 
accounting for it and they felt that that was not good fiscal management 
and I had to agree on that basis. 

VAS: Was this a step in any way toward this reorganization making you vice- 
president of business affairs in 1949? 

JC: That came later, yes, and they changed the name of the chief accounting of 
ficer to controller-from "comptroller" -- and they changed my title to 
vice-president of business. 



- 93 - 



VAS: Had you recommended that change? 

JC: Oh, I think it was a cooperative effort in reorganization and trying to 

get strength where we needed it most. 

VAS: Was this part of the outgrowth of that study you made in 1948? 
JC: Oh, I think it was part of a general expansion and growth of the University. 

The importance of the two functions and the separation of the two was a 

logical separation, at least I considered it as such. 
VAS: Could you outline which were the functions you retained, and those that 

went to the accounting officer, and those you had before? 
JC: Well, I retained everything that I had previously except the accounting 

and auditing, the actual accounting work and auditing. 
VAS: Were you still involved in all purchasing and ...? 
JC: Yes, that is right; all services, maintenance of grounds, assisting in 

the capital construction and all of that; the operation was still retained 

by the then title of vice-president of business. The only thing that was 

changed was the actual accounting and auditing. 
VAS: Now this vice-president was responsible both to the President and to the 

Regents for a while. 
JC: As long as President Sproul was here it was sort of a joint responsibility. 

They did change some of the agendas for the Regents so that the President 

reported everything, but I think that came after President Kerr came in. 
VAS: In other words, then, the vice-president of business was responsible 

primarily to the President. 
JC: That is right, all of the vice-presidents then, including vice-president of 

business. 



- 94 - 



VAS : Were you aware of any friction or difficulties involved in the previous 
arrangement where the President and vice-president were both reporting 
to the Regents? 

JC: As far as I know there never were any. There could have been some, but 
I was not aware, and I am not now conscious of any major difficulty. 
There were frequent discussions between President Sproul and myself as to 
the possibilities of it, but to my knowledge there never was any. I never 
had any occasion to report anything to the Regents that wasn t concurred 
in by the President without previous consultation. 

VAS: There were no specific incidents that led to change over when the vice- 
president became just responsible to the President? 

JC: No. 

VAS: When this was separated what happened to your relations with the sec 
retary and treasurer of the Regents? Before, you were both officers of 
the Regents, and I imagine there was a sort of a division of responsibility. 

JC: Never was any change in our relationship in all the time we worked together. 

VAS: What was the dividing line as far as you understood it? 

JC: Well, the operation and management and public affairs of the University were 
my responsibility, and his was the secretarial job and the investment of 
funds . 

VAS: How about acquisition of properties? 

JC: Well, that became a joint effort for campus properties. Sometimes he did 
it and sometimes I did it and sometimes we both did it. We frequently 
worked together on things. The surplus property acquisitions, many of 
them were handled by my staff, Roscoe Weaver working with Mr. Underbill. 



-95 - 

JC: He was the land agent, he had to handle the final papers on it. He had to 
be in on it from the beginning, so any assistance that my staff could give 
to him we gave to him. The same way with contracts on government affairs; 
during the war he did most of the big contracts, like the Atomic Energy Com 
mission, housing and feeding, but my staff did the work. He did not have a 
staff on other campuses or in other locations, so that it was a cooperative 
effort. People might have thought there was friction, but I never had any 
jealousy of anything, if that is the implication in the question you are 
asking; there was never any conflict between us. Mr. Underhill operated 
and managed the Atomic Energy Commission program. Managers happen to be 
business managers. In Los Alamos Baker was chief purchasing agent. 
Underhill put the purchasing office in Chicago and Los Angeles and Los 
Alamos and he had to work with the chief accounting officer to set up 
the accounting offices in these various locations because they were just 
like separate campuses. So as far as I am concerned, sure there was a 
joint interest, and there looked like there might be a conflict, but as 
far as he and I were concerned there never was any conflict because we 
both kept each other informed. 

VAS: No implications, just trying to find out how things worked. 

JC: If it had been someone else beside Bob Underhill it might not have worked. 
We frequently went on joint efforts, particularly when it came to the 
housing and feeding of students. The student relationship was all ours 

even in the regular student affairs. The secretary and treasurer of the 
Regents had nothing to do with students. That was our responsibility, 

and when it came to the housing and feeding of the military groups the 

- **& . 



- 96 - 

JC: same held true; at Los Angeles and Berkeley, and Davis, where we had 
trainees, it was handled by the business manager on these campuses. 

Effects of Decentralization 

VAS: After 1949, did you have any feeling at all that your responsibilities 
were being made more narrow? 

JC: Yes, I think you will have to realize that the decentralization was 

starting to take place and the business manager had to be more conscious 
of his local administrator than he had to be before. I don t say that 
it took any responsibility away from it, I just had to give more respon 
sibility to the people who were operating because it was impossible for 
one person to do anything but to have general supervision of policy and 
program. Surely it gradually moved to a point where the business manager 
became conscious of local campus administrators feelings vs. his own 
feelings on certain types of interpretation of policy. Our staff meet 
ings generally worked those things out as long as we had them. 

VAS: This would be your staff with the assistant business -- 

JC: Business managers and construction people and the purchasing agent. We 
tried to keep a general policy meeting by meeting once a month with a 
full agenda of items that were in dispute or questions of policy for im 
provement . 

VAS: Would this be a meeting of everybody on all of the campuses? 

JC: All the business officers that were responsible -- University Extension 
accounting office was under my jurisdiction. 

VAS: When did this begin to stop or was it done as long as? -- 



- 97 - 



JC : Oh , when my title was changed from business manager to government affairs, 
then this disintegrated completely. I have forgotten that date. 

VAS: Now to your knowledge -- 

JC: I had government affairs all of the time, but it didn t come into the 

title officially until quite latet As I told you, it was a second job. 

VAS: But when you stopped these conferences because of the change in your title 
and responsibilities, were they discontinued? 

JC: No, I think they carried on. As I recall, Morgan had statewide staff 

meetings* I don t know about the last few years; I know in his earlier 
years he did maintain liaison with these people, but that was looked upon 
with disfavor by the chancellors as I understand it. They wanted -- and 
it was very obvious with the business manager that was formerly on my 
staff -- they would leave him some place and they would put someone else 
in over him as a vice chancellor of business. That happened on a number 
of occasions and it was done to insure direct relationship with the 
chancellor, not with the central administration, which I think was a mis 
take. I still think it is a mistake^ 

VAS: How did that complicate things, Jim? 

JC: Well, there was no statewide supervision over the operation at all, and 
that is true right today, and that is one of the big problems, in my 
opinion, with the management and operation. If you will notice, the new 
President said, only a week ago, that he was going to bring purchasing 
back into a central service program, and I think some of the personnel 
will come back into a central supervision and will avoid what exists 



- 98 - 



JC: today, a variance of $4,000 for the very same job one campus versus an 
other That is why we had centralized personnel, to say that everybody 
that works for the same type of a job, same age, same length of service, 
should be paid the same and not be the special beneficiary of someone 
who is trying to, well, exploit the spoils system, which is what happened 
before and why it was brought all under one. That is the only way you 
can have a satisfactory personnel system. 

VAS : Personnel was decentralized rather late, wasn t it? 

JC: Yes. And not in an orderly fashion in my opinion; they just gave people 
the responsibility and there was no machinery set up to handle it. Some 
people went out of line on spending, wanting to get people, and they went 
out and paid higher than the market, I think, would justify. 

VAS: You take into consideration local markets, don t you Jim? 

JC: Surely you do. Prevailing scale, even in unions, is different. At one 
time, I don t know whether it is now, but between Los Angeles and the 
San Francisco areas there was a difference between plumbers, for example, 
of maybe ten or fifteen cents an hour. And San Diego to here, where the 
heavy defense industries were, it was sometimes much higher. Davis was 
quite a bit different, so the prevailing scale on the campus or in the 
area around the campus was the policy and not what we paid in San Fran 
cisco or San Diego. If we used that it would throw everything out of 
line in that area of the campus. This is why I believe in a centralized 
personnel system, centralized purchasing, centralized printing, centralized 
construction, and I think some of the other functions will come back under 
the new administration to be centralized. I think some of the Regents 



- 99 - 



JC: feel that way. That was the purpose of our monthly conferences and 

monthly meetings, to keep a balance within the University, policy-wise, 
within the Regents rules and the President s rules. 

VAS: Didn t you retain central auditing, centralized auditing? 

JC: Well, to a point, but even in recent years that has disappeared. You 
have the centralized outside auditing, that is true, but the internal 
audit service I am not sure. McLaren and Good, external auditors we call 
them. 

VAS: They audit for the whole system? 

JC: Yes, but even there I understand they are using the Los Angeles area for 

one division, and the northern area here, but I think centralized auditing 
is necessary. I believe in centralized purchasing and I believe in cen 
tralized personnel, and centralized construction up to a point, I mean, 
not to interfere with local operation. 

VAS: What you are saying is that what happened eventually was that the vice- 
president of business eventually got to the point where he was really 
business manager for University Hall and its major installations? 

JC: Well, that is going pretty far. I don t know how far it went down. I 
know at times I felt frustrated myself to the point where there wasn t 
much I could do about it. When you come into a clash with chancellors at 
frequent intervals, they figure you are trying to run their business, even 
if you are trying to enforce the President s and the Regents rules. 

VAS: The thing that I am getting at, Jim, is that under that kind of decentral 
ization how was it possible for the vice-president of business even to 
get a hand in? 



- 100 - 



JC: He had to force his hand in. Of course, his "hand in" generally came 

through his business managers, but as his business managers became less 
potent on the campus, his hand went out. There isn t any question about 
it in my mind. This was a desire to strengthen the local campus and to 
give the chancellor the responsibility which he thought he should have 
without any interference. And I think even to the point that they didn t 
want any interference from the President. 1 think that is true today. 

VAS: Do you think that by centralizing the business affairs of the University 
that this is enough to hold the system together? 

JC: If they get the backing of the President and the Regents, yes. I think 
you have to hold it together. If you break it apart, you sure are going 
to destroy the University of California in my opinion. 

VAS: Is this enough, just this? 

JC: The President has to be a stronger person and has to have the support and 
the backing of the Regents. This is a big responsibility; it is not the 
responsibility of one local area. Campuses are localized to serve the 
people, but the responsibility of the management and operation and fiscal 
affairs, as well as the general policy, rests with the Regents as a trust 
for the state. It is only given to them as a trust. I think people of 
the state look upon the Regents and the President to guide the campuses, 
let them run their show from an academic point of view, but the general 
relationships and management and operation, including the policies on the 
campus, should be approved by the President and the Regents. 

VAS: Let me ask my question in just a slightly different way. If the University 
were to completely centralize business operations, purchasing and personnel 



- 101 - 



VAS: primarily and so on, would this in itself be enough glue to keep the 
University stuck together? 

JC: No, 1 think it would only be part of it. 1 think you have to have the 

other phase of it too. You have somehow or other to convince chancellors 
that their place is a part of the whole, but not the whole. That is my 
personal opinion. I believe in a centralized University system allowing 
sufficient independence on the campuses for them to run their campus 
within the scope of the policy set by the President and the Regents, and 
without interference, but with sufficient controls that they can t be 
recognized as the local agency serving that section of the state. I don t 
think I am drawing a fine line, I don t try to, but there is a happy medium 
between one extreme where you run the show completely independently, pay 
no attention to the President or the Regents or the fiscal officers, and 
the other, where you have a combined centralization for economy and effi 
ciency and a coordinated effort. And not a 100 per cent duplication in 
every campus because 1 don t think that the state can afford it. 

I don t think we need as many graduate programs on every campus as 
we have today. Academically-wise I think we have gone too far in giving 
emphasis to graduate training on every campus. We can t afford the major 
laboratories and major libraries on every campus. That isn t the way the 
system was to be set up, it didn t start out that way. We now have 
graduate training on every campus. As a matter of fact we start with 
graduate training in certain places. I think the basic start of under 
graduate training should be fundamental and then emphasize the graduate 
programs in major centers. Now some specialization, like Scripps and 



- 102 - 



JC: Riverside, has to be maintained for oceanographic and agricultural work, 
specialized agricultural work like the Experiment Station at Riverside. 

VAS: Doesn t this also mean limitation of research though, automatically? 

JC: Not necessarily, not necessarily. Before funds were as free as they are 
today on the federal side, every man on every campus that was worth his 
salt was doing research in his own field, that is what he is hired for, 
part of the reason that he is hired; for teaching, public service and re 
search, those three. He was taking it out of his departmental funds for 
whatever he could get, wherever he could scrape it up, but he was always 
doing it on his own. He was finding ways of improving himself in his own 
field, if he was in the academic field. Not many of them had research 
money too, there is no question about that. It wasn t as generous as it 
is today. Any man in the state colleges today is doing research right 
now. They are not supposed to be research institutions, but the good 
teachers are good researchers, out improving themselves every day. I 
think that is basic to the employment of any faculty man in this institution. 

VAS: Except, doesn t it make a qualification for being a good faculty member 

not only the capacity to do research, but the capacity to find the where 
withal to do it. 

JC: It will come if he has a good program. The funds will come. There are 
thousands of places they can come from today, foundations. 

VAS: Well, I mean before. 

JC: Well, there were always a few foundations that provided research money for 
the competent people who had a good program. Now the emphasis is on get 
ting as many graduate students as you can to do the research work. Get a 



- 103 - 

JC: project, supervise the research and training. Now that is the basis for a 
lot of the graduate training today. In my opinion ... I am talking in a 
field that is really not my business, but I have some definite feelings 
on this score. 

The California and Western Conference Cost and Statistical Study 

VAS: Actually we got through these questions on the changing structure of 
business operations. We have a series of questions on this cost and 
statistical study and we may be able to just wind this up with this. 
Now where did the idea for that study originate? 

JC: Oh, I think primarily in our relationship with the legislature in pre 
senting our budget, and the inadequate figures for comparison and costs, 
that were asked for by the legislature and by Alan Post. Time and time 
again the budget was divided by the students and the figures were fantastic 
because we were doing a great deal of research and there were absolutely 
no comparative figures any place in the country. Everybody had a cost 
figure, but they did that their own way. I had talked a number of times 
with Alan Post and made the suggestion to him that if we could get President 
Sproul to write to other schools maybe we could stimulate somebody to fund 
a program of study and maybe we could get a few people interested. 1 had 
talked to my friends in the Big Ten and that is where we were going to 
start our work; fellows like Bill Middlebrook of Minnesota; and Lloyd Morey 
from Illinois; Kettler of Purdue; Michigan; and Phil May of Michigan State. 
All of those business officers were good friends and had similar problems 
with their state government; we all tried to show that higher education 



- 104 - 



JC: was not getting out of line in costs throughout the country. President 
Sproul liked the idea and he wrote to President Wells at Indiana, and 
Lloyd Morey at Illinois, and then he wrote to the President of Minnesota 
and primarily to Bill Middlebrook, who we all looked upon then as the 
"dean of the business officers." 

VAS: He was at Michigan? 

JC: He was at Minnesota. As it turned out he had favorable replies, and Bill 
Middlebrook and Lloyd Morey and Bob Stewart and Kettler (assistant at 
Purdue now, but he was the vice-president and business manager of Purdue) 
agreed to sit down and talk about it. President Sproul apparently in 
quired at one of the foundations for a grant to make the study and we did 
get favorable replies from these people saying that they would be glad to 
cooperate. The grant was given and we proceeded to develop -- 

VAS : Where did the grant come from? 

JC: Either Rockefeller or Ford, I forget which one gave it. It is in the book. 
Bill Middlebrook was named the chairman, and a number of us, including 
Ray Kettler, who later came to us from Purdue, were on it. It was an in 
teresting experience, after the final go ahead was given, to try to get 
people to finally sign up and say, yes, we will examine our costs in a 
detailed cost accounting way and exchange with others. Faculty were asked 
to serve, and the resistance was amazing because it meant a time and motion 
study on people, and they thought that was an interference with the academic 
life, and as a consequence many institutions dropped out who at the begin 
ning said they would go; they found resistance and did not go. And those 
that were finally left were a good cross section, but not as good as we would 



- 105 - 



JC: have liked, but it was representative of the large public institutions 
and small public institutions and the private schools. 

VAS : How many schools all together? 

JC: Without checking the book, I believe there were twelve or fourteen, I am 
not exactly sure. It was divided into three sections, the academic side, 
the operation plant maintenance and operation of plant, and construction. 

VAS: Did you encounter fear of the comparisons inevitably? 

JC: One of the main objections was that somebody said, "I am not going to give 
my figures because the next time around my figures will appear and they 
will use my figures to their advantage and then they will know what we are 
getting and they will know what our salary scale is and they will steal 
our faculty." It really became a question of competition for the good 
faculty people and there was fear that it would be used to the detriment 
of one segment of the country versus the other. This was one of the ideas 
that people gathered, that what they were really trying to do was trying 
to find out what the other guy was paying in salaries so they could compete 
or steal his chemistry man or his English man or his engineering man, 
which of course had nothing to do with what we were trying to find out. 
We were trying to show that we were spending the money wisely to our gov 
ernments and trustees that had asked for it. 

VAS: How much time did this study require of you personally? 

JC: Oh, I suppose maybe ten meetings in a period of the study, maybe more, 

but three or four days at a time, and generally in the Middle West because 
that was where most of the people were. 

VAS: How long was this study under way? 



- 106 - 



JC: I think it was a two-year period, if I am not mistaken, maybe longer. 
But we had a staff and a number of people who were released full-time 
from some of the midwestern institutions to take it on full time. 

VAS: How did you handle it internally here? 

JC: We handled it with our own staff. I think there were two or three people 
put on it. In the accounting it was primarily an accounting function, 
taking the cost figures and putting it in order. 

VAS : Did it require an increase in staff? 

JC: I don t believe it did. I think people were transferred out of their 

regular positions and put on this assignment full-time, but everyone had 
to contribute something besides the money we had from the foundation. 
We had, in my opinion, what should have been good comparisons to be used 
(and it was used) for a number of years, but to be a real useful instrument 
for comparison it should have been kept up to date, and everybody agreed 
that it should have been. It was not. Except on the maintenance and 
operation of plant, I think they are still using that information. 

VAS: You were chairman of that? 

JC: That is right. 

VAS: Did you find any similarities between institutions when you got into that? 

JC: Well we found great variations: climate, types of power, electric service, 
the cold climates of the winters of the midwest against our costs. Other 
services like police and fire some of them had their own fire depart 
ments. In other parts of the country some of them had good community 
relations and 100 per cent services from the local community, police and 
fire and public health services and all, and some of them paid directly 



- 107 - 



JC: to the city government for those services, others didn t pay anything. 
Some of them used coal, some of them used gas or oil for heat. But in 
trying to balance out the costs, we got the unit costs down to a square 
foot basis. If I am not mistaken, the last budget presentation of the 
University had three or four comparisons; I think most of them have 
dropped that type of thing but Arnold Intorf carried it on here for us 
for many years , tried to keep it up to date and got two or three others 
who did the same thing, and it was helpful to at least give a comparison 
to some other institutions which we don t have today. I still think it 
would be a good idea. 

VAS: This would be -- 

JC: Well, something to show others. What do you accomplish when you show it? 
You just show that you are not out of line with Michigan, which is a good 
school, you are not out of line with Purdue, a good institution. 

VAS: Don t some of these differences that you mention really create a tremendous 
cost difference? 

JC: Oh, yes, but you can always explain them after you have seen them. If you 
compared the English department at Michigan with the English department at 
Berkeley, comparable institutions, it might be well, if they are not any 
where near in line, to take a new look. Even if you looked at the gross 
budgets it would be an interesting examination to determine what you are 
doing or what they are doing or why you are so good and they are so poor. 

VAS: And it could just be a difference in the labor market, or academic -- 

JC: Or living conditions. The cost of living in California everyone knows is 
probably the highest in the country, or one of the highest. My little 



- 108 - 

JC: experience, just a few weeks ago, going into states like Wyoming and 

Montana and Idaho, just to go into a restaurant shows a great variation. 
The same kind of a meal that you would buy here for five or six dollars 
you could get there for two and a half or three dollars. And those 
kinds of things have to be taken into account when you are making 
evaluations of this kind. 

VAS: Were there any kind of suggestions in the report for accounting or opera 
tional changes and so on? Did we make any effort to conform to those? 

JC: I think the accounting officers, as they met staff people that did the 
job, got ideas of improvement of their own methods of keeping records. 
I know that is true of the division that I worked with. They had always, 
for management purposes, wanted to get an idea of how to follow these 
things, and we arrived at a square foot cost basis in trying to evaluate 
the maintenance and operation of plant which was applied to everything, 
on the business side. I do think efforts were made to keep records and 
cost accounting. How much more expanded into the academic side I am 
not sure of. I know that on the construction side we are still doing it 
that way. I know Vice-President Morgan was. 

VAS: What was the response of our legislature to this when it was issued? 

JC: Oh, I think Alan Post was pleased with it. He was pleased to know that 
we were not too far out of line of most of the comparisons that were 
made. This, you might say, was a hollow satisfaction, but at least for 
the rest of the time I served in the legislature he stopped asking for it. 
We had every year, and we still have, a comparison on the maintenance 
and operation of plant. We do not have anything on the academic costs. 
But I think the report served its purpose for that time being, and I do 



- 109 - 

JC: think we are coming to a point now where cost comparisons are going to 
be an important factor in all higher education. 

VAS: To your knowledge, had there been anything like this since that time, any 
comparative study? 

JC: I am sure there must be something, but I do not know. We didn t go on 

with comparisons other than maintenance and operation of plant, but I am 
sure that some of the other foundations must have picked up these things 
and made comparisons. 

VAS: Were any of the other institutions compelled to major reforms or any 
thing like that as a result of this? 

JC: Not that I recall. 

VAS: What it boiled down to in many respects was just an accounting practice, 
didn t it? 

JC: No. You could say that it was a way you keep your books. I do think 

that it did improve the accounting practices in some places, maybe here 
too, but I don t think that it accomplished as much as we hoped. I 
don t think we had as much support for doing it as those of us that 
felt it was important wished. 

VAS i And this support that was lacking was from the other institutions. 

JC: That is correct. Then men like Middlebrook, Stewart and Morey retired 
and left the institutions. There is a lack of interest and resistance 
from some people to do this at all, to compare anything. They do compare 
salaries now, as you know, for the salary program. But that has been 
established for ten or fifteen years. 

VAS: Would it be possible to refine anything like this where you were able 



- 110 - 



VAS: to get an index for institutions across the country where you could 

build into it things like cost of living, differences in climate, etc.? 
You could get an index figure rather than get an actual cost. 

JC: I do think a good cost analysis man today could do it without much 
trouble and you don t have to go into too much detail. 

VAS: And the index would be a pretty reliable thing. 

JC: I would think so, yes. 

VAS: And this would really be what the people in Sacramento want. 

JC: This is what the public is going to eventually demand. I keep hearing 

it all the time, adding tuition, adding tuition. Now Stanford just added 
tuition, Santa Clara just added tuition, and everyone knows these costs 
are going up. Sooner or later some public bodies, and it is going to 
come in the public bodies, are going to say, "Where are these costs going?" 
Then you are going to have to answer it. The fires are going to be started 
and you are going to have to put them out. I think it would be very 
helpful to have a study of the costs of higher education for the country. 
Maybe not on all the institutions, but key institutions, it would be 
very helpful. 

Summing Up the University Representative s Service 

VAS: Now, have you got anything on your mind that you would like to mention? 

JC: I was thinking that the other day, in one of our interviews, we discussed 
people in the legislature. We started naming different ones that had a 
great influence on the University. I have become concerned because I 
don t know how many names you plan to use in your study. Personally I 



- Ill - 



JC: don t wish to neglect anybody, because everyone was helpful. 

VAS: Well, if I use these names at all for my purposes it will be in the con 
text of some specific legislation, or something like that, where someone 
was helpful. This isn t going to be a widely published thing. 

JC: Yes, but there are a lot of people over a period of years that have been 
so helpful. 

VAS: Surely when you read this over, Jim, if you want to add to it, you can. 

JC: Well, people like Randolph Collier I think I mentioned him -- George 
Hatfield I think I mentioned him. I began to get involved in things 
like agriculture and, as of now, this BART situation, transportation, 
those people still call on me. Not Hatfield, because he is deceased. 
But Collier, the other day he had a problem with his daughter on the 
Berkeley campus and he was frantic and he called me as he always did, 
when something was wrong with one of his constituents or his children. 
I am not sure he graduated from here, but his kids have graduated here 
and he is terribly devoted and interested. He is very critical of 
certain activities in recent years. 

VAS: Is he the author of the tuition law? 

JC: Oh, no, that is Collier of Los Angeles. No, this is Randolph Collier from 
Yreka, northern California. 

VAS: This is an interesting thing. I have known, Jim, that you have done this - 
a constituent gets into difficulty with the University and the legislator 
often calls. Were you able to help them out in most of the instances? 

JC: Yes, many times we straightened things out. 

VAS : What happens when they come? 



- 112 - 



JC: Well I had a case just two or three weeks ago. A former assemblyman 

called on me about a non-resident client of his, a lawyer. He had al 
ready been to the attorney, and had been to Mrs. Gibson, and the answer 
was that they had to go to court to get the change of control of the 
daughter because the family had been separated and the law is very 
specific. Well, he made the boast that he knew Jim Corley and was 
going to get it changed. This was silly. I have never gone beyond the 
rules of the University to ask special favors from any legislator at 
any time. All things being equal, I have asked that they consider the 
problem, but I have never interfered in housing, admission to the medical 
school, or dental school, or admission to the University, or non-resident 
fee, or anything that would violate the University rules. I just lived 
by the rules and they had to live by them too, senator, governor, con 
gressman or whoever. 

VAS: They always had the satisfaction of going to the top. 

JC: I did everything that I could within the rules to try to help them. 

Frequently the request and the circumstances in which they were turned 
down were not clearly understood by the parent because the student that 
was turned down was frequently not telling the full story. The University 
didn t discriminate, they treated everyone equally, no matter who he was. 
I did get a lot of help from the medical school getting sick constituents 
or sick legislators in to have treatment, and I know the medical school 
did a great job on those people and they are still doing it. Dr. William 
Kerr called it the "Corley Clinic" and this even went for the veterinary 
school at Davis, with sick animals. 



- 113 - 

VAS: Actually this is not a service that isn t available to any citizen. 

JC: It is available to every citizen that wants it. They don t generally 
get the attention of the vice-president to see that they get it, but I 
am glad to find that both Jay Michaels and Mrs. Gibson are carrying on 
the same kind of special effort no matter where it is, to see that they 
get some attention. Unfortunately, the other day when Senator Collier 
called he got a secretary, and she switched him to another secretary, 
and she switched him to another secretary, and before they got through 
there were four secretaries and he slammed down the phone and said, 
"Call Jim Corley!" Well it was unfortunate that it happened that way. 
Whether he is a senator or not, he shouldn t be treated that way. 
Somebody ought to be able to give an answer a little more promptly to 
somebody in trouble. We had made it a point to render service personally 
for every member of the legislature, because that is our relationship 
that was our relationship. 



- 114 - 

APPENDIX 

QUESTIONS SENT TO MR. CORLEY BY MR. STADTMAN 
First Series of Questions 

1. When did you become responsible for representing the University in 
Sacramento? 

2. To what extent did President Sproul take a personal hand in Sacramento 
representations in the 1930 s and 1940 s? 

3. To what extent did President Kerr take a personal hand in Sacramento 
representations ? 

4. Were you involved in Sacramento during the Merriam budgets? 

5. How did the University cope with the economy requirements in the 1930 3? 

6. Did the war complicate your problems in Sacramento? If so, in what way? 

7. Were you at all involved in Washington transactions during the War? 

8. Would you describe the differences in budget presentation through the 
administrations of: 

a. Culbert Olson 

b. Earl Warren 

c. Goodwin J. Knight 

d. Edmund G. Brown 

e. Ronald Reagan 

9. Do you remember when the work-load principle for University support was 
developed? 

10. What happened to the horse racing revenues that once came to the University? 

11. What, according to your impression, was the origin of the idea to bring 
Santa Barbara into the University system? 

12. Were you involved in the transfer of Goleta to the University? 

13. Has there been a marked difference between the attitudes of Democratic and 
Republican majorities in the Assembly and Senate toward the University? 

14. What has been the most difficult thing to get the legislature to under 
stand about the University? 

15. Is it true that the Legislature tends to emphasize the teaching function 
of the University in its consideration of budget? 

16. Would you mind telling us who some of the most loyal supporters (living 
or dead) of the University were in the legislature during your years of 
representation in Sacramento? 



- 115 - 



17. Who were some of the toughest opponents? 

18. To what extent did the Regents take any personal hand in representing 
the University in Sacramento? 

19. Would you mind telling me what your job entailed --what kind of tasks 
did you have to performin order to represent the University well? 

20. What were your most effective techniques? 

21. What, in so far as you remember it, was the origin of the 1960 Master 
Plan? Did it really start in the legislature? How did Dorothy Donohue 
get interested? 

22. Do you believe that the Legislature, in general, is aware of its 
constitutional limitations in so far as control of the University is 
concerned? Are the legislators who are aware of it resentful? 

23. What kinds of activities on the campuses of the University provide 

a helpful and positive picture of the University in the minds of the 
legislators? 

( 

24. What ones tend to hurt the University 

25. Do you recall any instances where a legislator became critical of 
the University for any classroom conduct of a professor? 

26. Were you an officer of the Regents between 1940 and 1959? If so, 
how did the fact affect your relationship, with the administration? 

27. Could you describe the role of the Legislative Auditor? 

28. Has his attitude toward the University changed over the years? 



- 116 - 

APPENDIX 
Second Series of Questions 

1. Beyond presenting the financial statement, what specific responsibilities 

to the Regents did the Comptroller have? Did you work directly through 
the Committee on Finance, and if so, did they give you a relatively free 
reini to implement policies? 

2. What was your specific function in the negotiation of government research 
contracts? Which contracts do you remember as being particularly sig 
nificant in the growth of the University? 

What specific building projects on the various campuses did you think 
most important to the development of the University in general and to 
the specific growth of the individual campuses? 

4. As Comptroller what was your relationship to the academic and research 
aspects of the University (obviously excepting your negotiation of gov 
ernment research contracts)? Did you have much interaction with the 
faculty other than administration in the 1940 s, e.g. was there hostility 
in that non-academics had accrued large amounts of control of the 
University s life? 

5. How closely did you, in your early years as Comptroller, work with the 
President? Did he take a strong personal role in the planning and 
implementation of internal financial policy? 

6. It has been said that in the 1940 s the three most powerful and influen 
tial offices within the University were the Regents, the President and 
the Comptroller. Do you think that this is by and large correct? If 
so, in what ways did you assume duties and obligations not originally 
within the Regents definition of the Comptroller s office? 

7. Why in 1942 did President Sproul make the accounting officer report 
directly tp him instead of through the Comptroller s office as had 
previously been done? Was this the beginning of the administrative 
spjllt in the Comptroller s office that was finally realized in the 
re-organization of 1949? 

8. What was your personal reaction to your appointment as Vice-President 
Business Affairs in 1949? Did you personally have much to do with the 
change? Did Sproul? 

9. What were the actual effects of your change in 1949 to Vice-President s 
status? Which of the functions of the Comptroller s office did you re 
tain and which went to the Chief Accounting Officer? 

10. Was there any problem or friction in that your office was responsible 
to both the President and the Regents? Did you prefer this arrangement 
to the later one of being solely under the President s auspices? 



- 117 - 

11. Now that you were an officer of the University, what was your relation 
ship to the officers of the Regents? Was there any overlap in your spec 
ific duties as Vice-President Business Affairs and those of the Treasurer 
of the Regents (such as negotiation of government contracts and land 
acquisition for the new campuses)? 

12. How much did you have to do with the acquisition of land for the new 
campuses? Was this actually within the purview of your office as vice- 
president or was it delegated to you by the President and/or Regents as 
needs arose? Who else was involved in these acquisitions of land? 

13. After you became a vice-president how much were you concerned with the 
implementation of internal business policy? Were your duties actually 
removed from the technical implementation of business administration 
and moving toward policy formulation? 

14. After 1949 it seems that your duties became increasingly more narrow in 
scope. Did you particularly like this and was it in fact on your own 
request? Did you think you were accomplishing all that you might for 
the University? 

Questions on the California a"nd Western Conference Cost and Statistical 
Study 

1. Where and with whom did the idea for this Cost Study originate? 

2. Were there problems involved in getting other universities to enter the 
program? What about funding (the Fund for the Advancement of Education 
gave a partial grant) -- where did the rest come from? 

3. As Vice-President Business Affairs in 1954 did this study take up much 
of your work time in Berkeley? Did you travel quite a bit? 

4. As Chairman of the Study s committee on Physical Plant did you see many 
similarities between the different universities problems concerning 
space allocation and building priorities? 

5. In 1954 were any of the other 14 universities facing problems of the mag 
nitude or significance that UC was facing? Were the costs and statistics 
similar enough to produce some generalizations about the cost of higher 
education in the U.S.? 

6. As Business Affairs officer at UC were you personally able to implement any 
of the suggestions in the report? If so, did this effectuate any signifi 
cant economies in UC s budgets for the coming years? Was there any 
response in the State Legislature? 

7. Was this tetudy used in later times as a guide for further comparative 
surveys of higher education or was it a "one-time only" proposition? 

8. Was there much national interest in the study and did many schools follow 
any of the suggestions set down in the report? 

9. What do you think was the most important effect of the study? What im 
portant conclusions were reached and did the study have significant im 
plications for the funding of higher education at other schools? 



- 118 - 



PARTIAL INDEX 



Ahlport, Brodie, 32,34 

Atomic Energy Commission (see Los Alamos Project) 

Baker, Lewis, 14,95 

Boyd, Philip, 48 

Breed, Arthur, Jr., 3,46 

Brown, Bob, 56,57 

Brown, Edmund "Pat", 15,17,34 

Brown, Ralph, 48 

Burns, Hugh, 24,25,48 

Byerly, Lillian, 55 

Caldecott, Thomas, 47 

California Polytechnic, 21 

California State College System, 24-27,29,51-54 

California State Leglislature, and U.C. , 35-38,42-44,67-76, and see 

Table of Contents 

California Taxpayers Association, 56,57 

California and Western Conference Cost and Statistical Study, 103-110 
Campbell, W.W. , 78 
Chandler, Dorothy, 33 
Collier, Randolph, 111,113 
Condren, Clive, 55 

Davis, Philip, 11,48-51 
Davis, Tom, 49 
Dean, James, 4,5,83 
Dolwig, Richard, 48 

Ehrman, Sidney, 79 
Evans, Robert, 82 

Fleishhacker, Mortimer, 79 

Giannini, A. P., 7,79 
Gibson, Dorothy, 55,112,113 
Groff, Ellis, 18 
Groves, Leslie, 13 



- 119 - 



Hatfield, George, 48, 111 
Hawer, Fred, 11,48,52 
Hearst, Catherine, 33 
Holy, Tom, 9 
Hulse, Ben, 4 

Johnson, Gardiner, 3,46 

Keller, Dave, 81,82 
Kerley, Bob, 55 
Kerr, Clark, 5,6,77,93 
Kerr, William J., 47,112 
Kettler, Ray, 103,104 
Klawens , Rufus, 2 
Knight, Goodwin, 15,17,33 

Los Alamos Project, 13,14,81,95 
Lowery, Lloyd, 46 
Lundberg, Olaf, 77 

May, Philip, 103 
McAteer, Eugene, 48 
McBride, Tom, 47 
McEnerney, Garrett, 3,79 
Michaels, Jay, 113 
Middlebrook, Bill, 103,104,109 
Miller, George, 48 
Miller, Jim, 55 
Millington, Seth, 6,7 
Morey, Lloyd, 103,104,109 
Morgan, Elmo, 82,97,108 
Mulford, Don, 40,53 

Neylan, John Francis, 79 
Nichols, Luther, 1-3,52,78 
Nimitz, Chester W. , 87 

Olson, Culbert, 15,32-34 

Pauley, Edwin, 32,34,52 

Peterson, Lynn, 2 

Post, Alan, 5,15-17,60,63-66,82,103,108 

Powers, Harold, 47 



- 120 - 



Reagan, Ronald, 15,17,34 

Regents (see University of California) 

Rich, William, 47 

Robertson, Alfred W. , 24,51 

Rosenthal, William, 48 

Rumford, Byron, 50 

Sproul, Robert Gordon, 1,3-6,13,49,50,52,78-80,88,90,92-94,104 
Stewart, Robert, 104,109 
Storke, Thomas, 3? 

Taylor, George, 18 

Underbill, Robert M. , 13,14,29,79,81,89,94,95 

University of California, alumni influence in Sacramento, 28 

University of California, budget, 1930s, 8-12 

University of California, budget growth rate, 18-24 

University of California, comptroller s office in the 1940s, 90-97; the 

responsibilities of the comptroller s office, 76-89 
University of California, contract research, 13 
University of California, press and public relations, 67-76 
University of California, Regents, and budget presentation, 3-7,52; 

finance committee, 79,88,89; and partisanship, 32-34 
University of California at Berkeley, building, 83; tax roll, 36; the 

College of Agriculture, 9,20,21 
University of California at Los Angeles, physical development, 11,12,47 

50 

University of California, northern-southern antagonisms, 50 
University of California ,at Santa Barbara, 24,25,29,30,51 
University of California at San Francisco, medical center costs, 83 
University of California, statewide building, 83-85; decentralization, 

96-103 
Unruh, Jesse, 48 

Vandergrift, Roland, 15,17,18,62 
Vicky, Randall, 48 

Warren, Earl, 12,15,17,33,83 
Weaver, Roscoe, 81,82,94 
Williams, Howard, 85 
Williamson, Ray, 47 
Wollenberg, Albert, 10,47 



-121- 



ADDENDUM 

The following was written by Mr. Corley as 
a supplement to his interview and was given 
to the Regional Oral History Office in 
August 1970. At the same time Mr. Corley 
donated to the University Archives a large 
photo of all the members of the Comptroller s 
staff in the 1940 s. 

This is a supplemental report describing the Comptroller s 
staff after my appointment of December of 19^0 and giving the 
names of those persons who not only cooperated in the 
development of management and maintenance of plant and 
buildings of the University but of all the business services. 
They also cooperated In development of facts and figures for 
use in Sacramento and appeared at legislative hearings in the 
presentation of the University s program. 

The Berkeley campus was first managed by Mr. William 
Norton who came to the business office from Agricultural 
Extension Service after managing the University s display 
at the Treasure Island Pair. Mr. Norton was also one of our 
most capable business managers and was instrumental in beginning 
a major program for dormitories on the Berkeley campus which 
later extended to other campuses in the University. Assistants 
to Mr. Norton: Mr. James Miller who later became my assistant 
in Business Affairs, Mr. Robert Kerley who also later became 
my assistant in the Office of Vice President - Business 
Affairs and Government Relations, and Mr. Richard Nedderson 
who later became my assistant and also was directly responsible 
for the business management of the dormitories established 
on the Berkeley campus. All of these men contributed greatly 
to the development and management of the Berkeley campus and 
also provided assistance both in Washington and Sacramento for 
matters pertaining to the University government program. 
Mr. William Monahan, who was formerly a graduate manager of 
the A.S.U.C., became the business manager for the Berkeley 
campus under Chancellor Clark Kerr. Mr. James Miller later 
became the manager of the astronomy program in Arizona known 
as the Kitt Peak National Observatory and is now operating that 
government program. Mr. Robert Kerley left the University to 
become the Vice President of the University of Kentucky and 
is now the Vice President of Business and Treasurer of John 
Hopkins University. Mr. Monahan has retired and Mr. Nedderson 
has retired. All of these people, however, contributed a 
great deal to the program of development of the Berkeley campus 



-ISI- 









-122- 

and deserve recognition In that respect. Mr. Robert Kerley 
was an expert In relationships with the federal government 
and did provide a great assistance to me In the legislative 
process at Sacramento. Mr. Kerley has become a national 
figure In relationships with government In Washington for 
higher education and Is recognized throughout the country In 
that respect. 

Another member of my staff, Dr. George Petti tt, who 
formerly was assistant to President Sproul added greatly to 
our government relations program and In the consideration of 
contracts and grants which have come to us from the federal 
and state governments. With his great knowledge of the 
academic world (since he was a professor of anthropology 
on the Berkeley campus as well as administrative assistant 
In the Public Affairs office) he contributed a great deal to 
the academic understanding of program of contracts and grants. 

On the Davis campus, the assistant comptroller was Mr. 
Demlng McCllse, later transferred to the Los Angeles campus 
as assistant comptroller and business manager? he was followed 
by Mr. Ira F. Smith, long-time chief accounting officer for 
the Davis campus and assistant comptroller for many years. 
Mr. Smith was followed by Mr. Cecil Norrls as business manager 
for the Davis campus. All of these men contributed a great 
deal to our relationships in Sacramento because of the 
proximity of the Davis campus to Sacramento. With their 
assistance and encouragement and with the encouragement of the 
administration of the College of Agriculture under Deans 
C. B. Hutchison and Knowles Ryerson, the development of the 
wine tasting program (under the direction of Dr. Maynard 
Amerlne) came into being and provided an opportunity to 
present some of the University s fine work to the members of 
the Legislature and the public generally. Chancellor Smil 
Mrak was also very helpful In his contributions to our legis 
lative program in Sacramento. 

The Scripps Institute at La Jolla was managed by 
business manager John Kirby with Director Roger Nevelle. 
Both of these men were most helpful in the development and 
expansion of the La Jolla campus and provided interesting 
research material and reports for members of the Legislature, 
particularly as it related to oceanographic legislation and 
the fishing industry. They were very helpful in testimony 
before committees regarding budget and other research 
programs of that division of the University. 

The Los Angeles campus began operations under the 















if- 



i :i> 4 









-123- 

asslstant comptrollership of Robert Underbill and In 1930, 

when President Sproul was named to the Presidency of the 

University, Mr. Underbill was named as secretary-treasurer of 

the Regents and Mr. Luther Nichols, formerly assistant comptroller 

for Berkeley and statewide, was named to the comptrollership 

under President Sproul. Following Mr. Underbill s assistant 

comptrollership at Los Angeles, Mr. Deming Maclise at Davis 

was transferred to Los Angeles as its assistant comptroller. 

The Los Angeles campus, being the fastest growing educational 

institution in the country, was aided greatly by Mr. Maclise, 

who was followed by assistant comptroller and later business 

manager, George Taylor, formerly a chief accounting officer 

for the University. Mr. Taylor was responsible for many 

statistics and reports on structural materials which was 

useful in budget presentations and legislative hearings on 

the capital improvement and the growth in the southern part 

of the state. Mr. Taylor was followed by Mr. Paul Hammon, 

who now is acting as business manager for the Los Angeles campus. 

Likewise, Mr. Hammon was a part of the team operation in the 

southern part of the state. 

The Riverside campus was always known as the Citrus 
Experiment Station, devoted primarily to agriculture, 
and under the business management of Mr. William Drew. 
Assistance was given to me in my relationship with Sacramento 
because of the importance of the agriculture industry in 
California. Mr. Drew not only was the business manager, but 
also served as the chief accounting officer for the campus 
and contributed a great deal to its progress and development. 
He was succeeded by Mr. Charles O Neill, coming to the University 
as business manager from the Riverside Chamber of Commerce. 
Mr. O Neill s personality and ability to serve the program 
of the University to the community and to the members of the 
Legislature in that area was most helpful In the Sacramento 
program. 

The Santa Barbara campus came to the University through 
legislative action in the transfer of Santa Barbara State 
College to the University through the authorship of legislation 
by Assemblyman Robertson of that city. The development of 
Santa Barbara was slow but nevertheless has expanded to one of 
the finest campuses in the University system. The business 
manager for the Santa Barbara campus was Mr. Duane Muncy, a 
transfer from the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory operated 
by the University for the federal government in Los Alamos, 
New Mexico. Mr. Muncey, in a great community relationship 
job In our new development, was a fine contributor to our 
program In Sacramento. He was followed by Mr. Sedge Thompson, 



-124- 

a transfer from the Berkeley campus. Mr. Thompson spent a 
number of years at Santa Barbara in the early years of growth 
expansion and contributed greatly to the community relationship 
at the Santa Barbara campus to the city of Santa Barbara, 
and our relationship with legislators not only in that area 
but also in Sacramento. He is now at the University of Washing 
ton in Seattle. 

On the San Francisco campus, an important factor in the 
University s expansion and development program from the 
standpoint of the Comptroller s office management in the 
first years of my comptrollership, the assistant comptroller 
was Mr. Stanley Durie who acted as the business manager and 
comptroller until his death in 19^0. He was succeeded by 
Mr. William Hall, formerly assistant comptroller, who then 
became assistant comptroller and business manager and 
superintendent of the hospital. The San Francisco campus 
provided the first opportunity for the University to obtain 
funds for capital improvement just prior to the war in early 
19^0. The first two million dollar program presented to the 
Legislature was for the first building program during my 
experience in Sacramento: for the San Francisco campus s 
new hospital. This program was presented by members of the 
staff of the San Francisco medical school and was led by Dr. 
William A. Kerr, former dean of the medical school in San 
Francisco. Dr. Kerr also developed what was formerly known 
as the Kerr-Corley Clinic to care for members of the Legislature, 
their families and their constituents at request, and provided 
an opportunity for service by the University to the public 
generally In a way that has brought great credit to the 
University and its family, and particularly this division of 
operation. Mr. John Legen succeeded Dr. Kerr and enabled us to 
carry on the present service which was later followed by other 
members of the University family in San Francisco. Other members 
to succeed Mr. Hall and Mr. Durle were Mr. Stanley Bataman 
and Mr. Harold Hixon, both now in the hospital administration 
at the San Francisco campus. Mr. R. J. Stull came to the 
University at the time of the growth of the building program 
for medical education and for 15 years was coordinator of 
medical and health sciences under President Sproul. Mr. 
Stull was a member of the comptroller s staff. Mr. Stull 
contributed greatly to the expansion and development of medical 
and health sciences within the University community, both In 
Los Angeles and San Francisco, and was responsible for much of 
the planning and development of these two great institutions. 

The Lick Observatory at Mt. Hamilton was handled entirely 
by the director, then Dr. Shane. The award of a grant for 



-125- 

funds came to the University under the first controversy 
In Sacramento over the telescope for Mt. Hamilton which was In 
the first thirty million dollars made available to the Univer 
sity for construction. This was a controversial Item before 
the Legislature and was handled In excellent fashion by the 
director who gave full cooperation and testimony In Sacramento. 

The Santa Cruz and Irvine campuses were established about 
the time of my retirement and were not established as part of 
the business office staff or the comptroller s staff as It 
was known In the earlier days, but have recently developed Into 
full-fledged campuses with full operations under the decentral 
ized administrative system. 

Under the organization of the Comptroller s staff, not 
only were there business managers on the individual campuses, 
but there were managers and directors of various business 
services under the comptroller s staff organization. These 
services represented the various types of programs needed 
for the faculty, students and administration for the mainten 
ance, operation and care of the campus and the handling of 
personnel. The purchasing department in the comptroller s 
office organization was first handled by Mr. Hovey, longtime 
purchasing agent for the entire University. He was succeeded 
by Mr. L. G. Baker who held that position until the time of 
my retirement in the University. Mr. Baker contributed a 
great deal, not only for the providing of supplies and materials 
and equipment to all of the campuses of the University, but as a 
special service during the war period in providing purchasing 
services for Los Alamos, Las Vegas, Chicago and other such 
war related activities as the University carried on during the 
wartime period. A great contribution was made by him to the 
University in the rendering of these services, not only to the 
people of California, but to the country as a whole. 

The Printing and Press Division of the Comptroller s office 
was first established under the management of the University 
printer, Mr. Joe Fllnn. He was the University printer when I 
was named comptroller in 19^-0 and was followed by the manager 
of the University press and printing department, Mr. Sam 
Parquhar. He made a great contribution to the publication and 
printing service of the University and provided many 
services in connection with the Sacramento operation. He was 
succeeded by Mr. Jack Young who is now manager of the Univer 
sity Printing and Press Division and had a unique ability for 
providing charts, graphs and other useful materials in 
presenting the University story to Sacramento. 



-126- 

Under an earlier division of duties, the newspaper, radio 
and communications department was handled by Mr. Harold Ellis 
who had very fine relationships with newspapers throughout 
the state. He particularly was qualified in relationships with 
small valley newspapers and aided greatly in presenting the 
University story to the public and was helpful to our relationship 
in Sacramento. He was succeeded by Mr. George Petti tt who 
also contributed a great deal and later became a close 
associate of President Sproul in his public relations program. 

The Division of Grounds and Buildings was handled bv two 
longtime and faithful employees of the University, Mr. E. A. 
Hutrill and Mr. John Aljats. They were primarily responsible 
for setting up a program of maintenance of grounds and buildings 
on the Berkeley campus and establishing such a program for 
the other divisions coming into the University family. Mr. 
Huglll has the distinction of being not only a longtime 
employee, but at one time his home was on the Berkeley campus. 
With Mr. Hugill was the University engineer, Mr. Herbert 
Poster, who not only served in the comptroller s division, 
but provided many services to the student body, such as the 
"Big C" on Charter Hill, helped design the track stadium, and 
had much to do with the development of the Berkeley campus. 
He also was active in the securing of many of our lands and 
the management of them with Mr. Robert Underhill, who was the 
University land agent and was an expert on handling our water 
resources which were maintained under the management of Mr. 
Underhill. Succeeding Mr. Foster as University engineer, Mr. 
R. A. Weaver, who later established his own division of 
construction and development with Mr. Weaver and Mr. Robert 
Evans, made a major contribution to the University s growth and 
development statewide. Not only did they provide tremendous 
services In that field, they both served as expert witnesses 
in Sacramento for capital outlay hearings and served on the 
public works board. The University will long be indebted to 
these two men for their great contribution to the growth and 
development of the physical plant of the University. Mr. R.A. 
Weaver was especially qualified as an engineer and under his 
supervision, Mr. Robert Evans was in charge of architecture. 
They acquired many government surplus lands, such as the 
Santa Barbara campus, part of the campus at San Diego, much 
of the land at Davis, and even Berkeley, and the Veterans 
property in Los Angeles. These men contributed a great deal 
to the rapid growth of the University of California system. 



-127- 

Under Mr. Hugill of Grounds and Buildings, the Campus 
Police developed. Walter Lee was the first captain for 
Berkeley. He was followed by William Wadman as chief of 
Campus Police, coordinating and organizing police departments 
on each campus, and handled security during and after the War - 
a most Important function at that time for our relationship 
with the Legislature. 

The Accounting Division of the University was an impor 
tant service function for the University and particularly for 
those of us in Sacramento who needed statistics, cost analysis, 
use of space, and other vital material to present the general 
operating budget and the capital outlay budget. It was first 
headed by H. H. Benedict, Chief Accounting Officer, who was 
later transferred to head the Insurance Division and was 
responsible for setting up the beginning of the University 
Retirement System. He was followed by Mr. George Taylor who 
later was transferred as assistant comptroller for the Los 
Angeles campus. Mr. Taylor was responsible for devising many 
charts and graphs for legislative hearings. He made a great 
contribution to the Sacramento work. 

Mr. Taylor was followed by Mr. Olaf Lundberg who was 
named comptroller, he came to the University from the external 
auditing firm of McLaren and Goode. Mr. George Stevens, long 
time assistant and acting comptroller after Mr. Lundberg s 
death likewise contributed a great deal in the statistical 
field for our budget presentations. He was followed by Ray 
Kettler who came to us from Purdue University and was very 
active in the preparation of material for budget purposes. 
He is now in the New York State University system. 

The division of Atomic Energy was handled entirely by 
Mr. Robert M. Underhill and supervised by him all during the 
war-time period, although two members of the University family 
acted as business managers and met with our business office 
staff each month. Mr. Kenneth Priestley, formerly the 
graduate manager of the ASUC was the first business manager 
for the Had Lab work on the hill. After his untimely death 
he was followed by Mr. Wallace Reynolds, an engineer from 
our Department of Grounds and Buildings and engineering 
staff. Both of these men contributed a great deal in our 
relationship wlt-h the AEC in Washington and in all of the 
atomic energy activities at Los Alamos, Livermore, Las Vegas 
and Berkeley. 



-128- 

Another division of the business office operation 
involved two important men, Mr. Al Dyhre who headed the first 
inventory operation for the entire University and furnished 
much Important information. Mr. Dyhre was transferred after 
Mr. Muncy s change of position at Los Alamos and remained at 
Los Alamos until his retirement as Business Manager. Mr. 
Dyhre was followed by Mr. John Noyes who set up much of the 
statistical and computer systems for Inventory .when the 
expansion of our medical schools and great amount of 
equipment and supplies forced us to a computer system. 
Mr. Noyes is frequently known as "Ding Dong Daddy" because 
he plays the chimes at Berkeley even today at the regular 
hours. 

A very important division of operations of the business 
office staff for the purpose of handling personnel and unions 
was headed by Mr. Boynton Kaiser who was our first personnel 
officer. He provided many excellent relationships with our 
unions and with the State Employees Association. This had a 
very important effect on our relationships with the State 
Government. Mr. Kaiser transferred to Stanford University 
handling much of its personnel work. 

During the war time period, I must give credit to Mrs. 
Connie Ward who handled the personnel work and did an excellent 
Job of relationships with the unions during that most 
difficult period. 

A smaller division In the Comptroller s staff was the 
Division of Safety, started and developed by Colonel Ted 
Haley who was with the University for a number, of years and provided 
a manual of safety for the entire University. He had much 
contact with the State Fire Marshall and the State Division 
of Atomic Energy. 

Another division was the business office of University 
Extension headed first by Mr. Boyd Rakestraw. His operation 
was important in bringing our educational program to the 
cities and counties throughout the State. He made a great 
contribution to the University s relationship statewide in this 
field. He was succeeded by a long time employee of the 
University, Mr. Henry Waring, who acted as business manager for 
many years. He has recently retired after 42 or 43 years of 
service and loyal contributions to the University. 

Not part of my staff, but a most important segment of the 
University family which should be recognized in the relationship 



- 












rr.v 






-129- 



with Sacramento is the General Counsel s office, headed in 
my first years by Mr. John U. Calkins, Jr., with Mr. 
Ashley Conerd as Assistant Counsel and largely responsible 
for our AEC contracts. These men were finally succeeded by 
Judge Tom Cunningham and his very excellent staff. In past 
and current years they provided analyses of bills, preparation 
of bills and resolutions, and general advice and counsel on 
all legislation affecting the University. Their support and 
assistance will never be known except by a few of us who had 
the privilege of working with them and their great contributions 
I am afraid will go unrecognized as it is not presented in 
The Centennial Record. 



Verne A. Stadttnan 



A.B. in Journalism, University of California at Berkeley, 1950. 

Managing Editor, California Monthly, 1950-1964. 

University Centennial Editor, 1964-1969. 

Editor, Centennial Record 

Author, The University of California, 1868-1968, published 1969. 

Now Editing, "The Heritage of the University of California", an 

anthology of major speeches and policy documents of the University s 

first fifty years. 

Editor and Staff Associate, Carnegie Commission on the Future of 

Higher Education, 1969 - 

Past president, American Alumni Council. 

Trustee, Editorial Projects for Education, which publishes The 

Chronicle of Higher Education. 



14 0417 



San Francisco Chronicle 
27 December 197^ 



Berkeley Gazette 
27 December 197^ 



James Corley, 
Lobbyist Dies 



James Corley, the Univer 
sity of California s lobbyist 
for nearly 25 years, died 
yesterday in John Muir Hos 
pital after suffering a heart 
attack in his Walnut Creek 
home. He was 70. 

Although he had retired in 
1965, he still held the honor 
ary title, vice president em 
eritus for governmental re 
lations and special projects, 
at the time of his death. 

Mr. Corley had been the 
center of one of the universi 
ty s most healed controver 
sies back in 1950 when it \vas 
revealed that he suggested 
the faculty sign loyalty 
oaths. 

At the time, he was vice 
president, serving under 
President Robert Gordon 
Sproul as comptroller, busi 
ness manager and lobbyist. 

It was during the McCar : 
thy period, and Mr. Corley 
said he had recommended 
the oath to avert passage of 
a "more dangerous constitu 
tional amendment intro- 
. duced into the state legisla 
ture." 

The legislation, he said, 
would have given the law 
makers control over univer 
sity funds and "the loyalty 
of its faculty and employees 
as well." A pledge to pursue 
the oath convinced lawmak 
ers to drop the bill, he said. 

Mr. Corley began his life 
long career at UC as a stu 
dent, graduating in 1926 with 
a bachelor of science de-. 
gree. The next year, he went 
to work on the Berkeley 
campus as a clerk in the stu 
dent loan fund office. 



Eventually, he became 
comptroller in 1939 when he 
was 37 the youngest man 
ever to hold that office. In 
1949, he became vice presi 
dent of business affairs, and 
in 1960, President Clark 
Kerr added the duties of 
lobbying and special 
projects to his tasks. 

After his retirement, he 
worked for a few years as 
consxillant to various agri 
cultural groups and the Cali 
fornia State University and 
Colleges system lobbying 
in Sacramento. 

During his lengthy career, 
he also served in Berkeley 
as a city councilman, direc 
tor of the Chamber of Com 
merce, and president of the 
Berkeley Breakfast Club. 

He is survived by his wife ; 
Marcellene Merrill Corley of 
Walnut Creek; a brother, 
Peter of Morro Bay; a son, 

James M. Corley, assistant 
vice chancellor at UC Berke 
ley; a daughter, Mrs. David 
Cruickshank of Visalia; and 
seven grandchildren. 

Private family funeral 
services will be held tomor 
row (Saturday) at the 
Berkeley Hills chapel, with 
Fred Stripp officiating. 

Friends are invited to a 
memorial service Monday at 
2 p.m. at Alumni House on 
the Berkeley campus. Con 
tributions are preferred to 
the Bear Backers Grant and 
Aid Fund in care of the uni 
versity s athletic depart- 
ment. 



Memorial rites slated 
for UC official Corley 



Public memorial services 
for James H. Corley, a Uni 
versity of California vice 
president and former Berke 
ley city councilman, will be 
conducted Monday at 2 p.m. 
in Alumni House of the Uni 
versity of California at Berke 
ley. 

Mr. Corley, 70, died early 
yesterday of heart failure in 
a Walnut Creek hospital. 

Corley, who until recently 
had lived in Berkeley, had 
been connected diring his en 
tire professional life with the 
University of California here, 
working up from cashier dur 
ing his student days in 1927 
to vice president for govern 
mental relations and special 
projects. 

CORLEY ALSO was UC s 
chief lobbyist in the 1950 s. 
He retired as an active vice 
president in 1964 after dif 
ferences with Clark Kerr, 
who was UC president at the 
time. 

Corley urged a harder line 
in dealing with students ar 
rested in the San Francisco s 
Row demonstrations in 1967, 
and was bitterly critical of 
UC s handling of the Free 
Speech Movement disrup 
tions. 

Corley served on the Berke 
ley City Council from June 
22. 1942, to February 1949. He 
was a charter member of 
Berkeley Breakfast, Club and 
its second president, in J937. 

The Modesto native was in 
volved in executive positions 
with the California Alumni 
Assn. from 1940 to 1954. 

HE WAS ONE of three UC 
vice-presidents emeritus. The 
others are Robert Underbill 
and Harry Wellman. 

Mr. Corley leaves his 
widow, the former Mar- 
cellene Merrill; a daughter, 



Patricia Ann; and a son, 
James M. Corley, who is as 
sistant vice-chancellor for 
employe affairs on the Berke 
ley campus. 

A graduate of UC here, he 
was comptroller at the Berke 
ley campus from 1939 to 
1948 and served as vice pres 
ident in charge of business 
affairs from 1948 to 1958, 
when he became vice pres 
ident. 

HE RETIRED July 27, 



t 

>vl 






JAMES H. CORLEY 



1967, but maintained an office 
on the UC campus as emeri 
tus vice president until his 
death. 

Private rites will be con 
ducted Saturday in Berkeley 
Hills Chapel. Dr. Fred Stripp 
will officiate. Public rites will 
follow on Monday. 

Contributions in his memo 
ry may be made to the Bear 
Backers Grant and Aid Fund, 
in care of the athletic depart 
ment, UC-Berkeley.