The Athens Observer
Controversial center for math to be closed?
By John Toon
The Athens Observer
Thursday, February 8, 1979
An outside advisory committee has reportedly recommended action on the University of Georgia’s controversial Center for Applied Mathematics (CAM), suggesting that the center’s staff be placed into the department of mathematics, under its current head, James Cantrell.
University administrators apparently plan to close the center, but instead of placing its personnel into the math department, they are seeking to create a separate department of applied mathematics, which would be of equal standing to the present department under Cantrell.
The new department would operate at least temporarily under William Ames, the present associate director of the CAM, and administrators are reportedly attempting to force Cantrell out of office so they can appoint a new head for that department, too.
Allegations of fraud, plagiarism, and other wrong-doing have been levelled against the center by faculty members in other departments, and the study committee was brought to campus in November for a highly unusual outside evaluation of the university’s total math program, the CAM, the math department, and the Department of Statistics and Computer Science.
The committee’s report has been received by Vice-President for Research Robert C. Anderson and College of Arts and Sciences Dean Jack Payne, but both have refused to make the findings and recommendations public.
The report, known to be critical of the university’s administration, has not been shown to the two department heads involved. But it reportedly has been furnished to George Adomian, the $46,475-a-year director of the center. Adomian is a friend and strong supporter of university President Fred C. Davison.
Meanwhile, the faculty of the department of mathematics has called for the release of the report, urging on a voice vote that it be made “generally available.”
In a meeting Monday, 37 of the department’s 43 faculty members voted to express support for Cantrell, while a similar number voiced opposition to the planned creation of a new department of applied mathematics, calling the idea educationally unsound and a costly duplication of existing facilities.
Persons who have seen the report say it is clear and precise in its recommendations on what should be done with the center. It is also critical of the university’s administration.
“It was a frank, honest report, and it may be too blunt for the general public,” said a source. “The report was not very flattering to the administration, and that they would ignore it is not surprising.”
The creation of a new department and the attempted ouster of Cantrell “clearly is not consistent with” the report, the source added.
But while the major interest has been generated over the report’s CAM recommendations, the bulk of the short report deals with suggestions for updating the Department of Statistics and Computer Science.
The center was proposed several years ago as a means of bridging the gap between theoretical mathematics and the practical uses of those theories. Though the idea originated in the math department, the center was placed directly under the vice-president for research when it was finally created.
During the three years it has been funded, the center has been allocated nearly $300,000 – most of that for salaries going to its two principal employees, Adomian and Ames.
The State Auditor’s Report for fiscal 1978 shows that Adomian was paid $42,250 in salary and $2,537 in travel money for a total of $44,787.
Ames in 1978 received salaries of $35,965 from the university for ten months of work and $5,935 from the Georgia Institute of Technology for one month of work there before joining the center. Ames also received $1,391 in travel money for a total state expenditure of $43,291.
In addition to Ames and Adomian, the center has one other faculty level employee: Richard Bellman, an internationally respected authority in applied mathematics, who was paid $4,795 for “consulting” work with the center.
But though Bellman and Ames are definitely employed by the center, they are not shown in the 1978-79 University of Georgia budget, though Adomian is listed there.
Bellman, who suffers from a brain disorder, is confined to a wheelchair and has been to the university only once since he joined the center. However, he has an office in the center and his name is listed on the CAM directory in Tucker Hall. The names of two other persons – neither of whom is employed by the center – are also listed in the directory, giving rise to charges of fraud and deception.
Both Ames and Adomian have been charged with plagiarism. A former student of Adomian has alleged that the CAM director stole the student’s master’s thesis, incorporating it into a paper published under Adomian’s name. Ames also allegedly gave a lecture based on an article in a scientific publication without attributing the material to the publication.
Neither Ames nor Adomian would discuss the charges when they were levelled last year, and Adomian last January attempted to assault two reporters who visited the center.
Members of the math department have called for an outside investigation of the center’s activities, and this fall Anderson and Payne arranged for four well-respected faculty members from other colleges to visit.
Though they have had the report now for nearly a month, neither man would discuss it – though both indicated there would be some changes to report before long.
“We had a group of outsiders to come in a few weeks ago and take a look at our math programs…and we have just received their report. We are in the process of studying it and making some decisions about what, if anything, we are going to do with it,” said Anderson.
“I am not at liberty to give you any information yet,” he added. “If we have any information to release, it will be put out through regular channels.”
Dean Payne said on Friday that the planning for changes in the center was still in the preliminary stages, but this week he indicated that work underway last week may have fallen apart.
“We are discussing it now with the department head and the director involved,” he said Friday. “I expect there will be a number of things to report when there is some sort of a decision.”
Monday, however, Payne was less certain that things would be happening: “We had some plans afoot, but it’s all fallen back. We’re back to square one.”
Some faculty members in the math department believe that the plan to create the new department and fire Cantrell has now stalled, and they feel at least some of the problem lies with a reported “falling out” between Ames and Adomian.
The faculty members hoped to seal the fate of the plan with the resolutions adopted Monday afternoon.
“The faculty of the department of mathematics opposes any proposal to establish a new and separate applied mathematics department,” said one resolution. “Virtually no university in the entire county has both a mathematics department and a separate applied mathematics department within a single College of Arts and Sciences.
“Apparently, the idea has little or no generally recognized educational merit. At any rate, we feel that any such arrangement here would fragment departmental efforts that will continue to work best if they remain unified.
“A separate applied mathematics department would involve costly program and staff duplication, but the increased expense would not result in any significant additional services beyond those already provided by the present mathematics department,” it continued.
The faculty also called for the release of the committee report: “In order to take full advantage of the advice of the Advisory Committee, it is essential that the contents of the report be known to the units involved.
“Clearly this should be accomplished by making the report generally available, rather than through selective distribution,” it said. “Otherwise, neither the reality nor the appearance of fare and open decision-making can be achieved.”
Another motion supported Cantrell and praised his leadership of the department.
Members of the advisory committee would not comment on the contents of their report, but one member – Richard Krutchkoff of Virginia Polytechnic Institute – had praise for the department of mathematics. “I didn’t find any problems with the math department in its teaching and research,” he said. “I felt that the faculty members in the math department were all very good.”
Krutchkoff, a statistics professor, said he felt the math department was well-rounded, having a good program in applied mathematics as well as a strong program in theoretical math.
“I didn’t find anything unsatisfactory in the department,” he said.
Other members of the committee included Irving Kaplansky of the University of Chicago’s Department of Mathematics, Dean W. D. Whitehead of the University of Virginia’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and Sam Conte of Purdue University’s Computer Science Department.
Observer sues to get report on math center
The Athens Observer
Thursday, February 22, 1979
The Athens Observer this week filed suit against University of Georgia Vice President for Research Robert C. Anderson, seeking release of a report prepared recently on the controversial Center for Applied Mathematics on the university campus.
The Observer several weeks ago made an oral request for the study. The request was made of Anderson and College of Arts and Sciences Dean Jack Payne, and was denied. A written request was submitted to Anderson only since Payne is now engaged in research in Wales. The written request to see the report was also denied.
The request, by Observer reporter John Toon, asks that the report be released under the provisions of the Georgia Open Records Act. In his written rejection of Toon’s request, Anderson said that “It is our understanding that the report to which you request access is not a public record within the meaning of the Georgia Code Annotated §40-2701 et seq.”
The report in question deals with the Center for Applied Mathematics, the Department of Mathematics, and the Department of Statistics and Computer Science.
The advisory committee which examined the Center for Applied Mathematics and its relationship with the other two departments included Richard Krutchkoff of Virginia Polytechnic University, Irving Kaplansky of the University of Chicago, Dean W. D. Whitehead of the University of Virginia Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and Sam Conte of the Computer Science Department of the University of Purdue.
Anderson included in his reasons for denying Toon access to the report the claim that “this report includes personnel evaluations which, for reasons of personal privacy, have traditionally been held to be confidential.”
Payne and Anderson have both received the report but both have refused to make the findings public.
Members of the university mathematics department have previously called for the release of the report.
Judge Joe Gaines has set a hearing date of Thursday, March 22, at 10 a.m. to consider arguments in the Observer’s suit against Anderson.
Observer to get report on math programs, Supreme Court rules
The Athens Observer
Thursday, January 10, 1980
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled Friday that The Athens Observer must be given access to a report evaluating mathematical sciences programs at the University of Georgia. The 4-3 decision reversed one by Superior Court Judge Joe Gaines here in which Gaines ruled that the release of the report would not be in the best interest of the public. The Court did agree with Gaines that the report is a public document as defined by the Georgia Open Records Act under which the Observer brought suit.
The report has not yet actually been released, because the university has 10 days to request a rehearing before the court. No further appeal can be made, since no constitutional questions are involved. A spokesman for the state attorney general’s office said the state “probably will ask for a rehearing.”
The mathematics report is the work of a committee formed to look into continuing problems and controversies surrounding the mathematics programs at the university. The committee members were from institutions outside the state of Georgia, and they made their inquiry into matters on the campus in late 1978. Their report was subsequently presented to Dr. Robert C. Anderson, vice president for research at the university.
A few high-ranking university administrators were shown the report, but it was not available to faculty members, even those in the mathematical sciences.
After being denied access to the report, the Observer and reporter John Toon filed suit last February in Clarke County Superior Court.
The university’s attorney argued that the report relates to personnel matters and that its release would constitute an invasion of privacy. The Supreme Court majority disagreed, and in his decision written for the majority, Presiding Justice Hiram Undercofler stated, “We have reviewed the unexpurgated version of the report, which was transmitted to this court in a sealed envelope, and find nothing contained therein which could be considered a personnel file.
On the question of invasion of privacy, Undercofler wrote, “The right of privacy…extends only to unnecessary public scrutiny. It does not protect legitimate inquiry into the operations of a government institution and those employed by it. On the contrary, the public policy of the State has been clearly expressed by the legislature in adopting the Open Records Act. The purpose is not only to encourage public access to such information in order that the public can evaluate the expenditure of public funds and the efficiency and proper functioning of its institutions, but also to foster confidence in government through openness to the public. That the information may comment upon certain public officials’ performance of their official duties does not warrant suppression by the courts.”
The Observer was represented in the case by local attorneys David W. Griffeth and Christopher P. Brooks. Assistant Attorney General Alfred Evans argued for the university.
Observer co-publisher Pete McCommons commented, “We are, of course, pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld our appeal. There have been serious charges of mismanagement over there on the campus, and that committee was looking into matters President Davison had known about for over a year. When the administrators wouldn’t release the report, it sounded kind of fishy to us. We just thought the citizens and taxpayers have a right to know what’s going on over there, and we’re glad the Supreme Court agrees.
Neither Dr. Anderson nor Dr. Davison would comment on the court’s ruling.
Suppressed report criticizes math center
By John Toon
The Athens Observer
Thursday, January 31, 1980
A report on the mathematical science programs at the University of Georgia – which the institution was forced to release by a Georgia Supreme Court decision – recommends that a new director be found for the controversial Center for Applied Mathematics and that the center be placed under the direction of the mathematics department.
The committee also leveled indirect criticism at the university’s administration, saying that “either through administrative neglect or through a failure to follow reasonable academic procedures” the mathematics program had been “seriously impaired.”
In mathematics, an internal problem was “exacerbated by the creation of the C.A.M. and by the failure to recognize that the appointment of a director who was not able to work effectively with the mathematics department would result in an intolerable situation.”
The report, released to the Observer Wednesday after the Supreme Court turned down the university’s final appeal for a rehearing on the case, was prepared by a committee of outside experts in December 1978.
Under Director Dr. George Adomian, the center has been controversial since its creation, and its staff members have faced charges of plagiarism, deception and other wrongdoings from faculty members in other departments.
The controversy is considered important because of the continued strong support given to the center – and Adomian – by University of Georgia President Fred Davison. Despite the turmoil, the center was funded for over $100,000 in the 1978-79 academic year, and Adomian received a 10 percent raise to a salary of $51,169, making him the best-paid mathematician at the university.
The committee members pointed out that tension between the different disciplines in mathematics is not unusual, but said the administrative set-up of the center and its leader contributed to that tension here.
“In any event there is today an unfortunate degree of polarization in the mathematics community of the University of Georgia,” it states. “It is our judgment that the present administrative setup and leadership of the Center are contributing significantly to this tension.
“It is furthermore our judgment that, unless changes are made, the university’s goals are unlikely to be achieved,” it continues. “We take it that these goals are a thriving program of research and teaching in applied mathematics – over a broad spectrum – and fruitful cooperation with other parts of the university where mathematics is pertinent.
“We recommend that a new Director should be sought for the Center and that the administrative status of the Center should be changed so as to replace it within the Department of Mathematics, with the Director being responsible to the Chairman of the Mathmatics Department,” it suggests.
The report was complimentary of the mathematics department, but critical of the department of statistics and computer sciences.
After delivery of the report in December 1978, the university attempted to do just the opposite of what had been recommended.
University administrators attempted to force Mathematics Chairman James Cantrell to resign and to create a new department of applied mathematics that would have equal standing with the existing unit.
Faculty support for Cantrell and strong opposition to the reorganization plan apparently scuttled it last year, and Cantrell remains as head of the department.
After delivery of the report, university officials refused to disclose its contents even to those involved in it. The Observer formally requested to view the report in February, citing a Georgia law which requires public documents to be available to citizens.
Vice-President for Research Robert C. Anderson refused to release the document, and the newspaper filed suit to force disclosure. Clarke County Superior Court Judge Joe Gaines ruled that disclosure would be an invasion of privacy that would harm future administrative decisions by the institution.
The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, reversed Gaines, saying it could see no reason why the report could not be made public.
Controversy over the center became public in December 1977, when charges of plagiarism were made against a member of the unit’s staff. Later, faculty members in the mathematics department – under the promise of anonymity – made additional charges of wrongdoing, and questioned the value of the research group.
Adomian has refused to comment on the charges.