Oral History Interview: Dr. Harry Bard, President, Community College of Baltimore, I

by Joan A. Andersen, July 9, 1974

[Transcript Note: JA stands for Joan Andersen; HB stands for Harry Bard].

JA: Dr. Bard, would you like to explain some of the background to the executive order by Governor [J.Millard] Tawes which authorized the establishment of a [Maryland] Constitutional Convention Commission in 1965?

HB: Actually, the big debate that had taken place was whether the vote of the people every twentieth year as to whether they wanted a new consitution or not was to be followed in mandatory fashion, or was this merely a vote which the state legislature was to take cognizance of and then do as it wished? The attorney general [Honorable Francis B. Burch] said it was the latter. The Constitution, at least the framers of that particular article in the Constitution, had not meant it to mean that if the people wanted a constitutional convention it was automatically to be called, but rather that the voice of the people was to be made known to the legislature, which in turn had the final authority as to whether a constitutional convention was to be called. After the attorney general's ruling in this respect then, the legislature just marked time. After all, the legislature didn't want to call a constitutional convention; this might mean a unicameral legislature would replace a bicameral legislature. So they said, heck, we're not going to do anything. Meanwhile, Governor Tawes, who everybody thought was just an absolute conservative, if anything, possibly even reactionary, would support the legislature. A wonderful thing about Governor Tawes was that he really sought to do the right thing. He might have been, in the eyes of some persons, a conservative, in terms of not wishing to create any abrupt changes, but more than anything else, once he got to be governor, he flelt that the right thing to do was to follow the wishes of the people. Therefore, the thing to do was to call for a convention.

Before doing that, he felt that there ought to be a preparatory commission which would draft some proposals for the convention so that the convention would not start from scratch. Personally, I think this is a good idea. A number of states have followed this plan, that is, the plan of creating a preparatory commission. Then I was pleasantly suprised when he asked me to serve on the commission.

JA: How did he notify you? Did he call you up or write you a letter?

HB: Well, he called [1966] to ask me if I received a written invitation would I look with favor upon the invitation, which is a good way to do it. After all, no one likes to be turned down. So I said to him that I would look with a good deal of favor in this direction. He knew that I had done some work in the area of Maryland government. He also knew that I had served two years previously to that, actually a little less than two years, on the [Baltimore] City Chararter Revision Committee. In fact, I was chairman of the administrative subdivision of the Charter Revision Commission for Baltimore in 1964-1965. He knew about that. He also knew that I had served [1965] as chairman of the Bard Councilmanic Redistricting Committee and he liked the work that I had done. But he knew me best as an educator, as head of the College. He had had a number of conferences with me in regard to the community college field. He was deeply interested in it. I think he appreciated the fact that I was one of the few educators who had some training in political science. After all, my doctoral work had been in political science as much as it had been in education. So he called me and asked me if I would serve on this commission and told me that former Governor [William Preston] Lane [Jr.] would be acting as honorary chairman and that Vernon Eney would act as chairman. I knew that Vernon Eney was a grand constitutional lawyer, and I had always respected Preston Lane. I felt that Preston Lane was one of the truly great governors that Maryland had had.

JA: He died, didn't he?

HB: Yes, he died recently [1967]. Yes, he died actually shortly after the commission had completed its job, though he was present for part of the work of the convention. But you will remember that Preston Lane lost his attempt for a second term [1951] to Mr. McKeldin, who was a Republican. He defeated him under the slogran "Pennies for Lane." Preston Lane introduced the sales tax, and every last governor who did that all over the United States, lost on the second term. I was very impressed with the people who were to be associated with this project, and so of course I readily accepted.

JA: Having accepted the position on the commission, what, in your own mind, was the most important thing in the constitution that had to be worked on immediately?

HB: Actually, the most important thing was to prepare a draft for the convention itself that would be useable, to begin with. It also needed to be a draft that would not be so radical that they might turn the whole thing down, on the other had, a draft that would not be so innocuous that there was no need for a widespread proposal.

I suspect that at the beginning, I did not realize how far-reaching our proposals would be. If we were going to write material that would deal with the whole structure of government, this would mean that we really had to review every last constitution that had ever been written. There were four major constitutions in the history of Maryland.

The whole country was going through consitutional revision in the 1960's. I think it was the [Viet Nam] war. It had been kind of a catharsis. We had gotten into the beginnings of the Viet Nam war and everyone was saying; "There is state government, it's absolutely important. The federal government is oiperating our lives and yet we're a part of the federal system."

It was recognized very soon that this wasn't a little job. It was a big job and it took us a little over a year for the commission to complete its work.

I was lucky enough to be made chairman of the legislative subcommittee [1966]. I was very much interested in that. I had lived for a while and taught at the University of Nebraska, which was the only unicameral system. I observed the Nebraskan legislature in action. I had some senators in my classes when I taught at the University of Nebraska; they are all called "senators" there. I was very enthusiastic about this particular assignment that I had, though I knew that this one was full of dynamite. If we were to come out with a proposal in favor of a unicameral body at the state legislative level, I knew that the members of the convention who were in the legislature would oppose it.

So, I looked with a good deal of anticipation in terms of the scope of the whole thing, and I was very happy about my assignment. Of course, while we met in subcommittee, we also met as the committee of the whole in which I had the opportunity to talk to the people who were on committees dealing with financial structure, administrative structure, executive structure, the courts, etc.

JA: Did you have elected politicians on the commission?

HB: Yes, we had some. As far as the convention was concerned, we had a goodly number of elected politicians, members of the legislature. But on the commission itelf, we had a few who were, most of us were not. There were lawyers, there were educators, mainly lawyers, on the commission.

JA: Do you think politicians belong on a constitutional convention commission?

HB: I don't think they belong on a commission. At the convention, I'd say yes, some should be there. The reason why I think that they should be there is that they add the practical knowledge of not only what is best for the state but what is attainable. I learned to respect the practical politician a good deal at the convention. I also found that in the main that they were willing to compromise more often, actually, than the idealists. We had a goodly number of people who I would call idealists. Maybe the practical politicians would have called them liberals. I put myself in that category. By that I mean people who went far out in terms of creating a Utopia which would be very nice, but not attainable. Now the commission did not have many practical politicians on it.

JA: Would you characterize your proposed draft of a constitution as somewhat Utopian?

HB: More Utopian than the convention itself, yes. We came out with some things that were rather far-reaching and on the other hand, when we did, we said, "Well, there's an alternative." I'll give you an illustration of what I mean: Because the vote on my own committee, vis a vis unicameral or bicameral body was close, we came out with both proposals. We said, "We lean in terms of a bicameral body but not very strongly in favor of it; we would be happy with a unicameral body and here are the reasons why." It was a good , I think, learning procedure for the convention itelf. They started out by looking at all the reasons for it. We came out the same way in terms of continuous session. We said that a significant number of us believe that we ought to get away from a ninety day session, we believe our state legislature ought to operate like Congress: remain in session, good salary, so that a person would not have to depend on a second job. But, we said, if the Convention thinks that this is not attainable, we're going to settle for ninety days, plus thirty, plus thirty more. The nice thing about a commission is that you are not setting forth a definitive document, but rather alternatives.

I don't think that there's any doubt that the commission's bias had a little Utopia in it. I'd agree to that. But always with tongue in cheek: If you don't like this Utopia, here's one not quite Utopian.

JA: I notice that the meetings of the commission were held all over the place.

HB: We met everywhere, that's correct.

JA: And were they open to the public?

HB: We invited the public and had various bodies attend with us. For example, when we had the hearings on the legislative sessions, and the hearings on the structure of the legislatures, we did invite members of the legislature. The President of the Senate, William James, was there. We invited the Speaker of the House, Marvin Mandel, to attend. We didn't know at that point that he was going to become governor. I might add that he was a very good witness, he was knowledgeable in the area. He had been Speaker for a long period of time. So we had hearings.

The people associated with the courts had, I think, the most serious problem. Maybe not the most, but the second most serious problem. I guess the ones who had the most serious problem were those who moved in terms of some form of regionalism, which even the convention accepted in part and which, as you know, was probably a major cause for the failure of the constitutional proposal in April, 1968. People were just afraid of regionalism. We were filled with it in 1966 when we were doing the work with the commission.

JA: Did many ordinary, average citizens showed up at these hearings?

HB: More at the convention than at the commission. I would say thatr the commission was more of an intellectual experience. The convention was more of an earthy experience. I'll say more about that. Quite earthy at times. But we were on a high level at the commission and maybe it was just as well, because we knew that the convention would be a leavening factor in what had passed.

JA: So there were twenty-seven of you who worked up this draft.

HB: Yes. They didn't all remain. I was one of a large body that remained. [Judge George L.] Russell [Jr.] left in 1966 because he had been appointed as Associate Judge of the Supreme Bench. I might add that practically every person who served on the commission was upgraded after serving in one way or another - become a judge (those who were layers) - John Hargrove was recently appointed a District Court Judge and in 1974 was promoted to the Baltimore Supreme Bench. Judge Russell was appointed to the Supreme Bench and then later, City Solictor. I could just go though all these names and they have created some, -- they have done a lot of exciting things. Hal Clagett was elected president of the Maryland State Bar Association. This is what happened to practically all of them. They were just grand people.

JA: The commission, then, after preparing its draft document and the legislature sending out the referendum to the people which was approved, and the call for the convention to be held...

HB: And the election, for those who were to participate.

JA: You, I know, had some question in your mind, having done all this work, now, for what, almost two years?...

HB: Right.

JA: ...whether or not you should run as a a delegate to the constitutional convention. I know that at that time, you had some concerns about it. Why did you have concerns after all this work?

HB: Well, I had two major concerns. One, as to whether I could be away from the College. In 1967, I had served as President, at that point, for eight years. I thought about it and felt, well now, most college presidents don't serve any longer than three or five years. By 1974, today, the average term of office is even shorter than five years. Perhaps I rationalized this. I said that it might be both good for me and the College if I stay away for awhile; I've been around too long without a break for those on the College faculty or the student body. So much for that.

My second concern was more deep-seated, namely: ought an academic person run for office? I talked this over with some of my colleagues here at the Community College of Baltimore. I talked it over, naturally, with my wife [Eleanor] and other members of the family, and concluded and they helped me to come to this conclusion (although I might have reached it earlier without having actually articulated it): that after all these years I had been writing about how one ought to make a contribution in a field of civic endeavor and how actually the people who know most about the subject tend to stay away from it. Furthermore, I had gotten some ink on my fingers at the commission. See, this had now become partial possession. The commissions' report had been exciting and I wanted to see it through. I didn't want to see it lost in the convention and thought myself almost as a protector of this marvelous document, (marvelous in quotation marks) which we'd put together; a kind of vested interest at this point. So perhaps I rationalized the danger of being defeated and harm to my ego as well as the fact that a president [of a College] ought not to run for elective office. On the other hand, this was non-partisan.One didn't run as a Democrat or a Republican. I did, however, as you know, run on the so-called "progressive" ticket. I know the word "progressive" is kind of insipid nowadays, as it was even in '67 perhaps, but the people who were on the ticket with me were all identified with being desireous of creating some of the needed changes in government.

So I rationalized all the arguments against running away and joined this ticket. There were seven on us from the Fifth District [Clinton Bamberger, Harry Bard, Roy Ol Borom, Leah S. Freedlander, M. Peter Moser, Joseph Sherbow, Charles L. Wagandt]. One had to run as a delegate from a particular legislative district. I was lucky enough to be included with them. I had to be nominated and selected by various groups such as the 5th District Reform group who represented the fifth district and was fortunate enough to be so. There were forty-three candidates in June, 1967 who ran for office for seven positions. I came out first, incidentally, of the forty-three, which thrilled me. I was worried about even winning one of the seven spots. I should tell you that that isn't entirely an immodest rmark, that I came out first. I was running in a district where I had taught for so many years. No matter what precinct I went to, here were all my former students. I taught at Forest Park High School for years and years, you know. At least 15 years. All those I taught who got passing grades voted for me. All those I flunked, I'm sure voted against me. But any number of people came up and said, "I'm certainly glad you';re running, you taught me government at Morgan State College" or "Notre Dame." I taught at Loyola. All of these were in or near the dsitrict where I was running. Others were at the University of Maryland, where I also taught. So there is an advantage in running where you have taught for many years. So it wasn't my ideas that were so great, though I hoped that the people liked them.

We ran on a particular platform. It was a very interesting platform. I didn't bring a copy of it, I should have, perhaps. We came out storngly in favor of regionalism which, as you know, has not yet won. We came out strongly in favor of the courts which has partially won, particularly the district courts. We came out in favor of the lieutenant governor, in favor of changing the structure, somewhat, of the legislature body, not necessarily in favor of the unicameral. All seven of us won. It was a bi-racial ticket. The first time a bi-racial ticket, including men and women...we were ahead of our times, it was mutli-ethnic, multi-religious, almost multi-anything-you-could-name, multi-socio-economic. There were a few very wealthy people on our ticket and there were some, like myself, who were modest in means.

Part Two: The Maryland Constitutional Convention

Back to Top

Home Page

Off-Campus Internet Associates
Comments to Joan A. Andersen: joanaa@umd5.umd.edu
Oral History Interview: Harry Bard copyright © 1974 Oral History Research Center, BJC/BCC; *Use of certain published materials and manuscripts is restricted by law, by reason of their origin, or by donor agreement. The Baltimore City Community College also reserves the right to restrict use of unprocessed materials and documents which are unique and/or exceptionally fragile. Use of all materials is subject to the approval of the Director.
Content copyright © 1997 Joan A. Andersen;
Revised: 28 December 1998
URL: http://www.erols.com/bcccsbs/bbpoh/hb_1.htm