Most agreed that Bok's leadership style did much more to foster an atmosphere of communication as opposed to confrontation.
That early approach can be seen in the choice of committee members for the 1972-3 University Benefits Committee: two lecturers and a professor in addition to administrators.
And the subcommittee which was largely responsible for the 1973 review was chaired by a professor and included two other professors and one assistant dean.
While Bok himself declined to comment, the contrast is apparent.
"We also established a University wide committee that involved faculty members from each of the schools," former vice-president Champion says.
"And the conclusions we arrived at were discussed with the interest groups," Champion says. "For instance, I remember going to at least one Faculty Council meeting and... meetings of the FAS to discuss where we were and what we were doing."
But that was near the beginning of Bok's 20-year term. By the end of his tenure, many considered the former president a distant bureaucrat, The Crimson reported in 1992. In contrast, newcomer Rudenstine, upon his arrival, immediately began to foster the image of a down-to-earth populist.
Today, only two years later, faculty members say Rudenstine, too, has become distant and disconnected from the faculty.
"This is the first time we've had an all-administrative committee making decisions on matters which affect benefits," Paul says. "The Faculty doesn't have representation. That is dangerous."
A favorite metaphor of the University administration has long been "every tub on its own bottom." In his effort to centralize University fundraising and administration, Rudenstine attempted to have a hand in every tub.
But some critics say the University is still too decentralized for the president to have a tight grip on everything.
"As the size of the administration grows...more and more delegation of authority to less conscientious and less able mid-level bureaucrats becomes necessary," writes one professor in response to a survey over the Internet.
"In the case at hand, the people to whom the authority was delegated just plain blew it, and have managed to alienate the faculty in addition," he writes.
Paul, who has been on the Harvard faculty for four decades, says he has recently noticed what he feels is a disturbing trend to exclude faculty from high-level decision making.
"You have to understand what consulting is all about. If you don't tell them what you propose, you're not really consulting," he says. "It is quite clearly a change from the past."