unselfish interest in the administrative plans of a new foundation reflected the wisdom and devotion which they had put into the service of their own foundations. They were not always in agreement, and therefore might not always agree with the analysis and recommendations that follow. On many topics their experience revealed a useful consensus, but the Study Committee must take full responsibility for its opinions and recommendations. The latter should not be interpreted dogmatically, however, even though stated without qualification.

The Ford Foundation must be, first of all, a workable institution in structure and procedures. It President and staff must not be handicapped by a clumsy pattern of administration. The form of organization and the administrative procedures should have two corollary purposes:

• To maintain flexibility of operations—to be able to shift the program to deal with new issues, without being hampered by internal administrative problems. The problems of the mid-twentieth century could not have been foreseen at the end of the nineteenth. A few decades hence we shall face issues we cannot now foresee.

• To give the Trustees, who should represent the best over-all judgment available, the maximum opportunity to guide the program in a general way. As representatives of the general public interest the Trustees should decide how the Foundation may best serve society.

These are general purposes, not absolute principles. The purpose of flexibility could be carried too far; it must be limited in order to make it possible to plan a program over a reasonable period, and to give those who receive foundation grants reasonable stability. Similarly, general control by the Trustees over the program could be pushed too far. The President and the staff officers of the Foundation must be allowed a high degree of discretion, especially in relations with scholars and specialists of all kinds.