"Part of the responsibility for the deficit,surely, lies with the director who raised no moneyand then exploited the scarcity of funds as areason to strangle the museum completely," wroteLecturer of Social Studies Martin Peretz in acommentary published in The Crimson two weeks ago.

Stager has said that when he came to the museumin 1986 he was hopeful about curing the musuem'sfinancial woes, but the museum's deficit datedback even further. The museum's deficit has beengrowing steadily since 1985.

"All you need to do is look at the progressivecumulative deficit," said Stager. "One doesn'thave to look at the last year to see a continualmove upward."

In fiscal year 1992, the Semitic Museum was theonly Harvard-affiliated department that had notbalanced its budget.

Knowles said that as soon as he became dean ofthe Faculty, he scrutinized all Harvarddepartments and units. He said he was concernedwith any that were running a deficit.

Knowles and Stager have also defended theyear-long restrictions placed on fundraisingduring the committee's review on the grounds thatthey were necessary to avoid soliciting funds forprojects that might be reduced.

"Fundraising was put on hold to avoid newinsufficiently funded projects from beingstarted," Knowles said yesterday.

And some defenders of the committee's reporthave attributed the rising deficit to fiscalmismanagement by the museum's public sector andexcessive spending on exhibits.

Stager said last night that the three mainsectors of the museum--public exhibitions,photographic archives, and excavationprograms--have traditionally divided fundraisingresponsibilities for the museum.

"In my sector, we have raised $4 million,"Stager said. "They [the other two sectors] didn'traise enough money...Funds that were anticipateddidn't come through," Stager said.

Staff members have also said the makeup of thecommittee--which includes only facultymembers--belies a preliminary bias in favor of theacademic rather than the public facets of themuseum. And staffers say they were not given thechance to participate in the committee'sdeliberations.

"If a year ago, we had been called and told,`we can't support you,' it would have been easierto understand and accept," said curator forexhibits Nitza Rosovsky. "All of a sudden there'sa committee that says `goodbye.'"

But Stager and Knowles have defended themakeup, the process and the suggestions of thecommittee.

"It was a careful, thoughtful, open process,"Knowles said yesteday. "It is an impropersuggestion to say it was not consultative anddeliberative."

In the last month, the controversies havebrought to light an uncomfortable atmosphere atthe museum, said some museum staffers.