DATE: Sunday, June 15, 1997                 TAG: 9706120616

SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J1   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Interview

                                            LENGTH:  160 lines

Q&A: JOHN D. PADGETT DAVIES CONTROVERSY BOILED DOWN TO CHEMISTRY, SAYS PADGETT

John D. Padgett, a 38-year-old Norfolk lawyer, has found himself in the eye of the storm in the state's higher-education system.

Gov. George F. Allen appointed Padgett two years ago to the State Council of Higher Education. He was elected vice chairman last summer. Since then, the majority of board members have clashed with the staff. The high tensions culminated in the members' dismissal of longtime agency director Gordon K. Davies - a move criticized by legislators and academics.

In a discussion with Virginian-Pilot editors and writers, Padgett said there was friction with Davies from the start. The sticking points, he said, didn't involve clashing education ideologies: ``I think it really came down to chemistry. It was a question of whether he felt comfortable working with a more active board. . . .Good leaders have to know when to be generals and when to be sergeants. Sometimes you lose the distinction.''

The rub came at a meeting earlier this year, Padgett said, when the members raised a series of concerns with Davies. ``At the end of the meeting, instead of responding and saying, `Let's work through these,' he indicated that we should sever the relationship.''

Davies, like everyone else in the world, can be replaced, Padgett said. ``I think we'll able to find someone who will also contribute in another meaningful way. . . .I honestly believe we're going to gain ground and recover and move on.''

Aside from picking a replacement, Padgett said his agenda includes extending the state's tuition freeze and initiating more discussion on the ``output'' of higher education - such as why many students never graduate. These are excerpts of his talk with editorial page editor Keith Monroe, editorial writer Margaret Edds and staff writer Philip Walzer.

Padgett: It was clear to me that there was a problem that developed from the very beginning. Dr. Davies was convinced that the guillotine blade had been raised and his head had been put in the wrong place and it was a matter of time. It became very much a defensive strategy, and trust did erode.

(Davies' dismissal) wasn't a situation that gelled in my mind until we had a series of conversations with Dr. Davies about personnel issues and problems that had arisen, which we have been very circumspect about discussing. I can only assure you that our concerns were valid, and we had conversations with Gordon, not in the sense of: ``Do this or get out.'' It was more like, ``These are problems and what do we do to solve them?''. . . .At the end of the meeting, instead of responding and saying, ``Let's work through these,'' he indicated that we should sever the relationship.

Q. Do you feel everybody else came to the table with the same lack of preconceived opinion of Davies?

A. I don't want to speak for them. . . .But I don't think anyone walked through the door saying my duty is to terminate Dr. Davies' contract. I don't believe, if you lay it all out on the table, that you're going to find any substantial ideological differences in what Dr. Davies was promoting aggressively and what we were promoting, except for possibly the topic I call aid-for-grades (grade requirements for financial aid). That seemed to be one thing that captured his fancy.

Q. This, then, was a question of difference in style versus substance?

A. I think it really came down to chemistry. It was a question of whether he felt comfortable working with a more active board. After you've been head of an organization for a long period and you've worked with substantial members of the community, to have a group come in who defines their role in a little different way is difficult. He's 20 years my senior, I suppose almost my father's age. It takes some knack to relate to someone in the position that I'm in.

Q. Part of the reason there's been such controversy is because Gordon Davies has amassed a reputation beyond Virginia. The Chronicle of Higher Education said he was ``one of the most visionary leaders in academe.'' Is the state better off without him, for the sake of better chemistry?

A. I'm not saying he wasn't visionary. There are a lot of people around the country who are unique and qualified and creative leaders, but they may not have the ability to operate in a certain environment. I don't believe Gordon Davies is the only visionary leader in the country. So to say that we're worse off or will be worse off in the future is very shortsighted. I think that anyone can be replaced. I can be replaced, you can be replaced. And I think we're shortchanging the staff that he built, the credibility that surrounds what they've done.

Q. I want to clarify something: You indicated that this was Gordon's decision, yet this was a termination and he said immediately afterward: I do not want to resign. Which is it?

A. He was the one who said we should sever the relationship. The content of that meeting I'm not going to make part of the public debate. I don't think it's fair to Dr. Davies, it's not fair to the council. But I can assure you the meeting was held, and that was the result.

Q. You've caught a lot of flak for this decision, both from Democratic and Republican legislators. What do you intend to do to win back or maintain the support and respect of people, particularly the hard-core supporters of Davies?

A. I've only heard complaints from one Republican legislator - Sen. Chichester. There are some Democrats who view this as a Republican-Democratic issue and it's unfortunate, but that's going to be out there. We're going to just have to keep our head down and keep looking at issues objectively and try to do what's right. We have to continue the business of being advocates for higher education. We have to continue to be honest with people; we're trying to do the best we can.

Q. Did you have personal goals in coming on the board?

A. I wasn't sitting at home thinking, ``Put me up there, and I'm going to do this, that or the other.'' I've got a lot of respect for the higher-education system in the commonwealth. I don't have a checklist I debated with my wife.

Q. Do you have one now? What are the top things you think your group ought to be working on?

A. We've got a lot of challenges. In the near future, we've got to keep the cost of higher education affordable. Politically, I think everyone is on the same sheet of music now, that we need to hold down the cost. I think we would like to see that that (tuition) be held frozen. We also believe that the General Assembly should provide some assistance to the colleges and universities to offset that.

I'd like to see some more focus on the output. If you look at the number of students who walk through the doors of schools today, you'll see that 50 percent do not graduate. That's a great drain on the public because they're supporting each of those. I think we should have access, but I think it should be meaningful access. We're getting to the point where more bodies means more money, and I think that's a mistake. I'd like us at least to evaluate that.

Q. Are you arguing for higher admissions standards at some schools?

A. I think they all have standards. But this is part of the enrollment projection problem: If the enrollment projections are out there and they're overly ambitious, there's a tendency or incentive to get students to meet those projections, which means you have a tendency to drop some of the requirements.

Q. On the tuition freeze, which you now support: Two years ago you voted against that, and you said at the time that ``both students and taxpayers have to make some sacrifices.'' What has changed since then?

A. Since then, it's become more obvious to me that we're in big trouble. I was looking at getting some more flexibility to make it more palatable two years ago. Now my sense of it is that we need to freeze it and let's see if we can find the money from another source or provide the same quality education for a little less money.

Q. Are you persuaded there's a lot that's cuttable?

A. I know that there are things that we can do more efficiently. The restructuring plans indicate that they've saved $60 million, which they've been allowed to keep. And I'm not suggesting that we take that away from them. that we go on a starvation diet.

Q. How do you react to the argument that if there isn't a substantial financial infusion, Virginia schools will fall further behind the leading schools in other states?

A. The University of Virginia has remained almost at the same rank since 1989 in the U.S. News and World Report poll. The money that the state has spent has dropped. If there's a qualitative difference, I would assume it would show up somewhere. I don't think you drop off the board merely because suddenly you're not spending as much as North Carolina. If you convince me that another $800 per student is going to make the University of Montana on par with the University of Virginia, I would be very surprised.

Q. In the two years you've been on the council, what do you think you've learned about education, about politics?

A. I lived in a perfect world. I lived in a residential four-year school; I graduated in four years. I never thought about extending it to to five or six or seven years. Everybody I knew went to the same type of school, and I went to law school in three years. The average age at Old Dominion is 29; they have a lot of housewives going back. There are different concerns, and I have to struggle to walk a mile in their moccasins so I can understand their issues. That's what I've learned: Preconceived notions are not necessarily the truth anymore. ILLUSTRATION: Color photo

Norfolk attorney John D. Padgett is a member of the State Council of

Higher Education. KEYWORDS: INTERVIEW

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu