Kenneth Feinberg

What is Life Worth?

feinberg.jpg

Marking the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, the University of Massachusetts hosted Kenneth Feinberg '67, as its guest speaker on the topic, "What is Life Worth?"

President Wilson's Remarks
About the Program
Evaluating the Program's Success
Size of the Awards
Dilemmas Inherent with the Program
Meeting with Individual Families
Validating the Memory of the Dead
Reflecting on the Program
A Final Point
Question and Answers

President Wilson's Remarks

Ken Feinberg is an attorney and one of the nation's leading experts in mediation and alternative dispute resolution. He is the managing partner of The Feinberg Group, LLP, which he founded in 1993. In 2002 Feinberg was appointed by the Attorney General of the United States to serve as Special Master of the Federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. In this capacity, he developed and promulgated the Regulations governing the administration of the fund and is presently administering all aspects of the program, including evaluating applications, determining appropriate compensation and disseminating awards.

Feinberg has served as Court-Appointed Special Settlement Master in major litigations involving Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Agent Orange product liability and the RICO class action concerning the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. In addition, he has been involved in many asbestos personal injury litigations and DES cases, and served as Trustee of the Dalkon Shield Claimants' Trust. He has been the mediator and arbiter in thousands of disputes involving such issues as breach of contract, antitrust and civil RICO violations, civil fraud, product liability, insurance coverage, and various commercial and environmental matters.

Jack Wilson, President of the University of Massachusetts, hosted the program at The University of Massachusetts Club. The following is a summary of Feinberg's interesting, provocative and relevant talk.

President Wilson: Good afternoon, everyone.

I want to welcome you to the University of Massachusetts and The University of Massachusetts Club on this very poignant day. I'm sure it's going to be a remarkable and a memorable event. I'm really pleased that you, the members of the University of Massachusetts community and friends, have turned out in such large numbers to hear our special speaker.

We all define events by what was happening in our lives at that moment. We know that the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center constituted the worst peacetime disaster in the history of the United States. Two thousand, nine hundred seventy-three people were killed. More than forty-four hundred were injured, engendering pain, loss and suffering that continues to this day. Ultimately it became the grave and daunting responsibility of one person to try to provide compensation that would in some way offset the losses and salve the wounds of those who were directly affected by the September 11th tragedy. That person, Kenneth Feinberg, is our guest this afternoon.

We are honored to welcome Mr. Feinberg to The University of Massachusetts Club. We are honored knowing that the rest of Ken's career has been devoted to the concepts of justice and use of the law and government to enhance people's lives. We are honored, of course, because Ken Feinberg is a University of Massachusetts alumnus, in many ways, a quintessential UMass alum-someone who sees the opportunities that this university provides in order to build a life that is admirable in every respect.

Our guest worked for more than three years as a victims' funds special master, meeting with hundreds of 9/11 victims and in the end distributing nearly $7 billion to the injured and the families of the dead. This effort was unprecedented in the history of the United States, and Ken discharged his responsibilities pro bono, choosing to make his personal contribution to the devastated families and to a grieving nation.

As President of the University of Massachusetts, I want you to know, Ken, the Commonwealth and the University are very proud of you-proud of your contributions and your accomplishments.

Ken Feinberg: Thank you. I want to thank the President and all of you here today. It is a great honor to spend the 11th of September here with UMass friends and alumni. The University of Massachusetts had a profound impact on me in the formative years when I studied history at the Amherst campus. I've never forgotten the impact of UMass on my career. It was immediate and profound.

Back to top

About the Program

The 9/11 fund was unique in American history. There was never anything like it, and I doubt very much it will ever be replicated. Eleven days after 9/11, Congress passed a law signed by President Bush that said anybody who lost a loved one as a result of the 9/11 attacks-the World Trade Center, the airplanes, the Pentagon-or anybody who was physically injured as a result of those attacks can, if they want, voluntarily give up their right to litigate against the airlines, the World Trade Center, MassPort, the Port Authority, Boeing, the security-guard companies, et cetera ? voluntarily waive their right to sue and instead come into an unprecedented, generous program funded completely with public monies, by the taxpayer. They didn't have to do it, but if they wanted to do it, they could come into this fund.

One person was designated under the statute to handle the design, implementation and administration of the program, and the Attorney General of the United States selected me. The President wished me well, said he would support me-and he did, 105 percent-and the program began.

Back to top

Evaluating the Program's Success

Over 33 months, the program proved to be an unprecedented success in the sense that 97 percent of all eligible families entered the program. Today, as we sit here, there are only about 40 people who decided to litigate in New York, rather than come into the fund-only 40. They have that right under the statute. I don't begrudge them that right, but I don't think they can win. If that's what they want to do, however, they have every right to do it.

When I look back on the program, my biggest disappointment was the 11 people that did nothing. They never entered my program. They never filed a lawsuit. They were paralyzed by grief and clinically depressed.

"Mrs. Jones, you only have another three months. File the application. You're going to get probably about $2 million, tax free."
"Go away, Mr. Feinberg. I lost my son. Leave the application on the kitchen table. I'll look at it later. I can't even get out of bed, and you want me ? it's all about money and numbers. Go away."

They never filed. That was my biggest disappointment. The statute expired, and that was it.

Back to top

Size of the Awards

Under the program, we expended $7 billion-$7 billion went to roughly 5,300 people, dead and injured. The smallest award was $500 to an individual who broke a finger at the Pentagon. The largest award was $8.6 million to a woman who suffered third-degree burns over 85 percent of her body. Roughly 2,973 people died, and the remainder suffered physical injuries. Most of those physical injuries occurred after 9/11, such as the respiratory claims at the cleanup at the World Trade Center site. The number of people physically injured as a direct result of 9/11 you can put on two hands. Either they got out of those buildings or they didn't. There were burn victims, but very, very few. Almost all of the physical injuries were post 9/11. The average award for a death claim, tax-free, was $2 million. The average award for a physical-injury claim was $400,000.

Dilemmas Inherent with the Program

I'm asked all the time, "What were the most difficult problems you confronted, Ken, in administering this program, in designing it?" Well, a few stick out in my mind as particularly thorny and complex.

Dilemma 1. How Can Life Have Different Values?

First, under the statute that Congress passed, every applicant was required to get a different amount of money. Now, let me tell you, that was divisive because the program set up a statute that made me judge and jury and the statute said that the compensation will be made on the basis of what the victim would have earned over a lifetime but for 9/11-the kinds of decisions juries in Boston make every day. The stockbroker and the banker get more than the waiter and the busboy. That's the way it is in America. That's how we compensate life.

But asking one person to look into a crystal ball and then to tell a fireman's widow, "You're going to get a million dollars less than the bond trader working for Enron on the hundred third floor of the World Trade Center" . . . that did not sit well.

"I don't get it, Mr. Feinberg. My husband died a hero. Why am I getting a million dollars less than the bond trader? You demean the value of my husband."
"No, I don't. I don't demean the intrinsic moral worth of any human being. The problem is that the statute requires me to act as jury and calculate, based on economic wherewithal."

Well, try telling the victim's family that and expect them to understand. So, that was problem number one-the emotional divisiveness of valuing different claims. Everybody should have got the same. It would have made my job a lot easier.

Dilemma 2. What Is the Value Associated with Pain and Suffering?

Problem number two-the statute required me also to consider pain and suffering, and emotional distress. Well, thank you, I am not Solomon. I told every family that when it comes to pain and suffering, and emotional distress, everybody gets the same amount. I am not going to be Solomon. I cannot calibrate different degrees of emotional distress and pain on 9/11. I gave everybody $250,000 for the death of the victim and $100,000 for each surviving spouse and dependent across the board. That had the benefit of all the families jumping up and yelling at me for not giving them enough for pain and suffering. That was the second problem.

Dilemma 3. Who Should Get the Money?
The third problem Congress never dealt with. You can read the statute. The statute is about a page and a half. Who gets the money? Who files the claim?

"Mr. Feinberg, my brother died on 9/11. Now, you're going to hear from his sister. He hated his sister. Make sure she doesn't get a nickel."

"Mr. Feinberg, I'm the sister. Is my brother badmouthing me? My brother who died loved me. He thought my brother was a scum. So make sure I get the money."

"Mr. Feinberg, I was the fiancée of the victim. We were going to be married on October 11. You should treat me like a spouse."

"Biological parents of the victim, what do you say to that?"

"That marriage was never going to take place. My son called me on September 10 and said, 'Mom, I'm having second thoughts about the wedding.' "

" Fiancée, what do you say about that?"

"Is that right, Mr. Feinberg? Here's the wedding invitation to the church. Do you know that on August 11 these parents held a shower for me and said, 'We're not losing a son. We're gaining a daughter,' and now they say the marriage wasn't going to take place?"
Now let me tell everybody here, no one is lying. This is not about greed. In a post-9/11 world, people believe what they want to believe to come back to grief.

There's not going to be a marriage. There's not going to be grandchildren. These biological parents believe that that marriage was not going to take place. So, my lawyer background in administering this program was at best a wash and at worst probably a hazard. I would have been better off being a shrink or a priest or a rabbi or a philosopher.

These were the problems of eligibility. We worked out almost all of these disputes. Today, five years later, there are still six people, roughly, litigating over who should get the money. I just deposited the money in the court and said let them fight it out. I tried. If brothers and sisters and siblings want to argue about who is going to get two, three, four million dollars, I can't stick around. I'm trying to administer this program. I deposited the money into court. They are still fighting-I think, six families. So, that was a problem.

Back to top

Meeting with Individual Families

Without question, the biggest issue of all was also the source of most of my pride. We decided, in setting up the program, to give any family that wanted it the opportunity to come in and see me, one on one, in confidence. They could explain their story, have me listen and allow me to take into account what they said. Over 33 months, I met with 1,500 families, individually. I will tell you on this fifth anniversary, the stories I heard, the pathos and tragedy of individuals in grief were extremely moving. A few examples:

"Mr. Feinberg," a 24-year-old woman comes to see me sobbing uncontrollably in grief. "Mr. Feinberg, I lost my husband at the World Trade Center. He was a fireman, and he left me with two children, six and four. Now you're going to give me an award. I need as much as you can give me, and I want it in 30 days."

I said, "Mrs. Jones, we'll process your claim. Why the rush?"

"The rush? I'll tell you why the rush. I have terminal cancer. My husband was going to survive me and take care of these two children. I have only eight weeks to live. I want this money fast, because I've got to set up a trust fund. They're going to be orphans now."

Seven weeks later we went to her funeral.

"Mr. Feinberg," another lady comes to see me, "I lost my husband. He was a fireman at the World Trade Center. He rescued 30 people and brought them to safety to lower Broadway. The battalion chief said, 'stay here, too dangerous.' My husband said to the Chief, 'I've never disobeyed an order of yours, but there are 10 people trapped over there on the mezzanine, and I'm going to go rescue them.' "

And then she said to me, sobbing,

"While he was running across the World Trade Center Plaza to help those people, he was killed when somebody jumped to their death from the hundred third floor and hit him. Mr. Feinberg, if he had taken one step either way he might have survived. Instead ? Where is the justice, Mr. Feinberg?"

A 70-year-old man comes to see me, 70 years old, crying,

"Mr. Feinberg, I lost my son at the Pentagon. He got out of the building when the plane hit. He was safe. He thought his sister was trapped. He went back in to look for his sister. His sister had got out a side door, safe. He died looking for her. Mr. Feinberg, my life is over. I buried my son."

These were the types of stories. Now, all of the stories weren't like this. One in particular I'll remember forever. What would you have done with this? A lady comes to see me, sobbing, crying,

"Mr. Feinberg, I lost my husband at the World Trade Center. He was Mr. Mom. Every day that he wasn't at that firehouse, he was home teaching our six-year-old how to play baseball, teaching the four-year-old how to read, reading a bedtime story to the two-year-old. And what a cook! He cooked all our meals. He cleaned the house. He was my best friend, Mr. Mom. Me, the kids will never be the same."
She leaves. The next day I get a telephone call from a lawyer in Queens.
"Mr. Feinberg, did you meet yesterday with the lady with the three kids?"
"Yeah."
"Mr. Mom?"
"Yeah."
"She can't live without him? Now, Mr. Feinberg, look, I'm really not trying to cause you any trouble. I just want you to know that she doesn't know that Mr. Mom has two other kids by his girlfriend in Queens. And when you cut your check, there're not three surviving children; there're five. Now, I don't know if you're going to tell her about these two kids, but Mr. Mom had a second life, and I just want you to know because I represent those two kids in Queens." Click.

Well, do we tell her? Do we tell her about the two kids in Queens? That's what keeps you up at 3 A.M.

I never told her. I'm sure she knows by now. I decided, who am I to ? I don't know what's going on; I don't now the facts. There's absolutely no question that the two kids in Queens were his-we found that out. We cut two checks. We cut one check to the surviving wife with the three kids, and we cut a second check to the girlfriend in Queens as guardian of the two other children, and that's how we dealt with the situation. But I mean, asking somebody, I don't care who it is, to make these decisions was the toughest part of the job.

Back to top

Validating the Memory of the Dead

When people came to see me, these families, they didn't come to talk to me about more money or more compensation. That isn't what they came to see me about. They came to validate the memory of the dead.

"Mr. Feinberg, I'm here for my hearing. I thank you very much for seeing me. Mr. Feinberg, I was married to my husband for 24 years, and I'd like to start off the hearing by showing you a video of our wedding 24 years ago."

"Well, Mrs. Jones, you don't have to show me that because it won't have much of an impact in terms of the award."

"I want you to see the video, Mr. Feinberg."

"Now that the video is over, Mr. Feinberg, next, bear with me now, I'd like to go through the wedding album and show you the pictures-the photographs of a happier time."

"Mr. Feinberg, we lost our son, he was 21. First we'd like to show you a video of his Bar Mitzvah, and then we'd like to show the albums, the diplomas, the certificates, the ribbons, the medals of good conduct, everything."

You see, that's the way it is. People want to validate the memory, and it was very, very difficult; but we sat through it, and we let people have their opportunity.

"Mr. Feinberg, I am now finished. Could I please have a copy of the transcript so that some day I can show my kids the transcript, and they'll understand what their father ? what their mother, their sister, brother, what they were all about? We'd like to do that."

Now it got a little bit emotional at times.

"Mr. Feinberg, I'm here for my hearing, and I am angry. I'm angry that my wife is gone, and it shouldn't have happened, and I'd like to start off this hearing, Mr. Feinberg, by playing for you the audiotape of my wife calling me from the hundred third floor to say good-bye, which I kept on the voice message at home. I want you to hear this."
"Well, Mr. Jones, really, I really don't want to listen because that really won't ?"

(Angrily) "I want you to listen, what those murderers did . . ."

"Go ahead, play the tape."

You wouldn't believe it. I couldn't listen. Screams and ?

Giving people the opportunity to come in and vent, explain and emote was critical for the success of the program. If we had simply promulgated rules and announced calculations from on high, like a lot of the charities did, the program never would have worked. It was the ability to let people come in and put a face to the program. It's not just a bureaucracy. It's not some federal agency that's just calculating numbers. Our approach was key to the program's success.

Back to top

Reflecting on the Program

Now, I want to pose two questions.

Question 1: Was the program a good idea? Was it sound public policy to set up a program like this one?

Well, I happen to think that the program was absolutely the right thing to do. I think that it will be looked upon as a success and as the right response of the American people to the tragedy of 9/11. But let me tell you, it is a very, very close question. Some of you should take a look at some of the e-mails I received when I was administering the program.

Dear Mr. Feinberg, my son died in Oklahoma City. Where is my check?

Dear Mr. Feinberg, my son died on the USS Cole in Yemen, defending us from terrorists. How come I'm not eligible?

Dear Mr. Feinberg, my daughter died in the African Embassy bombings in Kenya in 1998. Where is my check?

Dear Mr. Feinberg, I don't get it. My husband died in the basement of the World Trade Center in the 1993 attack, committed by the very same people. Where's my check?

And it wasn't just terrorism.

Dear Mr. Feinberg, I don't get it. Last year my husband saved three little girls from drowning in the Mississippi River, and then he died a hero. Where's my check?

How do you justify a program like this-in our egalitarian society that frowns on elitism and that provides for equal protection of the law? How do you decide that 5,000 should get $7 billion? Other people suffer misfortune. They're not eligible. How do you justify it?

Now, I think you can justify this program, but not from the perspective of the victims. I can't very well explain to an Oklahoma City family why they're not eligible and somebody from 9/11 is. I don't think it's very convincing. From the perspective of the nation, it makes a big difference. I think the nation decided as a matter of social resolve, of nationwide cohesion to demonstrate to the world, "We'll show you how we take care of our own." But, even then it's a close call.

Question 2: Was it a good idea, when Congress set up the program, to give everybody a different amount of money?


I don't think it was. But again, it's a close call.

I got a letter-I'll never forget-from the then-governor of Oklahoma, Frank Keating:

Dear Ken, you are doing a great job. Keep up the good work. It's not your fault that Congress blew it and made you give different amounts to everybody. That's downright un-American. We wouldn't do it that way in Oklahoma. Very truly yours, Frank.

I wrote him back:

Dear Governor, thank you for your kind words. You know, you say that it's a mistake to give everybody a different amount of money, but I've got to tell you, Governor, that every day juries in Oklahoma give people different amounts of money based on what they earn. If somebody gets hit by an automobile in Oklahoma City and that person is a banker, that person gets more money than if the person hit is a waiter. That's the American way. So, be very, very careful, Governor, about saying it's un-American to give bond traders and stockbrokers more than cops and the military. Signed, Ken.

Back comes a letter from the governor,

Dear Ken, I still think Congress blew it. Very truly yours, Frank. P.S. But I won't say it's un-American.

Back to top

A Final Point

We're told, God forbid, but we're told that sooner or later there will be another terrorist attack here, at home-a car bomb, something. Hopefully, we pray no. If it happens, will Congress pass a law like the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund?

I doubt it very much. I think with my UMass History Honors hat on, that what Congress did for 9/11 was a unique response to an unprecedented historical event. With the exception of the date of President Kennedy's assignation and let's throw in Pearl Harbor, and the start of the American Civil War, 9/11 will be indelible-a priority tragedy in American history. I think that what was done by Congress historically was a response to that tragedy. The next time I don't think it will be the same.

You know, it's very interesting. I followed with great interest the Katrina horror. Katrina was one of the most horrible natural tragedies in American history. There wasn't the slightest interest in Congress in setting up a Katrina compensation fund for the victims. Not the slightest. I'm not surprised. I think the 9/11 fund is an aberration out of the mainstream-unique, like the 9/11 event. I think what I did in implementing what the American people wanted was a rather emotional reaction to an emotional horror. And I doubt very, very much that it will ever be replicated. So there we are.

Back to top

Question and Answers

Before I open the floor to questions, I just want once again to say that I will always be in the debt of this University. When I went to the University, I quickly got caught up in learning, in the whole UMass Amherst experience. I feel a real obligation to pay back to the University what it gave me in the way of an education and in steering me in the direction of the public interest.

If there's anyplace I would like to be today in honoring the fifth anniversary, it's here in Boston with the University community. And I'm very, very grateful for the invitation, and I'm grateful to all of you for being here.

Some questions, please.

Question: Was there ever a time when you came close to deciding it was too much for you?

Ken Feinberg: Absolutely not. I underestimated the emotion that would be associated with the task, I will tell you that. There were times during my administration of the program when I had to walk around the block and take a 30-minute break from the pathos of what I was hearing. But, you know, when the President and the Attorney General ask you to do something, and the country is behind you so ?

I'm amazed, $7 billion. I expected that I'd walk through an airport and need dark glasses and a mustache. To the contrary-I'm still stopped by people, by strangers,

"Mr. Feinberg, aren't you the guy that did that fund? Thank you. Thank you very much for what you did."

So, it was tough. It leaves scars, but there was never any question of my resolve to get it done. What I did . . . frankly, millions of Americans would have done the same thing, I think. I was the one asked.

Question: Did you have to seek out the families, or was there a process?

Ken Feinberg: Both. There was a process; we had no trouble. When calculating awards in the millions of dollars, we didn't have much trouble finding American citizens' families. The problem we ran into was locating the undocumented workers. There were eleven or so, eleven undocumented workers who died. We had to go up into the Bronx, to Brooklyn with Spanish and Korean translators to find those families, who are hiding.

"Mrs. Dominguez, please file with the fund. You'll get $2 million for you and your children."

. . . and Mrs. Dominguez, in Spanish would say,

"No, you'll deport me."

"No, we won't deport you. Here is an order from the INS. You're safe."

"Well, you'll put me in jail."

"No, we won't put you in jail. Here's an order from the Attorney General. No sanctions."

"You'll take my children away."

"No, we won't take your children away. You'll keep your children, and now you'll have real money to take care of your children."

Now, I've got to tell you. It gets frustrating when you hear this. You feel like saying to Mrs. Dominguez,

"You know, Mrs. Dominguez, if they deport you, you'll be the richest person in the Dominican Republic!"

Now, you can't say that. But eventually, they came around.

We went to London and met with 35 foreign families-from Ghana, Norway, China, Yemen. That was in London.

"You're all eligible for American money. Questions?"

"Do we have to give up our citizenship?"

"No."

"Do we have to come to the United States to get the money?"

"No."

"Do we get the money in dollars or in local currency?"

"Dollars."

"We'll let you know. We'll get back to you. What's the catch? What's the catch? You mean to tell me the American people are going to give me $2 million because my son died at the Pentagon on a trip to the United States? What's the catch?"

Eventually they came to us.

We knew who the people were for the most part. New York City Police Department death lists. The airline manifests. The Pentagon-the military keeps lists in triplicate. We had no trouble getting the names from the Pentagon. It was finding the undocumented and the foreigners. We had the help of Colin Powell and the State Department. Eventually, I think, we found everybody. I'll never know for sure whether we found all the undocumented families, but I think we did . . . it seems we did, and fortunately we did.

Question: When you gave people money, millions of dollars in money, tax free, did you provide them financial counseling?

Ken Feinberg: Great question. When we generated payment to 5,300 people, we included in the wire transfer a notice: Anybody who wants free financial counseling and advice, check off the box. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or others will provide you free investment advice. We sent that notice to 5,300 people. A hundred eighty-nine took it. A hundred eighty-nine. The rest, when I saw them, said

"Well, we don't need ? thank you very much for the offer. We know what we want to do with the money and we don't need anybody telling us."

A hundred eighty-nine people. Listen, we offered it. We couldn't make it a condition. The statute wouldn't allow it. I wouldn't do it anyway. Only a very small token took the advice.

Question: Why didn't you have a premium for heroism?

Ken Feinberg: That's a good question. For practical and philosophic considerations, I think. First, who's a hero on 9/11? I wasn't prepared to say, "We'll add another hundred, two hundred, five hundred thousand because you were a hero . . . you were a hero . . . you were a hero . . . you weren't. Let me tell you, I had enough problems in trying to explain the differing calculations without looking for more variables. I concluded everybody's a hero on 9/11. Safe approach. I wasn't going to start distinguishing heroism. I just thought that would fan the flames of emotion. I just made that decision. If I were to do it again, I'd make that decision again. But it's a fair question, I must say.

There are people in this room now who would have designed a very different program. I have no pride of authorship about the program. It worked. Yet there might have been a better way to do it.

What I did do is exercise my discretion to bring down the calculation of top awards and bring up the calculation of low-end awards so that the median award was very close to the average. Now that was a very risky thing to do. The average award was about $2 million; the median was about $1.7 million.

I exercised my subjective discretion, which I had under the statute, to say to some high-end families,

"Well, economic loss, calculate, you're about $12 million. Well, I'm not giving you $ 12 million."

"What do you mean you're not? You calculated."

"I have discretion. I'm giving you $ 5 million."

"What do you mean you're reducing my $ 12 million?"

"I don't think Congress ever intended that anybody get $12 million."

Well, I was sued over that. Some high-end families went in and filed a lawsuit. The suit was thrown out on the grounds that Congress delegated to me that discretion. I'm not sure I did the right thing. I just decided that the public would howl if a 9/11 family received $12 million from the federal treasury. I just didn't think it would pass the political litmus test. I didn't think it was right. Somebody else might disagree.

Question: What did you do about all the thousands of people that claim illness, respiratory disease from inhaling the guck at the World Trade Center site?

Ken Feinberg: They weren't eligible under the fund. Well, I read that legislation has been introduced to provide them compensation. I'll believe it when I see it. If you go west of the Hudson, I'm not sure the country is on that same wavelength to provide a special compensation package for these folks. I say publicly, if Congress had waited another two weeks, I'm not sure they would have passed this law. It was an emotional thing.

I think something should be done for those folks, at least in the way of medical care and medical monitoring of their illness, but it's going to be a tough thing.

- - -

I want again to thank the University for affording me this opportunity, especially on this day. It has been a pleasure sharing my experiences with you. I thank you all very much.

Back to top

Uncommon Leadership and Pioneers of Innovation Series

Uncommon Leadership home

Pioneers of Innovation home

Guest Commentary

  • Stephen Arons, Professor of Legal Studies
    University of Massachusetts -- Amherst
  • John A. Hird, Professor and Chair, Political Science Department
    Professor of Public Policy and former Director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration
    University of Massachusetts -- Amherst
  • Add your own commentary!