GOVERNMENT
Leadership Battle Is Splitting National Academy Of Engineering NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
T
he dissension between National Academy of Engineering (ΝΑΕ) President Harold Liebowitz and the top hierarchy of both ΝΑΕ and one of its sister organizations, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), seems des tined to be moving into an even uglier phase that is virtually certain to involve litigation. The controversy is rocking the foun dations of ΝΑΕ and upsetting relations between ΝΑΕ and NAS in the manage ment of their $180 million-per-year oper ating arm, the National Research Coun cil (NRC). The story makes for the kind of high drama seldom seen among the top figures of science and technology policy. The ΝΑΕ council wants to remove Liebowitz from his post as quickly as possible for behavior they believe they can no longer tolerate. The ΝΑΕ council is, from its own perspective, attempting to keep the organization from implod ing. Liebowitz, in seeking project fund ing outside of normal NAS/ΝΑΕ chan nels from government agencies, believes he is renewing it. Liebowitz was elected president last April. He was a petition candidate who ran on a platform of opposition to NAE's then-current leadership under ΝΑΕ President Robert M. White. Liebowitz didn't believe that leadership was in volving enough ΝΑΕ members, espe cially those west of the Mississippi River, in key activities. He defeated NAE's offi cial candidate, Association of American Universities President Cornelius J. Pings, who refused to campaign against the Liebowitz platform. Liebowitz's victory stunned most of NAE's ruling figures— White, ΝΑΕ Council Chairman Norman R. Augustine, ΝΑΕ Vice President Mor ris Tanenbaum, and others. Last September, Liebowitz was rep rimanded by the ΝΑΕ council for vari ous questionable financial practices in volving ΝΑΕ funds and failures in ad ministration. And last month, the NAS council removed Liebowitz from any
NRC responsibilities and took away that portion of his income derived from NRC overhead. Except for a friendship with National Aeronautics & Space Administration Administrator Daniel S. Goldin, Liebowitz seems without support from the science and technolo gy power structure in Washington, D.C., an ΝΑΕ source says. At the moment, dysfunction appar ently reigns at the home offices of ΝΑΕ. Insiders report that Liebowitz attends few staff meetings and operates only through one person, consultant Graham W. Mclntyre, a colleague of Liebow itz's at George Washington Universi ty, where Liebowitz was once dean of engineering. Neither Liebowitz nor Mclntyre would comment on the current situation, al though Liebowitz publicly has said he intends to carry out his six-year term. And fearing suits by Liebowitz, no top ΝΑΕ figures except Tanenbaum are speaking for the record. However, few ΝΑΕ or NAS leaders mince words in private in describing Liebowitz's con duct—involving alleged arrogance and the inability, or unwillingness, to follow conversational trains of thought on mat ters relating to NAE/NRC business. Liebowitz has informed ΝΑΕ staff that they are to report to Mclntyre rath er than to NAE's chief executive officer, William C. Salmon, whom Liebowitz distrusts as too associated with the White regime and whom he tried to re move on becoming ΝΑΕ president. It is Salmon, nevertheless, whose job it is to keep ΝΑΕ headquarters functioning.
Thus, ΝΑΕ seems split in two rather unequal parts: Liebowitz, who pursues his own personal vision for ΝΑΕ by continuing to seek outside money against the wishes of both the ΝΑΕ and NAS councils; and the rest of ΝΑΕ officialdom, which attempts to conduct normal business. NRC order is being kept via its gov erning board, chaired by NAS President Bruce M. Alberts, who wrote a letter to Liebowitz in December decrying his conduct with reference to NRC matters. Alberts is permanent chairman of NRC's governing board, with Liebowitz its per manent—but now deactivated—vice chairman. Unlike NAS, NAE's charter has no procedures for the ouster of an officer. So the ΝΑΕ council's goal is to ask the ΝΑΕ membership to add, by ballot, such a provision. Then, when approved, the membership would be asked to vote for Liebowitz's removal. It is a long and rocky way from here to there. Liebowitz is expected to challenge that procedure in court. ΝΑΕ, for its own part, has en gaged legal counsel. But an issue underlying the overt matter is what ΝΑΕ should be, espe cially in its relationship with the better known NAS, seen by the public as the more prestigious organization. As one pro-Liebowitz member of ΝΑΕ has put it, ΝΑΕ has been subservient to NAS for too long. He says a majority of ΝΑΕ members prefer secession to the cur rent arrangement with NAS. Indepen dence, some sources say, has been Liebowitz's intent all along and the core reason for the current difficulty. The ΝΑΕ council is in a sense racing against time. Augustine steps down as chairman at the end of June. Taking his place will be a person chosen by Liebowitz—Allan G. Lovelace, formerly a vice chairman of a General Dynamics subsidiary. Lovelace ran unopposed for chairman after Augustine failed to satisfy MARCH 25,1996 C&EN
19
GOVERNMENT various criteria set by the nominating committee, also handpicked by Liebowitz. Some ΝΑΕ members believe that Lovelace and Liebowitz will combine to engineer ΝΑΕ toward all but total inde pendence from NAS. One member sees ΝΑΕ establishing its own research coun cil that would deal mainly with technol ogy issues, while NAS's research council would confine itself to basic science issues. Naturally, both the NAS and ΝΑΕ coun cils reject the idea of any such division. In any case, the outlook is not a hap py one. Liebowitz, bunkered and diffi cult to deal with as he might be, will not voluntarily resign. He has lost the sup port he once had of top ΝΑΕ figures—J. Fred Bucy, formerly of Texas Instru ments; David Packard, formerly of Hewlett-Packard; and William J. Harris, a civil engineering professor at Texas A&M University who ran Liebowitz's election campaign. Tanenbaum indicates that Liebowitz absolutely must go. "We cannot continue with the present situa tion," he says. Wil L·pkoιvski
Plan aims to reform environmental policies Using a Senate hearing as a launching platform, William D. Ruckelshaus, chairman of Ferris-Browning Industries and first administrator of the Environ mental Protection Agency, announced an initiative that will recommend fun damental changes to the nation's envi ronmental protection strategy. Called Enterprise for the Environ ment, the broad-based venture is the "direct outgrowth" of a congressionally commissioned 1995 report by the National Academy of Public Adminis tration (NAPA), explains Ruckelshaus, who is chairing the new effort. That re port calls on EPA to redefine its mis sion, delegate more responsibility to states, and provide local governments and businesses more flexibility to meet environmental targets. The polarized state of environmental policy is best reflected by the turmoil these issues elicit in Congress. So the ini tiative is aimed at rebuilding bipartisan ship on environmental issues to achieve "consensus for systemic reform," Ruck elshaus recently told the Senate Appro priations Subcommittee on VA-HUD-Independent Agencies. 20
MARCH 25,1996 C&EN
Clinton urges GOP support for environmental protection
President Bill Clinton recently visited New Jersey—a key swing state in his reelec tion bid and the state with the most hazardous waste sites on the Superfund clean up list Accompanied by Vice President Al Gore (left) and Environmental Protec tion Agency official John Frisco (right), he toured the Industrial Latex site in Wallington. Cleanup there and at 69 other Superfund sites across the U.S. has been halted because of Congress' inability to pass a veto-proof EPA budget Clinton also told an enthusiastic crowd at Fairleigh Dickinson University that the GOPcontrolled Congress has mounted "the most aggressive antienvironmental cam paign in our history." He called for renewed bipartisan commitment to environ mental protection, including bipartisan support for Superfund reauthorization that retains the polluter-pays principle. Clinton also asked for Congress' support to re develop brownfields—moderately contaminated, abandoned industrial sites in poor urban areas. He proposed a tax initiative worth $2 billion over seven years to prod developers and bankers to revitalize about 30,000 of the 100,000 known brownfields. Redevelopers could write off cleanup costs immediately instead of over the five to 10 years now allowed. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Sum mers says this could spur $10 billion in private cleanup investments nationwide. Lois Ember
If the initiative achieves its goal, EPA will be provided "with a coherent, well-defined statutory mission and flexibility to carry it out, resulting in a cleaner environment at a reasonable cost," Ruckelshaus says. No small or der, he concedes. Enterprise for the Environment is co ordinated by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) and by NAPA, both based in Washington, D.C. NAPA is appointing an independent panel of experts to provide the analytical infrastructure for the so-called stake holder process under the direction of CSIS. Sixty participants culled from members of Congress, state officials and regulators, and leaders from environ mental groups, labor, and business will take part. Three other former EPA ad ministrators—Douglas M. Costle, Wil
liam D. Reilly, and Lee M. Thomas—will join Ruckelshaus in this effort. From the stakeholder process, which will be facilitated by the Keystone Cen ter of Colorado, will come specific leg islative recommendations. Ruckelshaus says if rhetorical and emotional excesses can be avoided and common ground found, the initiative will deliver its packet of recommenda tions to Congress and the Administra tion next spring. He recognizes that not all recom mendations offered will be adopted. But, he notes, "those who have the power to act on our recommendations want our recommendations. . . . Con gress and EPA support our process and will be receptive to the statutory reforms we suggest." hois Ember
