Long-time private supporters of the Fogg Art Museum yesterday assailed President Bok's decision to end a three-year expansion plan, warning that the move would severely restrict the University's ability to raise money and threaten Harvard's traditional preeminence in the field of Fine Arts.

Major donors to the Fogg's on-going fund drive and members of the Fine Arts faculty said that Bok's decision was based on unsound economic reasoning, overly cautious planning, and an underestimation of the Fogg's significance within the University and in the museum world.

Donors serving on the supervisory Visiting Committee for the Fogg confirmed a recent public statement by Fogg Director Seymour Slive that millions of dollars pledged to the museum addition have already been lost because supporters have withdrawn donations in the wake of Bok's decision. In the future, these sources added. Harvard's main capital fund drive may lose substantial support from benefactors angered by the sudden cancellation of the Fogg expansion.

"I'm through with Harvard, I would not give them another red cent," said Ruth Carter Johnson, a Visiting Committee member and chairman of the board of the Amon Carter Museum in Ft. Worth, Texas.

Ralph F. Colin, a leading Fogg fund-raiser and high-ranking official with the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, leveled the most severe charge at Bok, saying in a private letter mailed to the president Thursday that his decision would cost the Harvard Campaign "far more" than the $3 or $4 million which became the issue of debate just before Bok killed the expansion plans.

Painting a picture of repeated administrative mismanagement resulting from an insensitivity to the needs of the Fogg, Colin said in his letter, "There seem to be only two alternatives. Either a.) You are unaware of the Fogg's role and importance as are the other five members of the Corporation, or b.) Being aware you are unwilling to go to bat and if necessary lay your job as president on the line to accomplish what needed to be accomplished. You may therefore take your choice as to whether 'ignorance' or 'ignominy' more aptly describes the basis of your behavior."

Although Colin was the most outspoken of Bok's critics yesterday, others who received copies of Colin's letter echoed his sentiments and predicted hard times for Harvard arts fundraising in the future.

Bok refused comment on Colin's letter, but he reiterated the reasons for his decision as he originally stated them in a private letter to members of the Visiting Committee dated February 2. Bok said that fears over unanticipated construction and operating costs, the difficulty of perhaps maintaining unconnected buildings, and reservations about a recent and highly controversial proposal to sell Fogg paintings to raise more money were major reasons for his decision.

"In the end, of course, one can always ask why the University would not simply dig into its own resources and contribute the remaining $3 or $4 million required," to complete the building. Bok stated "I can only say that present conditions are extraordinarily unfavorable for making additional contributions of this magnitude."

During interviews with members of the Corporation and other University officials, it also became apparent this weekend that a lack of faith in architect James Stirling's ability to complete the project within the original budget also contributed to Bok's final decision.

Stirling's "general attitude was the most serious source of worry," George Putnam '49, treasurer of the Corporation, said. It was the first time that University officials publicly disclosed fears about Stirling's ability to manage the project successfully.

The winner of numerous international architectural awards, the British designer was chosen for the Fogg expansion project in 1978 after a yearlong search.

Corporation members also defended Bok's decision to abandon Stirling's design by saying for the first time that they expect within the next few years to complete an alternate museum expansion plan.

"The Corporation expects an addition of the Fogg to be built," Putnam said. But he added that it "will be a more practical one. The consensus way, this wasn't the right one."

Fogg officials and several donors have said that they were unaware of any alternate expansion schemes.

Calling Bok's decision "a blow from which the [Fogg] and the University it exists to serve may never recover," Slive, who had singlehandledly raised a majority of the contributions for the addition, said last week that $11 million out of that total would have to be returned to donors because the money had been pledged specifically for the Fogg's new building.

But Putnam called Slive's statement "baloney," and said that the $11 million figure was "absolutely fictitious." Only about $1.1 million will have to be returned to contributors as a result of Bok's decision, Putnam said.

Putnam added that Corporation members had held lengthy discussions on potential reactions to the cancellation from major donors, who they feared might become reluctant to pledge money to the University and the Fogg in the future.

"We went to some of the largest donors," Putnam said. "And the two or three biggest donors said, 'Do exactly what you think is best.'"

But several donors contacted yesterday said they were greatly disturbed by the decision and would carefully reconsider future contribution plans.

Slive could not be reached for comment yesterday.

One donor, who asked not to be identified, said, "President Bok may not yet know the extent of our devotion [to the arts] but he will soon" when contributions begin to decline.

Patrons of the arts generally seek to support institutions that demonstrate leadership in their field and a willingness to provide adequate accommodations for their exhibitions and employees, several sources said, pointing out that the Fogg's reputation in these areas may slip as a result of Bok's decision.

In addition, several donors said, the Fogg's longstanding prestige may have been seriously tarnished by the plan -- proposed in the final stages of Bok's consideration--to sell a portion of the museum's artworks to help finance escalated operation and maintenance costs.

Under pressure from the Corporation, donors said, Slive had convinced members of the faculty of Fine Arts to go along with a limited one-time sale of art as the only way to bring the plans for the addition to fruition.

The Association of Art Museum Directors, a national organization of leading curators, officially denounced the proposed sale in a telegram to Bok on January 23, about one week before he reached a final determination. The association said the proposed violated a crucial aspect of the written ethics of museum administrators.

Donoce and others pointed out the irony in Silve's willingness to compromise over the sale of "redundant" art in hopes of improving the Fogg as a whole, and his subsequent portrayal as a co-conspirator with Harvard in a plot to undermine the ethics of the art world.

"Now we feel like the girl who got had in a car," Fogg Assistant Director Suzannah Fabing said. "We've lost our virginity but we never got anything in exchange."

In interviews with administrators, Corporation members and Fine Arts faculty yesterday, no one would take the blame for initiating "decession," the plan to sell part of the Fogg's art collection.

Faculty members and donors said the Corporation was responsible. Corporation members said the administration had proposed the sale. A highly placed administration official said the Faculty originated the idea.

One donor said, "They [Slive and the Faculty] shouldn't have agreed to that [decession] provision. But more than that, the Corporation shouldn't have pressured them to agree."

The idea to sell artwork "didn't come from the Fine Arts Department," Putnam said, adding that it "most likely" originated from the administration.

In interviews with donors and faculty members, the aborted plan to sell artwork emerged as not only one of the most frustrating aspects of the expansion plan, but also one that was somewhat typical of the confusion that prevailed over the drawn-out negotiations between the administration, Corporation and Fogg faculty.

Since the 1960s, the past three directors of the Fogg have actively sought additional space for the museum's growing collection and staff. But it was Slive who in October 1977 launched a $15 million fund drive for a larger extension than had been considered previously.

"It has become apparent that the Fogg can no longer tolerate the physically cramped conditions of its building," Slive stated in his 1976 report to the University.

Only yesterday, however, Corporation Member Andrew Heiskell voiced skepticism that the Fogg's needs for increased space are exceptionally severe. "Who isn't cramped?" Heiskell asked. "It's just a matter of what you can afford."

Other Corporation members interviewed, however, generally acknowledged the Fogg's need for a new addition, although some, such as Putnam, said Stirling's design was "probably bigger than we need."

When Slive formally began his nationwide fund drive, he had already raised about $3.2 million from several longtime supporters of the Fogg. Then came a string of financial coups for Slive. The Kresge Foundation donated $500,000, the Kress Foundation contributed $250,000, and the Lehman Foundation Pledged $100,000.

A donor whose name has not been disclosed offered a reported $6 million if Slive would enlarge his plans from a renovation and modest extension to an entire new building on the site of Allston Burr Hall, which the Fogg acquired when the University decided it had no more use for it.

The Fogg accepted the major donor's offer and accordingly raised the fund drive goal. The University agreed to use $5 million from the incipient $250 million Harvard Campaign to help reach the new total.

But according to one Visiting Committee member, Slive was warned by the Corporation to avoid approaching donors who would be likely targets of the main University Campaign. With only one exception, according to the committee member Slive was able to raise millions without interfering with the Campaign.

But after this string of initial successes, it appears that a series of confrontations between Slive and the Corporation delayed progress.

The Corporation commissioned repeated re-estimates of the addition's construction cost, each showing that the outlays would have to rise significantly.

After a May 1980 estimate, Stirling reduced the scale of the addition, but even then, the latest estimated figures--$7.8 million for construction alone--exceeded previous estimates by about $1.9 million.

Slive responded successfully to the increased construction costs, however, reportedly returning to his unnamed donor and successfully obtaining another pledge of nearly $2 million Still, the Corporation, according to a Visiting Committee member continued to "play Slive like a yo-yo."

The committee member recalled meeting Slive in the Yard during a winter snowstorm after the Fogg director had met with University officials "Seymour's head was bowed, and I said, 'Seymour,' and he looked up, and threw his arms around me and started to cry 'I've just been through a session with the Corporation, 'Slive said."

Shortly after final construction bids were received, Fabing and Slive met with Jon B. Wyatt, vice president for administration, Thomas O'Brisn, vice president for finance, and Henry Rosovasky, dean of the Faculty.

According to Fabing, she and Slive were informed that beyond the construction cost overruns, the administration now felt that the Fogg had not adequately provided for the long-term operating and maintenance expenses of the new building.

Fabing said that the administration had initially required only one year of operating expenses before the onset of construction. Suddenly, Harvard said it would require long-range maintenance financing, although the administrators at the meeting would not specify its extent, she said.

Decision

This new decision, Heiskell said, stemmed from an analysis of costs over the next ten years. Another source with knowledge of the administration's predictions said that this new, more pessimistic prognosis was based on a set of "worst-case" assumptions about the economy and the Fogg's ability to raise income.

Francis H. Burr '35, another Corporation member, said that in recent weeks it had become more apparent that the combination of construction and operating cost increases was threatening the project's future.

"Maybe we were wrong, "Burr said of the Corporation's endorsement of Bok's decision to cancel the project. "But you have to blow the whistle at some point. We just didn't see the money coming in."

Burr said that the proposed Fogg expansion differed significantly from several recent construction projects for University hockey and basketball facilities.

"The money is going to come in for [athletics]," Burr said. "But on this one [the Fogg], they had been back to the well so many times" that there did not seem a good chance of raising the remaining money.

As a last resort, officials compromised on a plan for the sale of some of the Fogg's artwork. But before they could implement the plan, Bok decided to cancel the entire project. That final decision, according to one Fogg supporter, was based on "a psychological funk" created by persistent and exaggerated worries over the national economy and past construction failures such as the Medical Area Total Energy Plant (MATEP), which exceeded original cost estimates of $50 million by about $180 million.

"They've lost so much money on MATEP that they can't contemplate losing any more," said James S. Ackerman, professor of Fine Arts.

Burr confirmed the impression held by Ackerman and others of the Corporation's outlook by saying. "We have been burnt many times before and it's cost a lot of money. There have been many times that we felt foolish, when in retrospect we would have been better to cancel the whole thing out."

Responding to accusations that Harvard had showed more generosity toward athletics at the expense of Fine Arts, Bok said, "That was a different period then when the athletics came along....This is not a particularly optimal period to be substantially expanding facilities....We now have a very different outlook than we faced a few years ago. It is a different era."

Colin stated in his letter to Bok, "If hesitancy to take all risks in the future as a result of bad experience in the past means that Harvard will stop expanding its facilities, the stagnation of its future in more horrible to contemplate than the mistakes of its past."

"It's a problem of psychology," one long-time donor said, "the psychology that everything goes wrong here in terms of money. If you think like that you'd better stop doing everything.