UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

BEN R. LAWTON

An interview conducted by
Laura L. Smail

Madison
1987

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction	iii

Tape 1, Side 1	1

Undergraduate at University of Wisconsin in the 1940s.  Financing his education.  Recollection of professors Wolfe and McElvain.  Assessment of successive UW-System presidents during his tenure as a regent.  Friction between President O'Neil and Chancellor Shain.  Regents and politics. 

Tape 1, Side 2	6

Treatment of Madison campus under merger.  Salary catch-up issue.  Presidential appointments. 

Index	9

Appendix	10

INTRODUCTION
	Dr. Ben R. Lawton was born on July 17, 1922, in Hillsboro, Wisconsin.  He came to the University of Wisconsin as an undergraduate in 1940, and earned his M.D. from the UW Medical School in 1946.  Dr. Lawton served on the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents from 1976 until his death in May of 1987.  His service on the board included terms as vice president in 1980 and 1981, chairmanship of the Education Committee, and two one-year terms as president in 1984 and 1985.
	In addition to his distinguished record of service to the University of Wisconsin, Dr. Lawton made a major contribution to the medical profession in Wisconsin. He was president of the UW Medical Alumni Association in 1961-62.  He served as president of the Wisconsin Surgical Society, chairman of the Governor's Health Policy and Program Council, and president of the Marshfield Clinic, one of the nation's leading rural health maintenance organizations.  
	In 1978, he received the UW Medical Alumni Citation and the State Medical Society Council award.  A preceptor of the UW Medical School since 1954, Dr. Lawton received the Max Fox Preceptorship Award for his service to medical education in June, 1981.
	This is not an oral history interview in the usual sense.  Laura Smail sent Dr. Lawton a list of questions (see Appendix) and at some point in March, 1987, he answered them, using a tape recorder.  We are very much indebted to Ardelle Specht, Dr. Lawton's secretary.  It was she who spoke to him about doing the interview. She then made all the arrangements for the interview, and when it was done transcribed the tapes.  
Madison, Wisconsin
May, 1987
Tape 1, Side 1
00:00:00
	This is Ben Lawton recording for the Oral History Project about the University of Wisconsin.  You have asked if I can say something about my student days in Madison.  This segment will be brief because my activities beyond survival were few.  My decision to attend the University was not difficult.  In those times the University of Wisconsin was really the only option available to the person with absolutely no visible means of financial support. The decision was also reinforced by the fact that I had two older brothers in attendance.  I entered the University in the fall of 1940.  At that time one of my older brothers, who was in pre-law, and I roomed together with three other people, one other one from our hometown of Viroqua. This group of five had an apartment on Murray Street directly south of the University Club, I think it was 424 Murray, and I am not sure that it exists at the present time.  I suspect it does not.  We had an arrangement where we had one big bedroom, a living room, and we cooked in the basement which had a dirt floor.  The agreement was that with five people each of us would have the task of getting one meal a day--the evening meal--once a week, and hopefully in his shopping would get enough food so there might be something left for lunch and breakfast the next day.  This was to be done on a total of one dollar.  The weekend arrangements for eating were strictly on one's own arrangements.  It was often that the daily shopper did not get enough food to have lunch the next day and never was there anything for breakfast.  For this reason, most of us carried Memorial Union coffee cups which we would present at the Union as it opened up in the morning to get our "second cup of coffee". 

00:03:57
	In my first year I switched my major from pre-law to pre-med.  I had observed the activities of one of my roommates in pre-med and it looked like something that I could hack.  I did not have any great inspiration for medicine at that time.  My jobs the first year were several.  I had a meal job at the Lorraine Hotel where I washed dishes and could eat if I so desired, but with our eating arrangement more often obtained payment in cash.  I also worked as an orderly at University Hospitals, then called Wisconsin General.  I also started working at the Memorial Union in the checkroom where payment was in meal tickets which also could be sold for cash.  At this time I was able to survive financially and even was able to send some money home to my mother and two younger siblings. 
	During the summer vacation after my first year I worked as a "powder monkey" on a county highway crew.  I was married during this summer and when my bride and I returned to Madison we had a one-room apartment on Johnson Street at the corner of Johnson and Murray.  My wife obtained employment in Charlie Moy's Laundry on University Avenue. At the same time I had been able to get a full-time state civil service position at the Union where for forty-eight hours a week I obtained $75 a month. I managed the checkroom and ticket takers at the Union.  A contemporary colleague at the Union was Oscar C. Damman, who went on later to be in charge of student loans, and still later to be in charge of the athletic ticket office.  Putting in forty-eight hours a week at my job, plus a full pre-med schedule, did not leave time for any extracurricular activities.  Also during this time my wife became afflicted with an eye ailment which progressed later to blindness.  During this period her hospital and physician bills very often amounted to more money than I was making each month.  It was at this time that I became well acquainted with Miss Sarah Terhorst then in charge of student loans.  She was an extremely harsh-appearing person who I found was extremely kind-hearted and many times came through with loans, which could hardly be described as fiscally responsible. 
00:09:53
	Following this sophomore year, I obtained employment during the summer months building Truax Field where I was a labor foreman for a company from out East.  I had two labor crews, one working from five in the morning until one o'clock and the second from one o'clock until nine in the evening.  This was seven days a week and still my earnings barely covered our then mounting physician and hospital bills.  During this time I also was taking Latin by correspondence, not having had the subject in high school, and at the time it was a required subject in pre-med. 
	As far as influential professors are concerned, I am afraid I did not establish strong relationships with many.  I remember very well Dr. Wolfe in the Department of Zoology as being an excellent professor, though very demanding.  In chemistry I particularly remember Dr. McElvain, and Dr. McElvain also was known to be rather tough in organic chemistry. It was his habit to spring 8:00 A.M. quizzes unannounced and inasmuch as my employment frequently kept me up working most of the night I frequently was not prepared for these devastating quizzes.  In fact I went into the finals in the course with a forty average on the quizzes and I arranged to speak with Dr. McElvain and pointed out that I had had perfect scores on the six-weeks and twelve-weeks exams and plead for him to disregard the morning quizzes.  He agreed that he would throw out the quizzes if I wrote a perfect paper in the final.  Apparently I did because I obtained an A in the course. 
00:13:38
	Now regarding my period as a Regent. 
	I did serve with three different presidents.  I found Dr. Weaver to be a very personable and scholarly individual, but I had the impression that inasmuch as he had been hired to be president of the University of Wisconsin-Madison primarily, that merger which had been imposed upon him was never in his heart.  It was, of course, the difficult years of implementation and I think that he did the best he could but overall he was not very effective. 
	Ed Young followed Dr. Weaver and, of course, we knew him well, his having been chancellor in Madison, and had the highest regard of almost all of the regents.  He, too, was very much a "Madison person" and though he made every effort to promote the continued implementation of merger I must say that great progress was not made in this regard during his tenure.  I became very close personally with Dr. Young and continue to have the highest regard for him and his delightful wife. 
00:17:00
	The hiring of Bob O'Neil I think actually marked a turning point in the merger concept.  He, too, had excellent scholarly credentials and was a workaholic if I ever saw one.  This perhaps was one of his weak points.  He seemed unable or unwilling to delegate in any large measure, trying to stay on top of every detail himself.  I do credit him, though, with instituting many changes during his tenure that are now being carried out.  My overall evaluation of Dr. O'Neil was that he did a good job during a difficult time and did keep the mission of the System on the track and promoted merger to the best of his ability. 
	Dr. Shaw has been with us only a year now but my observations and reports about him are all very positive.  I would not want to make any profound judgments on his performance at this time. 
00:19:50
	The presidents' staffs obviously have a great effect on the president's record.  When I came in 1976, Don Percy, Don Smith, Reuben Lorenz and Bob Winter constituted the primary staff.  Since I worked with Don Percy only this one year, I did not have the chance to form any judgment regarding his abilities.  Don Smith, however, was impressive from day one and I got the impression that he had guided the operation almost single-handedly during the difficult times of starting the implementation of merger.  Reuben Lorenz was and is outstanding.  Bob Winter was the weakest link in the staff.  I think he had come up through the state system and was not equipped to handle the magnitude of duties with the merged system.  I think that Joe Kauffman did an outstanding job in his short tenure as executive vice president. 
00:22:20
	Friction between the System president and the Madison chancellor was obvious, particularly during President O'Neil's tenure and the accusation that the regents did not understand the problem is perhaps justified.  On the other hand the personal chemistries involved had a great deal to do with it and neither President O'Neil nor Chancellor Shain distinguished themselves in the continuing battle.  The AAU issue definitely was not fully understood by the regents who had great difficulty in understanding the rather juvenile reaction that we observed from both men.  In direct answer to the question as to whether this friction between the chancellor and the president is a serious problem, I would say that it need not be and that the president will in the future, I think, select a chancellor that will insure a cordial relationship. 
	The question as to what makes a good board member is a difficult one. I have seen a great number of regents and there have been very few that are not basically good members.  An obvious qualification is that the regent do his or her homework and I found that almost all of them were very diligent.  I think a necessary qualification is that the regent has to put the service as a regent first on his list of priorities.  It cannot take a back seat to business interests or other distractions, so faithful attendance in itself is very important.  I think that another qualification is being able to shed one's political stripes when he becomes a regent and I found that this was almost universally true.  I would point out that I lost more causes with Democrats voting against me than Republicans and this was and is the experience of many other regents.  I think to pick out outstanding regents is very possible without implication that the others were not good.  At the top of such a list would have to be Ody Fish and following that, Arthur DeBardeleben.  From there on the excellent regents are legion but the names of Erdman and Hales come immediately to mind.  The matter of regents serving under a governor of a different political party than appointed them is a non-issue.  As I mentioned before, regents must be willing to shed their political stripes in assuming the position. I do think that it is helpful for the president of the Board of Regents to be of the same party as the governor.  During my eleven years as a regent I have never had a governor try to influence my decisions unless his advice had been solicited.  I did enjoy a good relationship with governors Lucey, Schreiber, Dreyfus and Earl. 
00:29:46
	As to Dean Cronon's concern that the Madison campus people feel that fees are being unjustly siphoned off to support other institutions, I would plead innocent.  I do recognize the reason for the perception but to consider it a willful result of making Madison suffer, I think is not justified.  [See Interview Questions for Dr. Lawton.]
Whether or not regents publicly express their feelings about Madison compared to the rest of the System or not is not germane.  With my entire background being Madison, public exhibition of any favoritism for Madison would have been inappropriate.  I will say, however, that especially in the salary catch-up battle that the many hours and days I spent in the capitol pleading the cause of the System with a plan that was obviously loaded towards Madison can hardly be considered a lack of support. 
00:32:11
	Regarding specific questions, my stand on the appointment of Ed Young as president was and is that I was not enthralled primarily because of his age.  I liked him very much but it was obvious that his tenure would be extremely short.  We had, however, reached an impasse in our selection process and I went along with it.  The matter of the selection of a new academic vice president for Ed Young when Don Smith was made executive vice president was not an issue that I became involved in.  The appointment of President O'Neil I supported wholeheartedly.  I have addressed before the matter of the AAU issue. 
	My views on the whole catch-up issue I think are well known and do not require great elaboration.  The early parts of the whole battle were carried out in the forum of the Special Committee for Faculty Compensation on which Bob Knowles, myself, and Arthur DeBardeleben all served.  The plan that we later developed was essentially in conformance with the recommendations of that committee.  The basic planning was done primarily with President O'Neil, myself, Regent Vice President Bob Knowles and with Katharine Lyall.  It was with the announced resignation of President O'Neil that the burden of catch-up fell pretty much on me.  I would not be critical of President O'Neil in his early management of the issue.  TAUWF's attack on me had essentially no personal effect.  I was confident that I was doing what was best for the System and avoided any personal exchange with their organization.  Whether Chancellor Marshall should have been fired for his maverick actions will probably never be answered.  I, personally, would have fired him. 
00:37:09
	Regarding my relations with President O'Neil I can only say that they were cordial.  He did talk over problems with me; he was not an easy person to know; I had the highest regard for him though recognized his problems with personal relationships, particularly with the legislative and executive offices.
	I stood firm on the appointment of Dr. Shaw against great pressure because I felt that it was the best move for the University at this time. The public outcry was to be expected and again I avoided any reply to some of the wild accusations that were made.  I am confident that we made the right decision.
	Regarding what issues concern me most as a regent, I would have to place student access, and therefore tuition, as number one; and quality of the education we provide, and therefore faculty pay, as number two. 
	I am grateful for the opportunity as a regent for me to repay the University and State of Wisconsin for all it has done for me in my career. I hope that I have left some lasting mark. 
	I apologize for the quality of this recording; talking is quite difficult. 
00:40:06	End of Tape.  End of Oral History #332

INDEX

Cronon, David E., 6
Damman,Oscar C., 2
DeBardeleben, Arthur, 6, 7
Fish, Ody, 6
Knowles, Robert, 7
Lorenz, Reuben H., 4
Lyall, Katharine C., 7
McElvain, Samuel M., ii, 3
O'Neil, Robert M., ii, 4, 5, 7
Percy, Donald E., 4
Shaw, Kenneth, 4, 8
Smith, Donald K., 4, 7
Terhorst, Sarah, 2
Weaver, John C., 3, 4
Winter, Robert W., 4
Wolfe, Harold R., ii, 3
Young, H. Edwin, 4, 7

APPENDIX

University of Wisconsin-Madison Archives
Oral History Project
B134 Memorial Library
608 262-2777

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR DR. LAWTON

Not knowing how much time you can give to the interview, I've put some general questions first, and then some more specific questions.

General Questions

To begin with, can you say something about your student days in Madison--why you came here, how you paid for it, where you lived, favorite classes, influential professors, extracurricular activities.

And now, on your period as regent:

You saw three different presidents in action.  Compare them as to style of operating, effectiveness in working with the regents, effectiveness as presidents.  Presidents have to have good staffs.  What did you think about the top people in System Administration under the three presidents?

There has always been some friction between the System president and the Madison chancellor, because the two roles are not clearly defined.  Is it a serious problem?  What are its effects?

What makes a good board member?  Who were the good board members in your period?  How did the board change from 1976 to 1986.  It's been said that all through the merger period, boards chosen by the governor of one party have been serving under the governor of another party.  How much effect did this have?  Did the three governors attempt to influence board members?  Give examples.  What are the advantages of being president of the board?

According to Dean Cronon, people on the Madison Campus think that fees allocated to the System from Madison's high enrollments have sometimes been used to shore up other institutions in the System, and of course Madison is hurting badly for lack of instructional funding.  Were you aware of this?  Was it ever discussed by the regents?

It's been said that Madison no longer has a Board of Regents to represent its interests in the legislature.  The System and the board represent all the institutions and speak for all of them.  There is no one (in Reuben Lorenz's words) to go to the legislature to speak passionately on behalf of something he believes in strongly.  I've been struck at how rarely (except for DeBardeleben) one sees statements in the minutes to the effect that UW Madison should have any kind of special consideration.  Is that just because the minutes are for the record and it's necessary to be circumspect?  What was the actual attitude of the board toward Madison?

Specific Questions

Your stand on the appointment of Ed Young as president?

Would you describe what went on in the selection of a new academic vice president for Ed Young when Don Smith was made executive vice president.  What was your position in the dispute?

How did you feel about the appointment of Robert O'Neil.

Do you remember the AAU issue?  President Young had turned UW representation over to Chancellor Shain.  President O'Neil brought it to the regents and the regents restored it to him.  It was a major source of tension between O'Neil and Shain.  Someone said the regents just didn't understand the importance of the issue.

What did you think of O'Neil in those first board meetings after he was appointed?

Would you give your views on the whole catch-up issue--how it developed from that special board session in July 1983 to the time when it was passed?  How did you feel about the attacks on you by TAUWF?  How should O'Neil have handled the salary issue?  Should he have fired Chancellor Marshall?

Who were the key legislators who were friendly to the System (you refer to them on 7/15/83).

A person I interviewed said that by the time O'Neil left he had no friends except the press.  Another has said he was impossible to get close to.  What were your personal relations with O'Neil?  Did he talk problems over with you?

Why did you stand firm on the appointment of Shaw against what was evidently great pressure?

What concerned you most as a regent?