The State Building Commission approved our preliminary scheme on January 26, 1989. Our relationship with that agency had gone surprisingly smooth considering the Building Commission’s prior relationship with the RSA. Two months earlier, acting on instructions from Bronner, I had called on newly appointed “BC” Director Bob Crumpton (whom I had talked out of being construction clerk on the first RSA building in l975). I was to outline the RSA position, which was that RSA was not a state agency and would not legally submit to BC regulations. On each project Bronner would declare himself “The Director” with all the powers normally given to the BC Director in typical state contracts. However, RSA would submit all plans for BC review and voluntarily comply with review comments (except those comments that Bronner disagreed with).
Fortunately for me, Crumpton took it very well and let me know that he was well aware that Bronner had sent a prior BC Director to prison, and had scared the wits out of the entire BC staff a scant eight years before. I had softened up Crumpton by telling him I did not want to be crushed between two giants. Thus we had smooth sailing in the initial stages, but that rosy attitude would soon change.
-Charles Humphries (“Peril and Intrigue Within Architecture”)