Frechette - “Would be a mistake to commit ourselves now to G.P. term as such.”39
Unofficial minutes of Board meetings during the spring of 1965 suggest that tempers were
beginning to fray; the Board members sound edgy, almost curt. Senator John Conte of Worcester
had begun proposing legislation to require that the Board make its decision by April 15. Although Senators Conte and Donahue agreed to keep a “lid on” the bill, the press soon learned of it and
began to put pressure on the Board to make a decision.40 Moreover, as President Lederle admitted at the Board meeting of March 31, “Much of my other difficulty [legislating] UMass bills flows
from our failure to come to a decision on [the] med school.” Trustee Healey reminded them of the need to come together and make a decision soon. “We are under the guns as never before
. . . the Press, the Governor, and the Legislature [are] now after us,” he reminded them. In fact,
some on the Board were beginning to think that Lamar Soutter, as much as they respected him, had contributed to their troubles by his “one-sided approach,” leaving them feeling “inept” and
lacking the “full picture.” How could they make a rational decision? Worse, Bimi Soutter’s many public statements in favor of Amherst were creating a misleading impression in the papers. At
one closed-door meeting during this period, a meeting to which Soutter was not invited, Weldon complained about leaks to the Springfield newspapers that were causing him, the Bishop of
Springfield, great embarrassment. It was the Bishop who came right out and said they must, somehow, “Shut Bimi up.”41
In the end, a revised ranking system did little to alter the ratings of the five possible locations,
including in order of the report’s preference, Amherst, Springfield, suburban Boston, Worcester, and Boston. It did rank the need for an ample and diverse patient population much higher than previously. The criteria were listed as follows:
1. Potential for meeting broad medical school objectives
2. Capabilities for providing comprehensive instructional programs 3. Feasibility of attracting and retaining faculty and employed staff 4. Capability of attracting the desired number of patients 5. Capability of attracting the desired variety of patients 6. Feasibility of providing required facilities 7. Feasibility of obtaining ample land
8. Feasibility of constructing facilities of appropriate size, layout, design and justification.
84