Oral History Program E. Jeffrey Livingston Interviewed by John R. Sillito 27 March 2010 Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah E. Jeffrey Livingston Interviewed by John R. Sillito University Archivist 27 March 2010 Copyright © 2012 by Weber State University, Stewart Library iii Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. The working files, original recording, and archival copies are housed in the University Archives. Project Description The Weber State University Oral History Project began conducting interviews with key Weber State University faculty, administrators, staff and students, in Fall 2007. The program focuses primarily on obtaining a historical record of the school along with important developments since the school gained university status in 1990. The interviews explore the process of achieving university status, as well as major issues including accreditation, diversity, faculty governance, changes in leadership, curricular developments, etc. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management This work is the property of the Weber State University, Stewart Library Oral History Program. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Livingston, E. Jeffrey, an oral history by John R. Sillito, 27 March 2010, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. E. Jeffrey Livingston 1 Abstract: The following is an oral history interview with E. Jeffrey Livingston. Dr. Livingston came to Weber State in 1980 as Business Department faculty. He later served as chairman of the Business Management Department, as associate vice president of Academic Affairs, dean of Continuing Education, and Interim Provost of the university. The interview was conducted on March 27, 2010 by John Sillito in order to gather Dr. Livingston’s recollections and experiences with Weber State University. JS: This is an interview with Jeff Livingston. It's being conducted on March 27, 2010, in his home in Mesa, Arizona. The subject is Jeff's experiences and recollections of his time at Weber State University. I really appreciate being able to sit down with you. First, let me ask you a general question. What was it that brought you to Weber State? When was that, and what was it that brought you there? JL: I was teaching at the University of Montana, had been there for ten years. All during that sojourn in Montana, Bruce Handley would call me, because Bruce and I went through junior high, high school, and college together. Then we separated at the master's degree level. JS: He came down here, didn't he? At Arizona State. JL: He did, and then I came down here. This is where I got my PhD. I saw Bruce down here, so we reconnected, and he would call me every so often and say there was an opening at Weber, would I be interested. So I think I probably 2 visited Weber maybe three times kind of informally, just came down to see what was going on, from Montana. Then on one of those, it connected. JS: And this is about nineteen seventy... ? JL: I came in 1980. It's all because of Bruce who kept on hammering on it. We're from Ogden originally, that's my home. JS: Oh, I was going to say that I thought you were from Ogden. So you went to elementary school, and did you go to Weber College? JL: I did. I went on a mission for the church, and when I came back I was kind of at a funny time, so I did do one - I guess it was quarter, then - at Weber, in education. I had gone to the "Y" for four years, and hadn't even completed a minor. So anyway, I went to Weber but decided to go back to the "Y" and finish up there. JS: Bruce graduated from down there too, didn't he? JL: He did. We both played ball down there, but he went on a mission earlier than I did, so he went after his sophomore year, and I went after my senior year. JS: This is football? JL: Yes. JS: Well, okay. So you come to Weber in 1980 as a faculty member, you're in the school of business, department of... JL: At the time, it was the Department of Business Administration. JS: Who was your dean in that period of time? JL: Sterling Sessions. JS: Okay, well, we might or might not talk about that. 3 JL: Sterling never wanted me there. JS: So you came to Weber at a time of growth, particularly in that school. Isn't that about the time it becomes - they get the endowment from the Wattis family? JL: That was some growth time there. But you know, I came as a faculty member, and frankly, Montana was not as sophisticated as Weber. I was kind of surprised at that. In reflection, I learned so much more about faculty, faculty roles, tenure, all of that at Weber that never even came to the front, even though I got tenured and was promoted at Montana, I didn't even know what the process was. JS: Really? JL: Yeah, I mean, I remember submitting a vita when it was time to do that. JS: So it was pretty laid back. JL: It was very laid back, and Weber was a little more rigid. So the first two years, that's basically what I was focusing on- how do you be a good faculty member, what's expected here? JS: So you came as an associate professor? JL: Yes. They didn't grant me tenure, and I understood that. I had tenure at Montana, but I didn't have it here when I came to Weber. They gave me the same rank, so that was good. I thought I needed to understand the tenure process, so I went through that and it worked out, and I was promoted somewhere. I was department chair in '82, and I wasn't tenured or a full professor. Do you remember Jarry Novak? JS: Oh, I do. 4 JL: He came up for tenure, and here was a non-tenured department chair, sending in a recommendation for no tenure. So the next three years, from '82 to '85, I was Department chair, because Al Simpkins split the department. He created Business Administration and Management, and I was chair of Management. Then, after that, they brought it back together. JS: What was the reason to do that? Because they later brought it back together. JL: Too big. It still remains by far the largest department in the school. JS: That's a school that's really grown a lot, and has had a real impact - sometimes to the consternation to us in the Arts and Humanities. JL: Absolutely. JS: So you're there for about five years as a faculty member then as department chair. 1985, I believe, if my timeline is correct, you became the Associate Vice President at Weber. JL: No, that's not what happened, but it was close. JS: Well, tell me what happened. JL: You also need to know, John, something was going on in my personal feelings toward teaching. When I was department chair, they gave you some release time to be chair, and when I finished that three-year stint as department chair, I knew that I'd go back to a full teaching load. I wasn't too excited about that. JS: I see. JL: Bob Smith advertised an internship with his office at half release time, because somebody was leaving at the time. They had been doing some data work for Bob 5 and Bob just wanted to fill the position. In hopes that I might get the release time, that was what I was interested in, I applied for that job and got it. So in 1985 I went over to Bob's office for a one-year shot at an internship. JS: And your motivation was more that you were not sure you really wanted to go back to the classroom, as opposed to, "I've really decided after these three years as department chair that I want to be an administrator." JL: No, I had no leaning in that direction at all. This was solely to get to a half-time teaching position. I hadn't had a lot of interaction with Bob, so there was an interest there, what would it be like to work with Bob, but the primary reason was to get release time. JS: We'll talk about Bob in a minute, but let me make sure I have the chronology right. So you go over there for a period of time as an intern, then did you go back to department, or did you stay? JL: No. At that time, that's when Steve Nadauld - at Bob's urging I believe - created the Student Affairs area and had to select a Vice President. Marie Kotter got it, and she was Bob's assistant. JS: Had been. JL: Yes, when I came over as an intern she was the assistant. So when she got that job toward the end of the year, that left Bob without an assistant, so he asked me if I would do it on an interim basis after that faculty internship. So that was fulltime for that next year, and then it just kind of developed. So I really went to Assistant Vice President, and then later it was Associate Vice President. 6 JS: You were in that position for several years before you went to the Commissioner's Office? JL: Right. '93; I was there for eight years. JS: Eight years. Let's talk a little bit about Bob- specifically in terms of the internships. What I'm hearing, and maybe this is your perception too, is that Bob seemed to want to give opportunity to faculty, for whatever reason, to be able to put their toe in the water in terms of administration. Be it a case where somebody's saying, "I'm at one of those crossroads where I'm not sure," or simply somebody saying, "You know, I've been teaching a while and I'd like to give it a try but I fully intend to go back." What do you think, based on your serving in the position, and your knowledge of Bob, is that accurate? JL: I think it is. I don't think he was thinking that it might ultimately benefit Weber - I mean, that was okay if it did, in the sense of "This guy decided to become an administrator, Weber benefits", but I think he really genuinely wanted to expose faculty to what administrators do so they could have an appreciation for that side of the campus as well as the teaching/academics side. I think he was wellintentioned in terms of, "I want to expose more faculty to do this." JS: So he saw it as a way not only perhaps giving them an opportunity for some release time, but also a kind of education. It's easy to complain about administration; now, having had a chance to make sausage, you feel that it's not the kind of process you might have thought it was. Bob's an extremely intelligent guy. What was it like to work with Bob? 7 JL: I always thought, even at that time, "Why do Bob and I hit it off so well?" JS: You seem so different. JL: We are, absolutely, different. I wasn't intimidated, but I didn't venture very far from where I felt intellectually sound with Bob, at first. He is the brightest guy I've worked with, almost at times to the point of arrogance. But very bright, and I enjoy that aspect of him. I think he had a wonderful philosophy of education, and don't ask me to describe what it was, but I do believe Bob probably was able in that process, from my association with him, to give me a view of what academic life is supposed to be and what faculty are supposed to be. JS: Which is an interesting thing, isn't it. I mean Bob had a long career as a faculty member. I understand that. But you've got an Academic Vice President who really underscores that word "Academic." He's an administrator, and he does what administrators need to do, but he never loses sight of what academics do. JL: No, he never did. JS: He's supportive in lots of ways. Internships were one way, but other ways, too. He goes out and he gets money and he creates the Hemingway project, and all kinds of things. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but do you agree that Bob had a very broad vision of what Weber should be, both internally and externally; even perhaps broader than the community or the governance might have set? JL: I do believe Bob wanted to move Weber forward. Not for any self-adulation, or anybody saying "Geez, Bob, you're a great guy". I think Bob was above that. He 8 had an ego, but I think he was above that. I think you're absolutely right. He probably had a better vision than presidents have of what could possibly happen at Weber, in a variety of ways. He wasn't limited to the academic side, but he certainly fostered the academic side extremely well. Bob was a player. When I'd go to President's Council, Bob was a major player in that President's Council. That's where it's all done, basically right there. So I was always appreciative of his input, and his breadth of at least trying to address so many things that came up for the institution. But always an advocate for the faculty side. JS: Yes, in every way. And yes, everybody was somewhere on the scale of absolutely intimidated to at least smart enough to be a little bit intimidated, because this was a guy who not only knew his stuff, but did his homework. JL: Let me say another thing about Bob. JS: Please. JL: Bob and I - there are two things that happened. One, we played a lot of racquetball together. JS: Really? JL: Yes. I was surprised. I'm probably a better athlete than Bob, so I kinda had to say, 'do I beat him when I play him?' But Bob, as awkward as he seemed, had the longest stinking arms. He could reach shots - you know, and then pretty soon I was really trying to beat him. I beat him most of the time, but I always appreciated Bob taking that - that just didn't seem a venue that normally Bob might be into. 9 JS: Yeah, that's amazing. That's a great story. JL: We played almost - oh, four or five times a week after the day. We'd go up and play, and I thoroughly enjoyed that aspect of it. The other thing that always surprised me was, one day I said to Bob, "thanks for giving me an opportunity to do so much in this position." And he would let me do whatever I wanted to do. I had specific assignments, but one day he said, "My goal is to make us interchangeable." That's when he took leave, and then I was acting Vice President for that six months that he was gone. But I was so honored by him thinking that I could be interchangeable with him. That really touched me. Even after I left, and then he left, Bob worked at keeping the friendship going for several years. He'd call me when he came into town. That always surprised me too, because I always just figured, here was Bob way up here intellectually, and here I am down here. Why would he even want to continue? JS: He has to, because of circumstances. JL: Yes. I was pleased with that. JS: Well, I'm glad you said that, because as I think I mentioned earlier, here at some point there's going to be another crack at doing a history of the university. I just think that you can't understand the period from '78 until really the mid-90's without understanding the impact Bob had. JL: No, you can't. JS: He went through two or three presidents. You mentioned, a very good examplehis willingness to allow Marie Kotter to be promoted. He was broad in his 10 conception: that included all kinds of things, including diversity and opportunity. Amazing guy. JL: When Steve Nadauld left, Bob made a run for the presidency, and he was a finalist. JS: Yes, I know he was. JL: I think he was sorely disappointed that he didn't get that. JS: I don't think there's any doubt of that. JL: From that point on, I mean, Bob had a way that he could alienate people anyway; but I think it really became strong after that. Some people wrote it off as, he was anti-Mormon. I never saw that kind of a behavior in Bob. But a lot of people felt that way he was trying to hire people to put the leadership in a non-Mormon majority. I don't believe that for an instant. There were people that felt that way, and I think he just got a little unhappier as time went on, right after he didn't get that presidency. JS: Well, and I don't think there's any doubt that he - no disrespect - did not consider Paul Thompson his equal intellectually. JL: No, he didn't. JS: He was maybe right, I don't know. And of course, Bob was looking for other jobs - I know he was looking at Evergreen as a possibility. As you said a minute ago, Bob had an ego. There's no doubt about it. Nobody would paint a picture of Bob as without his flaws, and without his agenda, but often, despite all of that, it ended up benefitting tremendously the school. 11 JL: Oh, it did. Absolutely. JS: You mentioned Steve Nadauld, and when you first came, Rod Brady was president. Let's talk about those three presidents - Brady, Nadauld, and Thompson. What's your general perception of the impact or the agenda that Brady had for the school? JL: You know, I was so naive, I don't remember much about Brady. He was kind enough to always acknowledge people. When he walked into a room, he'd make a special effort to come over and shake hands, but I never worked with him, and I don't think I met him other than perhaps a big general meeting. Bob, for example, had the greatest respect for Brady. But I just don't know much about Brady. I was always impressed, he seems to have run the school extremely well. I didn't hear a lot of complaints other than his lists; people got tired of his lists. But that's silliness, you know, so I've always heard very positive things, and Bob was always very positive about him. JS: Well, my perception is he gave Bob if not carte blanche, pretty close. He said, “You run the academics and let me run the rest.” So you really get to know presidents better when Steve Nadauld becomes President. JL: Yes. I knew Steve, Paul, and Ann. Those are the ones I worked real closely with. JS: Had you known Nadauld before he came to Weber? JL: Nope, didn't know anything about him. JS: Were you involved at all in his selection? JL: No. 12 JS: He replaces Rob Brady. There's a contrast. What's your perception of Nadauld, generally and specifically, as you worked with him? JL: He came from a business background, although he was a PhD in Finance. But he came from running whatever that dairyman's association was. JS: I can't remember either. JL: And he was successful at doing that. So he brought a different - not skill set - but a different venue, in terms of his experience with his skill set. So I think there was some, not reluctance, but let's wait and see how he does especially on the part of faculty, because although he had taught at one time, they just didn't know if he really understood the academic side of life. JS: Just one more business person. JL: So he had the qualifications academically. I think people just needed to see how he would do. They had confidence in Bob still. He was, the Academic VP and a Provost, so Nadauld couldn't have had that big of an impact. In their minds they believed Bob would take care of it. JS: I'm not sure of this, maybe you don't know either, but I don't think Bob applied to be President when Nadauld – JL: To my knowledge, he didn't. JS: That's my understanding. You know, it's an interesting comparison, Brady and Nadauld. I mean, they're so entirely different. Almost, you would think, generationally, although there's not that many years' difference between them. 13 JL: But you know Steve would let you in, but Brady always kept you at arms' length, even though all the motions were there to be your friend. JS: Real different style. It's hard for me to imagine Brady playing pick-up basketball at the gym, for example. JL: Like Steve did. JS: Steve did a lot of that. How was he to work with, as a President? JL: You know, I'm not even sure how it happened, but Steve and I became friends, not just work partners. I don't know why we became such good friends, with Bob kind of in the way, and I don't mean that Bob ever took umbrage at it, but I always thought, why would he talk to the Associate VP so much? But we had some common background in the Church; he had a place up at Island Park, where I loved to go fishing. He took me up there, my boy and I, and we fished together, so thereafter we'd go fish the Green River, when we'd go to meetings with the Regents we'd fish on the way back. So we became pretty good friends, to the point he'd bring a guitar along and sing; we'd sleep overnight in my van. Not always, but we did a lot of things together. I really enjoyed Steve, just a ton. I liked him as a person, so I was very comfortable with Steve. One thing that always kind of surprised me was he was always the president. And what I mean by that is, it wasn't obnoxious, but even when we'd go fishing, he'd say, "Okay, you go that way and I'll go this way," and I'd have to say, "Steve, you go wherever you want. " I don't mean I was trying to mark my territory, but what I mean is that he's just so used to being in charge, it was always that way. 14 JS: That's very interesting. JL: Just to comment on that, there was some faculty dissatisfaction with Steve, at least handling the group that I kind of ran with. I don't know that Bob was always pleased with Steve. When he took the job at Bonneville Pacific, and then the scandal that erupted with that, that was to some people even more reason to dismiss Steve's capabilities. But when I come to a conclusion, I always kind of see the conclusion other people come to, to gauge my own; and Steve had other evidence of success with his mind and his abilities that suggest to me, this is no country bumpkin. JS: No. JL: I don't know if you watched all that went down at Dixie, and I was surprised, because we haven't been up with the news while we're here, we're doing missionary work; but I did catch it on the internet one day that the faculty and the board of trustees all said, "Make him the President, take him out of the interim thing." So it's obvious to me Steve has all the capability and he's succeeded in a variety of positions. So I have a lot of respect for him, always have. JS: It's interesting too; Brady comes, and in part realizes the chaos they've had under Bishop for a year or two, and that things are just out of control, and seeks to get things under control. He comes at a pretty tough time, and that's a pretty tough assignment for anybody, in this case it was Rod, to do. By the time Steve Nadauld comes, he's certainly not inheriting anywhere near that kind of chaos. JL: Not at all. 15 JS: Not even close. Do you sense what the school was looking for? They're pretty different guys in some ways. As you say, though, their backgrounds are not in some ways all that dissimilar. JL: I wish I could say I was closer to the process so I could have some feeling for what they were looking for. My guess is that with Bob being so strong on the academic side, they were looking for somebody that could relate to the community, which Rod was very good at. Raise money, of course. When the Board of Trustees got on the University thing, Steve was able to take that and work it very, very well. JS: Very skillful. JL: So that kind of became, in my mind, his high water mark - the institution becoming a University. He worked well at doing that. But it was kind of an opportunity. I don't know that that was on his agenda when he came. JS: But when he saw it, he said, "This makes sense." JL: Yes. Richard Myer, you know, was major in that, and he and Steve got along extremely well as I observed them. He's always been right there. His son now, Shaun, is very much involved. Not to the extent his dad was, but he still continues that association. One of the things that also happened in there was, Bob and Marie were really very good friends when Marie worked with Bob, and Bob was very complimentary of Marie when I came in just in that internship position and as Marie first went over. But over time, it really became strained. JS: Did it? 16 JL: Yes. When Bob went on leave, and I had that opportunity of working more closely with President's Council and so on, Marie would say, "I just feel somehow the tension is gone because Bob isn't here." Marie became a player, she was kind of charismatic and always upfront, and that silly laugh of hers. She'd swear when it was time to swear, be one of the boys, you know. I think, for whatever reason, there just became a gap between them. I know from Marie's side, it never was settled. JS: Don't you think in part it's just the situation changed? She's now Vice President. They're equal in votes, and they have their own constituencies, both of which are pretty significant, and she's kind of grown. Now, Bob took a leave. Help me understand the chronology. He took a leave before he retired, or before he stepped down as Provost. He took a short sabbatical or leave or something? JL: You know, I'm glad you're asking the questions, because I'm not sure I know the chronology. Bob took a regular six-month leave sabbatical. See, I had taken one too. I took the first one. That's when we said, "We want to become interchangeable." JS: I see. JL: That was the plan all along. I can't remember where it was in his tenure, but it wasn't real close to the end. JS: That's what I'm thinking; it was a ways. So he's gone for six months on leave and comes back. So Nadauld kind of steers the ship through the waters of University status. It's not too long after that that he steps down. 17 JL: Right. JS: Was that more a timeline decision on the part of those above? Is there a sense that presidents at a university are there for seven, eight, ten years and then it's time for a change? JL: That's interesting. JS: Or did you sense - the University was doing well, was it internal with Nadauld? It's time for me to look for other opportunities, perhaps it was financial, I don't know. I'm asking you this because you spent some time there, over on the dark side, working with the Commissioner's Office and things. JL: You know what, you'd be surprised. My guess is, and I think that statistics would bear this out, the average tenure of a President is more around the five-year mark. JS: Yeah, it's somewhere five to ten. JL: Yeah. I think it's closer to five, though. JS: Not much shorter than that, but not a whole lot longer than that. JL: If you throw Miller out of the mix. Let me make another observation while it's on my mind, because it just came there. Do you know who Frank Budd is? JS: I do know Frank Budd. He was President at SLCC. JL: Yes and there's Ryan Thomas who was President at CEU. The fact that two expresidents would choose Weber; they have a choice, you know, and the Regents will pay for them - they had a choice where to go, and they both came to Weber. That really says something, I think, about Weber's reputation in the system. 18 JS: Oh, I think it does too, yes. Well, and Weber's growing reputation, because in the '30s we had just the reverse, when we had President Leland Creer, who left Weber to become a faculty member at the University of Utah. JL: I didn't know that. JS: So the role has changed. JL: Oh, yes. I was really impressed - in fact, Budd and I got along pretty well just because I was in the Regents office, and would get a chance to visit his campus, but I was really surprised when he came to Weber. I asked him about it, and of course in his heart he was a criminal justice professional anyway, and Weber's got a great criminal justice program, so that was appealing, but he liked Weber. He lived in Salt Lake, he commuted back and forth. JS: I guess I knew that. JL: So anyway, that's just an aside. So the question you had asked was, what may have been the reason that Steve left, and I think he'd been there a considerable amount of time; he had I think achieved much for the institution. I think this opportunity with Bonneville Pacific drew him back into an area he likes - finance. He's a bright guy that way. So that was an opportunity for him. I think the money was attractive. JS: Sure. JL: He has a large family. JS: It's a young family for his age, really. 19 JL: His wife, Margaret, had that stint as general President of the Young Women in the LDS church. So - and let me be honest - catch this one, when they choose Presidents in Church schools like BYU or up at Idaho or Hawaii, they don't open it up for people to apply, it's a calling. But they do interview people, and they invited Steve to come down for that position when Rex Lee died. JS: Really? I didn't know that. JL: Yes. Steve came in - this was again, just the friendship side. It was a conversation he wouldn't have had, I don't think, with Bob, because I don't think Bob could talk about what it might be like to work in the Church, but he did come in the office and we talked about that before his interview. Then, when he got back, he came in and I said, "Well, how did it go?" And this is one of the funniest things I've ever heard Steve say in my life; he said, "Well, they loved Margaret, they don't know what to do with me." JS: That's a funny story. JL: So the fact that the "Y" expressed interest in him as President maybe caused him to think, "I'm going to try some other things." JS: Maybe it's time to make a move. Then, you know, he ends up on the Quorum of the Seventy. Interesting. That's a great story. JL: One day after Steve left, this is another good one for Steve, he showed me a spot on the Ogden River where to fish. So I went up there one day after he had left, and he was now on the Quorum. I went up there to fish one day, and as I pulled into a parking spot, I thought, "That looks like Steve's car." So as I get out, 20 Steve's now walking up the bank from the river with his waders on, and we gave a little hug and I said, "Where are you headed?" He says, "I've got to get back to Salt Lake." He took off his waders, and he had his suit on underneath. He didn't have his coat, just a white shirt, tie, suit pants, and his nice dress shoes. JS: Under his waders. Oh, my, that is a good story. JL: He loved to fish. I see him every year, although he doesn't have the cabin up in Island Park any longer; it was his mother-in-law's I think. He does come up there for a family vacation, and we've seen him every year that he comes up. So we get a chance just to say hello, to talk and see Margaret, just a nice thing. But he doesn't come up like he used to, and now he won't obviously, now that he's President at Dixie. JS: Let's talk about Paul Thompson. JL: There was an interesting thing. Remember I said that I left on my sabbatical before Bob did, and then Bob left. That was all during Steve's time. But it was close to the end of Steve's time. Then Paul came in and Bob was kidding with me because when you went on sabbatical you're supposed to write a report. I left because I was doing - this would have been '88 - an economic study of the impact of the Yellowstone fires on the gateway communities around the park. JS: Really? JL: Yes. So I was up there collecting data – JS: Sure you were. 21 JL: Maybe throwing a line or two. Anyway, Bob was making fun of me, he said, "You've never given your report. You haven't ever handed in anything." So it was a Saturday that I was over there and Bob was there and Paul was down in his office, and I said to Bob, kiddingly, "Bob, to make up for it, I'll take athletics." I was kidding. But that was when Dick Hannan was athletic director, and Bob went back to his office, I was in my office. Bob went right down to Paul that very moment and said, "Paul, Jeff will take athletics." Paul came down and said, "Would you really take athletics?" I said, "Yes." That's how it happened. But it's all because of Bob giving me a rough time about a report. So I finally got pretty close to Paul, because athletics really reported to the President. And this is where Bob was so great. He wanted to know what was going on, but he never once got in the way of me reporting directly to Paul on things athletic. JS: You know, that really is an amazing thing about an administrator. That says that this is a person who is very confident and not suspicious. JL: That is exactly what it says. He was not threatened at all. He wanted to be informed, but he didn't say, "I've got to be at every meeting that you're going to have with Paul." JS: Well, and don't get me off in something that I don't know. JL: He didn't want to even touch it. JS: So Paul comes as President. Again, he's an academic, but he's from business too. 22 JL: Yes, except I don't think, at least in the Regents' mind, certainly it didn't occur in my mind, that Paul had near the business experience that Steve or Brady had. JS: Certainly Brady. JL: I mean, he came from the "Y" where he was a vice president; he'd been dean of the management school, which is a big main school there. I've been in all our presidents' searches and I've got to say, I don't see a lot of evidence that the academic side is important to the Regents. JS: No. JL: I think they saw in Paul somebody who could keep the community together. There was some disruption with Bob toward the end. I don't know how far that got up the ladder, but I think they saw in Paul somebody that could bridge the troubled waters. JS: Don't you think - you mentioned that Bob was an applicant - they must have understood that he wasn't going to get it, and whomever did get it would have to deal with all kinds of things, including a Provost who was likely to be there for a period of time, who was kind of unhappy. JL: Yes. Bob really believed that he had a shot. That's why he was so disappointed in the end. In retrospect, he said, "I never did have a shot." That was so disappointing to him. I wasn't involved with Paul's selection whatsoever." JS: At all. JL: No, because that's done at the Regent level. But I remember Bob saying, let's go up and meet the President. And I think it was in the library that he made one of 23 his appearances, anyway, and we went up there to hear him talk for just a minute, and Bob introduced himself, and that was basically it. I don't know how much the Regents knew, but I think they were quite aware that there was some dissatisfaction. JS: So he had not met Paul Thompson until Paul was selected, as far as you know. JL: Not that I'm aware of. JS: Did you know him before he was selected? JL: Not at all. The thing that I heard mostly from the faculty at Weber, when Paul was chosen, was, "oh, another Mormon heading things up." JS: Another male Mormon. JL: Right. JS: Let's talk a little bit more about Paul. You worked with him for a period of time before you went off to the Regents. What was Paul's vision, do you think? JL: Well, I think Paul's vision was one of trying to get resources for the institution. He had a big capital campaign, and I think that's where he was at his best. I think in my mind, Paul's a lot brighter than people gave him credit for being. JS: Why do you think that perception is? Is it the aw-shucks, West Weber kid thing? JL: Yeah he could kind of play the hay seed, but he was a smart cookie. I don't think enough of the key people on campus really respected his intelligence. I saw him at a couple of teaching opportunities, and he was an excellent teacher. I didn't know that until I watched him teach some things. He was also an excellent researcher. It's just that some of his research, because he came from the "Y", 24 some of his research was for the Church, where they would ask him to do studies and so on. He was a qualified researcher. He could do that stuff - he's written quite a bit - so I just don't think that his academic prowess, if you will, was respected a lot. I think the Regents knew that at least was there, so he would fit in. They don't worry too much about the whole academic side. Let me go back a step, too. Remember when Steve was here, the institution had a major effort at strategic planning? JS: Oh, yes. JL: Were you involved when Kathy Dannemiller came in? JS: Only peripherally. JL: Okay, well, that's the part that I remember, and I was only involved because I was in the office, but we had three or four days of meetings off campus, where we wrote on sheets of paper what our vision was for Weber. I think a lot of what Weber became started in those meetings. I can remember a lot of the scenarios where University - not a top researching University, but a top University of some kind, whatever was discussed. Mike Toth was part of that. JS: Right. JL: He was kind of the inner counsel that Bob had in that group. That group had a pretty strong impact on the strategic plan of the institution, and I think Steve did a pretty good job at being at least at the front of that, even though it was a lot to do with the academic side, so Bob obviously had a lot too. JS: Oh, sure 25 JL: But I think that carried off well. Paul comes and you wonder if every President will just repeat the strategic planning process to make their mark? But somewhere in there, was this idea of what kind of institution is Weber? And we knew we weren't going to be a research university, because the Regents and the legislators wouldn't fund it. So the next question is, then what kind of institution should we be? This is due to Paul as much as anybody. Wright State in Ohio started this thing on metropolitan university. I can't remember if Paul went, but I went back there and studied Wright State and went to some metropolitan university conferences, and we started with that term "metropolitan." This is Paul now, and pretty soon it became Weber as a "regional university." So all that was going on there - and Paul was a strong advocate of identifying Weber for what it was, and then pursuing that type of institution. JS: So that concept of "metropolitan university" was something that was in the literature. But you're seeing that as not particularly top-driven, but a more strategic planning outcome. JL: Good match. JS: It didn't stay long, then, as you say, they shift their language. But it was more internal that way. JL: It was the result of a strong strategic planning that described the vision. Then we heard that there were other institutions very much interested in creating that kind of an institution. So it was good matching, it was an opportune thing. JS: It just seemed to fit. 26 JL: I don't know that Weber would have been able to carry it off by itself if there wasn't some national recognition of the effort. JS: Yes. JL: I haven't seen much of it since. JS: No, it came and went, didn't it. JL: Except that with the Regents, it remains. I don't know how, but that's what Weber was defined as a Regional University, in the Regents' lexicon. JS: Well, and what Nadauld said in his inaugural address a week ago, was "I guarantee you that Dixie will become the regional university in this area." JL: It fits. Of course, that's taking the institution up the road and slapping them in the face about fifty times - that's saying, Cedar City, you're going to be out of the picture. JS: Exactly. And the irony is that Weber became a four-year university in an alliance with SUU. JL: Absolutely. JS: In some ways, it's almost a throw-in. Our friend Michael Leavitt engineered that pretty well, he and others of his family. JL: You know what we needed at the time, was the legislative support. I mean, that pretty soon got out of the hands of the Regents. We were saying, welcome aboard SUU. 27 JS: Absolutely. SUU was saying, welcome aboard, we need you too. It was an amazing political alliance. Speaking as a historian, that is a case study in politicssome key players and some aspirations. JL: Bringing them together and saying,” We can form a coalition here.” JS: "Maybe down the road we won't always be partners, but we're a long way away from Weber, and don't see you as a threat,” and Weber says,” Yeah, we're a lot closer to Utah State.” Amazing. JL: Anyway, Paul had a lot to do with moving the institution in that direction. He was a real advocate of that. JS: Were you there when he decided to float the idea about getting a new football team? JL: Oh gosh, was I ever. JS: I thought you were. Talk about that for a minute, if you wouldn't mind. JL: Well, I think that may have been something that ultimately discouraged Paul. He had a desire to stay at least ten years. JS: He was there from 1990 to 2002. JL: He wanted to be the longest serving other than Miller, I believe. JS: So far he is. JL: I don't know why that was important to him, but he did want that, and he didn't do it like,” This will make my mark.” He just said,” I just would like to do it for ten years.” What happened with the football program agreement was that if the football program couldn't average so many people in attendance, it would end 28 because it was sucking up something like a million dollars a year in addition to what it brought in. When the program did not meet that, or rather, in Paul's mind when the community did not meet that, then I think he really thought that since that agreement had been made, football would go away. Of course, Dave Arslanian went to the mattresses, if you will, to make sure it didn't happen, and the community won. He was not able to pull off what he thought was a strategic decision that would better the institution. JS: Did he think he had the support of the community and then they changed their mind? Or did he think he didn't have the support but he could sell it based on what it was? I think, rationally, he was probably right. But boy, it died a dramatic death. JL: It did. I think he just thought that once the decision was made here, and the evidence didn't come through to change that, it just would follow. I don't know that he understood the dynamics of how the community here can say,” Yes, we understand what you're saying, but you mean you're really going to drop football?" Then Dave did not lie down and take it. Dave's always been a renegade that way, and he just wouldn't lie down and take it. So off he went, and he garnered support for the team. It was easy to garner support from the community. There's some powerful people out there. I wish I understood better how the Lindquists and so on, what their impact was on that decision. JS: Well it just seemed to be odd. It was almost like he was way out there, and that's not his style. Kathleen described him as a grandfather. She said,” I don't mean 29 that literally, but I just mean stylistically, he's a ‘bringer-together,’ he's a 'we can get along'.” It just seems like he was all of the sudden out there and boy, he just got cut off. JL: I think that's true. Paul and I got to be friends too. We went snowmobiling together, we went to basketball games up at Boise together. When I left to go to the Regents, Bob said,” You really shocked Paul on that one.” So Paul and I were close. That's the thing I've always really valued, how close I was able to get to them, and enjoy them as people. JS: You know, one of the things that we lose sight of is that administrators really are people. Some of us don't often see that side. JL: That's how I was with Brady. I never could crack through the blue suit, the white shirt, the red tie. JS: Yes. JL: Let me comment on one other thing. On provosts. Two things occurred. I returned to campus from down at the Regents' office one day, and David Eisler and his wife were there, and this is how he introduced me to his wife: he said,” Here's the fellow that should have the job that I've got.” Now, he was kissing my butt at the time, understand, because I don't think he believed that for an instant, but there was some idea that maybe I would go for the Provost position. Now, he said that, and I was embarrassed by it, and I just thought, "You know, he's playing a game with me.” Then I come back to the campus several years later, in 30 the role as Dean of Continuing Education, and in essence, he said,” Well, I have two kinds of Deans' meetings, and I don't want you coming to the big one.” JS: The real one. JL: Yes. Like, Continuing Ed isn't an academic school, so let's not play games here. I was disappointed in that side of him, because I thought I could bring some experience to the table. JS: Well, sure. JL: Then it turned out that Dave was so confident in himself, to the point where he just thought that he knew the best of everything. In my opinion, at least, I think he alienated a lot of Deans with his behavior. JS: Well, he did, and he alienated a lot of faculty. JL: Same thing. JS: Yes. You left campus in '93 to go down to the Regents, you're there for three or four years, then you get involved with Western Governor's University. As I said, I see that as a whole interview, and at some point we may even think about that, but one sort of general question about that. What was your relationship with Weber during that period of time? Did you have to kind of shift gears and say,” Okay, I'm no longer a Weber person?" JL: Let me explain how it took place. I was interested in going to the Regents for the exposure to the other institutions, and I'd been, in the position at Weber State for eight years. I liked Cece Foxley. I had met her before, and she had been the Associate Deputy Commissioner, and then when Rolfe Kerr left, she got the job. 31 So I was interested in it from that perspective; I had attended several of their meetings with Bob or in the place of Bob, so I kind of knew some of the people, and so anyway, I applied for that job and got it. I was pleased with it. I was the Chief Academic Officer for the system. I saw that as consistent at least with being an academic officer at an institution, only this was for an entire system. JS: Sure. JL: There was a group in the state that was headquartered at University of Utah called SETOC which became UEN. Because of my assignment with the Regents, Cece said, ”Would you go to the SETOC meetings and find out what's going on there because it's a delivery system for academic programs.” Steve Hess was the director of SETOC, and he and I become really good friends. Overtime, it then became UEN, and I was the Chair of the UEN Board of Directors for several years. Only because I was the Provost, if you will, in the system. Not because I brought anything to the table. Because I didn't know anything about technology. But I knew what we wanted to deliver. So that's why I was there. My counterpart was Jerry Peterson, who was the Associate Superintendent for Public Education. So UEN/SETOC was for both systems of education, to deliver coursework. That's how I got really involved in that. Then they created a technology subcommittee of the legislature, and I got appointed to that, because of that position. So here I am, wandering through all this stuff. I don't know anything about technology. About that time, the Regents got from the legislature a large sum of money to develop coursework and so on for delivery on this system, and that was my 32 responsibility, to get proposals in from the institutions and allocate that money out. Fortunately - I wasn't floundering, I know how to manage things - but I didn't know anything about the technology. Wayne Peay came over to the Regents on a half-time basis and worked with me, in essence. But he knew what was going on. JS: He was the tech person. JL: Well, he was tech, but he was a pretty good understander of what we were trying to develop in terms of coursework too. JS: That's what I mean by that. JL: He understood the technology, understood what we were trying to accomplish. So he was a great boon, but I'm kind of the face of what's going on, because I have to go to all of the meetings. About that time Governor Michael Leavitt was hosting the Western Governor's Association meetings up at Park City. Well, it was his time to do it, and he wanted a demonstration done of our technology during that meeting. So the demonstration gets held; the people, the governors are really impressed by it. Leavitt's kind of got an agenda to use technology for delivery in the state anyway, instead of building campuses. About that time, Governor Roy Roemer of Colorado raises his hand and says,” This is a great idea, but I'll tell you what we ought to be focusing on. Competencies. Not seat time. If we're going to do anything with this, let's be sure we do it with competencies.” It just grabbed the attention of the governors. Competency 2nd technology. So they said, ”Who's interested?" Well, now they had people 33 interested in the Western states, and Leavitt was the head of the group, as well. Roemer is rude, he's crude, he has none of the dignity and class that Leavitt can display, but he is so stinkin' smart. Leavitt and Roemer, for whatever reason, really liked each other. JS: An unlikely alliance. JL: Absolutely. Unlikely in style, but their smarts are pretty equivalent. JS: I'm sure. JL: So Roemer's idea and Leavitt's idea catches the governors' attention. They say, “Where are we going to go with this?" About that time, Leavitt's looking for somebody to represent his interest in this project. Who's the Regents guy on technology, but stupid over here, and seriously that's how it happened. So Roemer picked a guy from Colorado, and Leavitt picked me from Utah, and we got together and started to organize this thing, not thinking eventually we'd have a University out of it. But that's kind of how it started. UEN, indirectly, is how I got there. JS: This is interesting in terms of Weber too. Weber was big in distance education from an early period. JL: But it wasn't at the time. JS: Yes. But early on, under Reed Stringham, particularly, up in Health Professions. Then later, at about the same time this is going on, is when Dave Eisler is hired. So you were at the Regents, and then in WGU for the reasons you've explained, at about the same time that Eisler comes and begins really to not only be 34 interested in distance education, but really begins to see technology. I don't think anybody would argue that technology is what Dave Eisler's all about. JL: Yes. JS: So what's the impact as you are moving to these things you've described? What's your impact with the place you'd been? JL: Two things. One, the Regents don't have a support staff for payroll and so on. So if you come to the Regents from an institution, you stay on the payroll of the institution. JS: Oh, I didn't know that. JL: Unless you come from outside the system, and then you'll be put on the University of Utah payroll. So Weber paid me the whole time, but the Regents reimbursed Weber. So all that time, I was on the Weber payroll. JS: Oh, my. I didn't realize that. What an odd situation. JL: Yes. But when you understand, the Regents are trying to say, we don't want to have all that staff. JS: Yes, but still, it's an odd situation. JL: Well, and then when I went with Western Governors', Western Governors' wasn't set up, and we hadn't been legally organized yet, so there wasn't anything for money to go through. So even when I left the Regents' office, I remained on Weber's payroll. The money that this effort took in reimbursed Weber for my benefits and for my pay. So I never did ever go off of Weber's payroll. JS: That's amazing. 35 JL: Well, it's interesting. The concept of Western Governors' University became something that took the country by surprise. JS: Oh, yeah. JL: Do you know, I averaged a hundred presentations a year. All involving airplane travel. So - at a hundred - for three years in a row. And I'm just saying, we talked to the top - the Presidents, we talked to everybody. So that part of it was quite interesting, as we put it all together, but one of the presentations was at Weber. We came back, and Leavitt was there, and I was in the audience; Leavitt made a presentation there, and Bruce Handley in fact stood up and asked a lot of questions. JS: I remember that. JL: At the time, our thought was, ”Here's where we'll get our coursework. We'll just become a broker for coursework. Institutions like Weber and anybody else is trying to expand the market, can offer their coursework through us, and we can give them access to audiences they wouldn't normally have.” In Weber's case, you know it was funny, because when I came back as Dean, Western Governors came to Weber and said, are you interested in putting on your coursework? Well, they were directed over to Continuing Education. JS: Where you were. JL: Where I was, and where I said, ”No, we're not interested at all.” Weber, with Dave, took the challenge of doing this on our own. We don't need a Western Governors'. So off Weber goes, and becomes a real frontrunner in the state. 36 JS: That's interesting. So other than the fact that you were gone every other day on a plane, why - and I know you never left the payroll - did you decide, then, to come back? And if you say that's a personal decision, none of your damn business, that's fine, but what were the reasons? You'd had a pretty interesting career there for nearly six, seven years anyway, in a whole different venue, and then you come back to Weber in a kind of a different role. JL: Taking on Western Governors' was really a challenging job. JS: Must have been. JL: I didn't like Roemer, and he was always involved. I got along extremely well with the guy he appointed. But I can remember Roemer in a meeting, where we would hold a Board of Trustees meeting, and that's sixteen governors coming together for our Board, and they all want to be the leader. JS: Yeah. JL: You know, and they're all the top dog. That's an interesting group to try to prepare a meeting for, and think you're going to meet the agenda. I can remember in that meeting, something occurred, and Roemer looked at me and said, “You're stupid, Livingston!" Right in front of all the governors. Now, as the meeting went, he had to say, "Oops. That wasn't like I thought.” But he never apologized, he never said anything in front of the group. I just couldn't stand the guy's arrogance, although I really respected his brilliance. I really enjoyed working with Leavitt. I thought he was outstanding. A lot of people don't, but I thoroughly enjoyed that experience. But things were happening at home, and I 37 had taken a leave from Weber for three years, now I was in my sixth year without leave away from Weber and frankly, I was worn out. It was an opportune time, because we had achieved a lot of the goals that we had set for Weber. JS: To come back. Before we go on to that, I'd like to talk a little bit about the next few years that you were at Weber. You mentioned the governor's agendas. Mike Leavitt clearly had an agenda. President, maybe. Did you see what he was doing as - and I don't know want to say there's anything wrong with this, it's the way politicians work - but was this his way of developing some kind of a platform for him to run for higher office? Was he deeply committed to the concept? Was it vogue? Because if you say to somebody, WGU, and they know anything about it, they'll say Leavitt. They won't say Roemer. But your description is absolutely accurate. That's how it happened. Two very different people, two very different parties. I don't think Roemer ever had aspirations of being President. JL: Nope. JS: And as you recall, he got himself into some real difficulties. JL: Over there in Colorado. JS: In Colorado. But he was pretty close to Clinton in that period of time. Then Leavitt is positioning himself and he's thwarted in Utah, there's nowhere to go in Utah. But there is somewhere to go up, and of course another young governor comes along, and kind of precludes that for a while at least. What's going on in Leavitt's mind? 38 JL: First of all, Mike Leavitt is as bright a guy as I've ever met in my life. Not only that, but he is so good at multiple tasks, and keeping lots of balls in the air, and being more than just peripherally aware of what's going on. He's deeply aware. So I was always shocked, because Western Governors' University, as big as it was to some of us, was just an item that he dealt with. But I was always impressed with how knowledgeable he was of where we were in the process. So I think he had several of those kinds of things. To the extent that he had visions of going somewhere higher, I don't know. I couldn't perceive but how he saw Western Governors' as part of that. Other than it was part of a basket full of stuff that he was trying to accomplish. JS: Just one more rose in a bouquet. JL: But the depth of his understanding, and the depth of his ability to say, “I think this is what ought to happen.” Let me tell you what Roemer and Leavitt did. When we first started getting together, they decided, because it was going to be across several states, accreditation was a big issue. Leavitt knew that. He said, “The credibility of our brand is going to be determined by accreditation.” So they decided to call in the four chiefs of accrediting across the regions where Western Governors' would meet. Now, first of all, for all four of them to come together for a meeting like that... JS: Big time. JL: Yes. So here's Leavitt and Roemer saying, “Look, if we're going to up for accreditation, we want it from all four of you at the same time. We don't want to 39 do it four separate times.” They understood that; Bob and I, Bob Albrecht was the guy from Colorado, we were able to explain that well enough. The accreditor chiefs are kind of going, what? So they lay out their normal crap - "Well, you've got to have a faculty, you guys aren't going to have a faculty.” Leavitt said, “I guess we'll have to just pursue this one on our own, huh? We'll just create a new accrediting association.” It was so clear that there was political clout, and that these guys had just been faced down by two guys that could carry the day. That's when they said, “Well, let us get together and see what we can do.” And you know, John, in the end all four agencies accredited Western Governors'. JS: I did know that. JL: At the same time. It's the only time it's ever been done. JS: I can imagine. JL: But it was just interesting to see that strength. That was WGU's ace, we had all that political strength going for us. When we went to Washington D. C. to meet for federal funds, I'm telling you, we got federal funds because there were governors that were pulling for that thing. You know what state was the hardest to bring in? Texas. JS: Oh. JL: We went down and met with Texas. All the time, trying to get George Bush to say "Okay, we'll join.” They did. I think that's where Leavitt and Bush, in part, started to get to know each other. Why Bush was interested in having Leavitt, you know, on his team. 40 JS: Okay, you're worn out; you come back to Weber in 1999, and you come back as Dean of Continuing Ed replacing Richard Ulibarri. JL: Let me go back a step. Ann Millner was the Vice President and she knew Richard was leaving. Somehow she knew that I was leaving Western Governors'. So anyway, there was an opportunity to talk, and Ann was interested, but she said, “I've got to work this right, because I don't want to conduct a search if we don't have to.” So she had to work through all of that problem, and I think she probably took it up to the Executive Committee of the Senate. I'm sure she did. Anyway, that worked out fine, and so the reason I didn't want to come back strictly as a faculty member was because I couldn't afford to. I knew I could make more money in a Dean's position. JS: Well, you'd been out of the classroom a long time. JL: Yeah. JS: So you come back to Weber in 1999 as the new Dean for three, four years, and then all of a sudden here you are back as faculty for a little while, but then all of a sudden you're back in as Interim Provost. How did that happen? JL: I can't hold a job. I guess you've got to realize something about me, that it took me a while to realize. I'm good with people. I can help people come together, but I'm not a very good strategist. I don't have great vision. Ann is the most strategic, visionary person I've associated with. So when she was Vice President and CE was reporting to her, she was a pusher.” What's your vision for CE?" Well, I'm not a CE professional, I just wanted to come back to Weber. 41 JS: Sure. JL: I know that there were some real bad feelings within Continuing Education, and I had to say at the end, some of those I think are misplaced, but nevertheless. I felt like I could make a contribution to bring peace to the organization, and let people feel like they had something to say and so on. We did some strategic planning, but that is not my expertise. And I do know that Ann was probably disappointed that I didn't have a better vision for CE - I'm just guessing at this - so I thought at the time, let me just feel out whether business administration would be interested in me coming back. They were, so I just thought it was a good time to do it. JS: So you came back - I mean, you went through a couple of things. You are Dean of Continuing Education for about three years, then you're back into the faculty, then you're Interim Provost, and then you're Interim Dean of the School of Business, and for a period of time you're back in the faculty, and then you retired a couple of years ago. While we're talking about that period - '99 to 2008 - that period of time as a transition from Paul to Ann, you touched on some of this, without repeating what you said, what do you think? Once again the question is, on the hire of Ann, is that mostly the top saying, “This is what we want.” Is it mostly the community saying "This is what we want" and the top saying, “Works for us?" Because she is - you know - this is a major departure. Female, gentile, not married - had been married, but not married when she became President. JL: And you know that they'd had a real bad experience with the President of CEU, who was a black female. 42 JS: Oh, a huge problem. JL: So they'd been bitten. JS: Exactly. But all of a sudden you find this person as President. You were on the selection committee. What was the politics of that? JL: Well, it was interesting; I can't remember many of the other candidates, but there were some good candidates. JS: Dave was a candidate. JL: Dave was. I think what you said a moment ago, that they saw the support - and I think the support was coming from, at least on the committee, and they had other meetings, and I went to some of those as well, because we were on the committee, but she obviously had support of some major players in Ogden. She's close to all the major players. She's a good fundraiser. She already had a track record for doing that. The committee itself, on the evaluation of their backgrounds and so on, she came out very high in that process, because of her experience. JS: Were there faculty members on the committee? JL: Yes, there were. JS: Were they concerned about her academic qualifications? Or was that really an issue? JL: It's not at that level. If it is, it's the faculty farting. And that's how the Regents would look at it.” For crap's sakes, you guys, get off of that.” So it wasn't a big issue at that meeting. JS: At that level. 43 JL: No. I recognize it was on campus, but... JS: Still is, somewhat. JL: Yeah. That won't go away, she hasn't gained any experience along the way. JS: No. JL: But I believe, within the committee, and you know who chaired that group was the attorney from Salt Lake that's so prevalent in major cases. Jim Jardine. He thought she was good, and he is a player. He was on the Regents. So there's no question - Cece was there, of course. She had to run the search, but she's a player too, so you had a woman that's the Commissioner, so it wasn't too far a reach to say we could have a woman leader somewhere. JS: You think CeCe had aspirations to be a President somewhere? Apparently it wasn't Weber. JL: You know when Rolfe Kerr was Commissioner, Utah State's position came open, and he kind of took a leap, at that time when CeCe was acting Commissioner. JS: I remember that. JL: That was not a pleasant experience for Rolfe. It is my understanding at Utah State, the faculty indicated they didn't want him coming back. What a stupid mistake, in my mind, because he's so well connected with everything that has to do with money coming back to Utah State. But anyway, I think that CeCe probably looked at that and said, “At least in the state, this may not be something that I ought to do.” But she was - I don't know if she's close to my age - she's pretty close to what I am. 44 JS: Yeah. JL: She was there for ten years, so I think her run was what she enjoyed, and with her husband passing away while she was Commissioner; she's got one child by him, then the rest of the stepchildren. I think she was ready to kind of relax a little bit. JS: There are two things I'd like to conclude with. One is, that period of time when you're the Interim Provost, and then you're Interim Dean, and there are really different reasons for that. Were you involved in the selection of the Provost? JL: That's a good question. You know, when Dave left, Kathleen was interim, and I chaired the search committee for the Provost. We went through that process, brought in five people, and I think even the committee members recognized we didn't bring anybody in that's going to be the Provost. Ann said, “You didn't bring anybody in that's going to be the Provost.” JS: She had the most important vote. JL: She did, but I don't think anybody on the committee was surprised either. JS: No. JL: In fact, I can only remember vaguely one person, and a little bit better a second person, that came down from Idaho State, and - even the presence wasn't there. They looked good, but their presence in front of the group. So anyway, that was the first run through. I chaired that committee. Well, Kathleen had said to Ann, “If you don't get a Provost in that search, I'm not going to do this another year.” So Kathleen said, “I'm through.” Ann then came back to me and said, “Will you be 45 the Interim Provost?" Then I think Michelle Hewert chaired the group that brought in the final group. JS: Well, I think Kathleen knew that when that first search failed, that Mike was going to be an applicant, and that this would be too complicated. Were you surprised that Mike didn't apply in that first round? He clearly would have been a strong candidate. JL: I think he would have, but I think if we hadn't had a failure in the first go-round, when we brought in outside people, and people could see what was coming up to the table, I think Mike was more attractive after that experience than he would have been in the first go-round. JS: I see. JL: Because he's in-bred, Ann was in-bred, you know that kind of thing. JS: He's another non-Mormon. JL: Well, and do we get any broader experience than just a Weber State experience? JS: Right, we're getting more of the same. JL: I think in the end, I think clearly the committee was in favor of Mike, coming out of Michelle's group, and it was obvious that Ann was in favor of Mike, so I think it turned out to be - the sequence of things was probably right for Mike. I don't know that he'd have been so clear on the first one. JS: You had no aspirations to be Provost? JL: No. I just think one has to realize one's strengths. 46 JS: And one's limitations. JL: Yes. I was nominated for several presidencies. I just don't feel like that's my strength at WGU, I was the President of that thing, but I was organizing stuff. I wasn't really an academician leading, although we had to do academic things. So I just don't think I ever had- JS: Had those kinds of aspirations. JL: Yes. I don't know that I had the capability. JS: Well, that's debatable. Last question: You become the interim Dean of the School of Business. You may say, “I don't even want to talk about that.” If you do want to talk about that, a little bit about what's going on. How did that happen? JL: Well, I just think with Mike being chosen, and he was available to move over so quickly, the school obviously didn't have a chance to put together a search committee and get anybody, Ann was left and so was Mike, holding the bag. What are we going to do with the school of business? So I think it was a followon, “Livingston's not doing anything, he just came off of this, let's have him do that.” JS: Well, what I was getting at, and this may not be the case, it seems to me that you're somebody over there in that school that everybody in that somewhat factionalized area can agree to.” He can be interim Dean. We understand he's not going to be Dean forever, but he'll do fine until we all decide on who we want.” Is that an accurate description? JL: Yeah. I think nobody was upset that I was appointed as Dean. 47 JS: Knew that you wouldn't apply for it, knew that you could get along with the various factions. So you do that for a year, then you go back to the classroom for a couple of years, finish your career and retire. If I understand correctly, since then you've been down here in Arizona on a mission. You've been here about a year and a half, not quite? JL: Just about. JS: So there's a period between the time you retire - did you just go fishing and kick back? JL: Well, I didn't retire until July of 2008; Nancy's mother lived with us, and she passed away in May. Nancy had retired the year before, so right after I retired on July 1st, we basically started thinking about whether or not we should go on a mission. Then we were down here in January. So I only had six months. It's been good, we've really enjoyed it. JS: Well, I really appreciate you sitting down and talking, this has been great. JL: I'm honored. Want to know what I think, though? I'll tell you this. I've really had an enjoyable career. In some ways I like to think, “I hope I made a contribution.” JS: I don't think there's any doubt.