"Since these are independent institutions withtheir own boards and totally self-governing,there's no particular standing that I have,"Rudenstine said. "I'm ready to play whatever kindof role seems constructive. I'm ready to be quiteinterventionist. But they have to feel that itwould be helpful to them, because in the end, theywill make their own decisions."

Still, Buchanan disputed suggestions that theUniversity has little control over the hospitals.

"The important issue here is that theseinstitutions, as independent but affiliatedinstitutions, retain their capacity to makeimportant contributions to the educational andresearch missions of the University," Buchanansaid. "There is tremendous loyalty...throughoutthe institutions to Harvard as our academicflagship."

Indeed, both Buchanan and Nesson indicated, amore powerful player than Tosteson in the hospitalmerger was a colleague of his in the Universityadministration--Business School Dean John H.McArthur, who chairs the Brigham and Women's boardof directors.

"After the point where the decision was reachedto go forward together, Dean Tosteson didn't playan active role in the discussions between the twoinstitutions and Dean McArthur did," saidBuchanan. "He was not there as Dean John McArthur.He was there as chairman, Brigham and Women's."

McArthur did not return repeated phone callsyesterday. The Globe article suggested thatMcArthur's active role in the merger, standing insharp and ironic contrast to Tosteson's relativepowerlessness, was "embarrassing" for theUniversity.

Meanwhile, Buchanan and Nesson both said that,while they support Tosteson's vision of greatercooperation and streamlining of operations amongthe five hospitals, they doubt the feasibility ofsuch a plan in the near future.

"I don't rule it out," Buchanan said. "But Ithink [Tosteson] would acknowledge that that wasan ambitious goal.