Documents in College of Saint Benedict Archives on CSB and SJU Cooperation, (1962-1972)

AC 06.01.F01 Box 01: Early History of Coordinate Relations:

— “Special Characteristics,” 1974 Report to NCATE, Summary 1962-1973 on pages 6-12 of the CSB/SJU NCATE Report. (NCATE).

— “One Cooperative Venture: The CSB/SJU Academic Exchange Program” by S. Firmin Escher, published in the North Central News Bulletin, November 1967.

— John Lange, “Cooperation Conversation,” Record, January 23, 1968 and “Coed Classes Capture Acclaim,” by Jim Marrin, Record, 9-27-63

— Sister Firmin Escher’s Outline 1963-1970 (handwritten).

— “CSB/SJU Cooperation” by Sylvester Theisen, Coordinator 1/12/70 and memorandum to CSB/SJU faculty by Sylvester Theisen on August 25, 1971.

— CSB Board’s Response to President Blecker’s threat to go co-ed (1-7-72)

— “A Survival Plan for Catholic Higher Education,” by Sister Firmin Escher, February 1973

— “History of Cooperation,” by Stewart Hansen, 1973.

— “An Inter-institutional Cooperative Higher Education Program of Two Benedictine Institutions: CSB and SJU 1962-1980,” by Sister Firmin Escher in 1981 (SFE, ICHEP).

— Firmin Escher’s Collection of Documents, 1967-1978

Community: January 15, March 9, April 1, 1970

— Chronology of Cooperation, 1950s to 1993 & more detailed summary of it

— Drafts by Emmanuel Renner and by Colman O’Connell: “Narrative on CSB/SJU Cooperation, 1964 to the Present

Inter-Institutional Academic Program, 1963:

  1. Minutes of the Committee on Cooperative Academic Program (February 28, March 15, March 27,1963)
  2. One-page summary of Minutes of the Committee on Cooperative Academic Program (February 28-June 19,1963)
  3. Copy of the March 12, 1963 questionnaire sent to the joint faculties
  4. Summaries and excerpts from SJU faculty responses to the questionnaire in response to questions 1, 2, and 5 (divided according to department and faculty names given)
  5. Summary of answers to questionnaire (comments listed without department or individual faculty names)
  6. Urgent memo to SJU Department Chairs on March 28, 1963, asking for information on which courses will be open to CSB students at SJU and which courses open to SJU students at CSB in 1963-1964; this should be done with the cooperation of the chairs at CSB (also don’t feel obligated to offer courses if it seems premature). Memo sent by Dunstan Tucker, Academic Dean.
  7. A few responses to the memo #6: S. Mary David in re education (April 3, 1963); S. Paula Reiten in re English (April 6, 1963); S. Stephanie in re Home Economics; Mary Cecelia Kapsner in re process needed between Registrar and treasurer’s office
  8. A listing of CSB courses during first semester [1962?] which had fewer than ten students (51 out of 154 courses)
  9. Courses proposed for 1963-1964 (April 4, 1963)
  10. Course Offerings during first semester 1963-1964 at CSB & SJU

Correspondence, 1963-1967

  1. Dean Dunstan Tucker to Dean S. Firmin Escher: March 28, 1963, April 17, 1964, October 2, 1964, November 13, 1964, November 18, 1964.
  2. Dean Dunstan Tucker to President Mary Grell: 9/23 and 9/28/66
  3. SJU RECORD for Friday, September 27, 1963
  4. SJU Registrar Robert Scheetz to Department Chairs in re instructions for pre-registration for 1964-1965
  5. S.Firmin’s to Department Chairs requesting information on 1st and 2nd Semester, 1964-1965 in re the academic exchange on the two campuses
  6. A schedule for transportation to SJU 1st & 2nd semester, 1964-1965 (includes “several students riding greyhound on return trip”)
  7. Second Semester [1965?] registration of cooperative classes at CSB
  8. Colman Barry’s memo to the faculty on November 2, 1964: he quotes the CSB consideration of a possible calendar change for 1965-1966 and asks SJU faculty to state whether or not they favor that change
  9. Carl Bailey, Dean of Concordia (Moorhead) on 11/12/64 to Dunstan Tucker’s about calendar changes so first semester would end before Christmas (in response to Tucker’s question of November 9)
  10. Minutes of Meetings of administrators with the Art Department faculty: (October 29, 1964 and June 10, 1966)
  11. An essay by Father Stanford on SJU Faculty and Departmental Organization (May 8, 1965)
  12. A memo by Colman Barry to SJU Faculty and Associate Board of Trustees announcing a joint Faculty Workshop on September 8, 1966. Mayhew will speak of curriculum, a panel on Religious Practices and College Life
  13. Memo from Dean Hilary Thimmesh to Members of SJU Curriculum Study Committee on October 11, 1966 in re general education requirements.
  14. Letters from Dean Firmin Esher to Dean Hilary Thimmesh:
    1. October 31, 1967: Her phone call with Lewis Mayhew in re his being overall consultant;
    2. November 10, 1967: Presidents Barry and Grell appointed Firmin as Chair the Co-Institutional Study Committee
    3. November 14, 1967: welcomes Hilary as Vice-Chair of CISC
    4. November 28, 1967: notice of CISC meeting on Dec. 1
  15. Letter [by SFE?] on December 20, 1966 to NCATE Office in D.C. to ask if it is necessary for SJU to be evaluated if CSB already has accreditation?
  16. Memo by Walter Varnum to SJU Curriculum Committee on September 28, 1966 in re a psychology major

CSB and SJU Joint Academic Meetings Reports, 1964:

  1. Joint Meeting of the Committees for Joint Academic Participation on March 12, 1964 in re reevaluating the aims in academic cooperation and to discuss procedures for the future
    1. 36 CSB students took classes at SJU
    2. 38 SJU at CSB (but two dropped geography due to distance)
    3. all arrangements for classes should be made by the two registrar offices in cooperation with department chairs
    4. no student should take electives on other campus
    5. professors rather than students should travel whenever possible—more practical and economic (exception: small upper division classes)
    6. the two education departments will cooperate in 1965-65 in student teaching, placement and small classes
  2. Agenda and Report on “Summit” Meeting, October 27, 1964 in re cooperation in Art, Music and Drama/Speech:
    1. thank Gordon Goetemann for his plan but for time being several modifications seemed advisable
      1. merging of budgets and single chair premature
      2. prefer no hiring of additional faculty at this time
      3. two art departments should remain autonomous now but with close cooperation in developing a 3-way program indicated by Goetemann
    2. in music and speech/drama (as in art), financial details need to be arranged to the satisfaction of both schools
    3. S. Firmin asked about calendar change; Dunstan reluctant to do so because it might jeopardize Curriculum Committee progress
    4. In re bus schedule, Dunstan did not favor the idea of putting classes at CSB and SJU on the half hour difference to utilize buses better, because it would disrupt athletic and intramural programs should be a program ending at 4:30. Registrars will work on it.
  3. Minutes of meetings of administrators with Art Faculty
    1. Copy of Gordon Goetemann’s proposal for integration of the two art departments;
    2. October 29, 1964 Minutes:
      1. Goetemann proposed B.A. in art, BA in Fine Arts and a program in Art Education + argued for one philosophy under one chair which would make it possible to have mixed classes (vs. idea of just exchanging some upper division courses); he assumed basic philosophical differences between the two art departments but not all agreed. Father Hugh thinks for the girls there is a vocational emphasis in contrast to a professional emphasis for the boys)
      2. Colman Barry believed full integration was not feasible at this time but sharing courses is possible
  4. Minutes of the December 21, 1964 meeting of the SJU Curriculum Committee on the proposed joint drama-speech major
    1. administrators desire strengthening SJU speech offerings without unnecessary proliferation of courses;
    2. the major sequence was drawn up after study of dozens of programs at other colleges
    3. new policy: a student majoring in a major offered by the other school receives the degree from the college in which he/she is matriculated
    4. Dr. Hughes: adoption of this joint major is a pioneering step and will obligate both institutions to accept responsibility for maintaining a strong faculty
    5. Dunstan supported a strong Speech program at SJU but noted that the future of the joint major will to some extent depend on the number of students who enroll in it

Report/Recommendations of Joint Summer Study Curriculum Committee, 1965

  1. Memo by two Presidents establishing the committee and its function (6/10/65)
  2. Letter by Dunstan to Firmin (May 21, 1965) in re stipend to committee members and engaging Dean of Swarthmore on Honors
  3. Minutes of the Joint Summer Study Curriculum Committee: June 14, 21, 24, 28 and July 1,5, 8, 12, and 15.
  4. Memo from S. Mary Grell to CSB Faculty sending them a copy of the Report and noting a vote on some of the recommendations at the Faculty Workshop on September 10

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Curriculum Evaluation 1966

“Evaluation of Curriculum Offerings of SJU and CSB by William Cofell (undated)

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Cooperative Education Committee Minutes 1966

    1. Minutes of the Academic Exchange Committee: October 4 and 18, 1966
    2. Memo from Firmin Escher, October 21, 1966 to Chairmen of Departments requesting departmental reports on course offerings and faculty assignments for Spring Semester, project enrollments and operational costs and give an assessment of physical facilities teaching.
    3. Memo from Dunstan Tucker, October 24, 1966 to SJU Dept. Chairs (same request as from Firmin but also includes the objectives of the Academic Exchange Committee especially in re instructional costs)
    4. Minutes of a June 10, 1966 meeting with chairs of Art depts. (S. Jacquelyn Dubay and Mr Petheo) to discuss collaboration: since Father Hugh and Father Cloud at SJU have misgivings on cooperation, Jacquelyn felt only limited collaboration would be possible.
      1. Mary Grell’s memo on suggested directives for further cooperation, (10/2/67)
      2. Recommendations for Committee Procedures sent by Mary Grell (in prepara- tion for a Hill Family grant proposal to be completed by June 1968 [seems to be working with Mayhew’s suggested grant request]
      3. Colman Barry (October 6, 1967) memo to the committee gives two goals for the committee: to secure a national consultant and to examine the present state of cooperation (e.g. class size, duplications, course offerings)
      4. Firmin Escher’s memo to the members of the committee (undated but likely close to date of Colman Barry’s Oct.6 date): they should study:
        1. assisting faculty to think of the total program in a discipline vs. “my” department and campus;
        2. evaluation of the number of faculty members within a discipline of the two campuses in relation to total offerings of both
        3. possibility of one department chair for both campuses;
        4. joint faculty hiring according to some equitable ratio
        5. financial exchange for student credit-hour ratio
        6. payment of a portion of salary for faculty teaching on the other campus
        7. Colman Barry’s memo of October 4, 1967 to faculty and associate board of Trustees: announcing Hill grant of $40,200, and asking all to take an active interest in this committee’s work
        8. memo from Sister Dunstan Plantenberg to this Committee (October 9, 1967) recommending activities for the Committee
        9. Summary of Recommendations of the Committee

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Directives for Co-Institutional Study Committee 1967

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Faculty Interviews 1967

  1. Summary of interviews with CSB faculty on problems/strengths of cooperation
  2. Co-institutional Obstacles to Cooperation (who wrote this– one person?)
    1. different corporate status of two colleges (e.g. separate incorporation)
    2. place of laymen on the boards
    3. find a way to unify faculty planning (e.g. hiring/firing needs both)
    4. psychological barriers for some sisters teaching male students
    5. two different admissions standards
    6. religious and disciplinary climate on the two campuses
  3. Group faculty interviews (December 20, 1967)
    1. ten CSB faculty
    2. John Lange’s summary of faculty interviews (one quote seems to be from a CSB student: “…there are a lot of problems with transportation now as well as with communication…when I came to St. Benedict’s I also felt that Saint John’s was available to me… we no longer feel so much about invading each other’s campus …we are beginning to be accepted…we feel there is hostility amongst the faculty….”
    3. Gordon Tavis’ summary
  4. Individual faculty responses by Nick Zaczkowski, S. Rogatia Sohler, S. Aaron Kalinowski, S. Gonzaga Plantenberg, Elaine Henke, S.Etienne Flaherty, S. Mary Helen Juettner, S. Enid Smith, James Gearity, Angeline Dufner, Charles Villette, S. Joanne Muggli, S. Paula Reiten, S. Jacquelyn Dubay, James Sassen, S. Linnea Welter, S. Cathan Culhane, Josephina Caballero, James Hammers, Richard Schroeder, S. Remberta Westkaemper, S. Patrick Joseph, S. Emmanuel Renner, (others too)
  5. Individual faculty responses on SJU campus: Wm.VanCleve, Walter Varnum, Florian Muggli, Gervase and James Trobec, David McDarby, Lanfranc LeMay, Gordon Millette, Mauro Hernandez, Alfred Deutsch, etc
  6. General summary of the interviews (see #2 above)

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Faculty Opinionaire 1967:

Individual responses to the opinionnare (but there are two things that seem to be unrelated: “Mechanics for setting up a calendar of events” and what seems to be a group report arguing for the importance of establishing financial equity in establishing a trusting relationship – no names nor dates given in either of these).

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Student Exchange Data 1963-1969

  1. Tabulation of course registrations of CSB students at SJU and SJU students at CSB per semester from 1963-64 to 1968-69
  2. 1962-63 [?] list of SJU students taking courses at CSB: (3 in German Methods and Materials, 2 in German Drama, and 1 in Latin Grammar/Composition)
  3. 1963-64:
    1. CSB and SJU students in exchange program 1st semester
    2. CSB and SJU students in exchange program 2nd semester
    3. CSB students and their courses at SJU second semester
  4. 1964-65:
    1. CSB Students in Academic Exchange 1st semester
    2. Courses at SJU Open to CSB students
    3. Course offerings at CSB, both semesters
    4. CSB students in exchange program [semester unclear]
    5. Transportation schedule to SJU for first semester
    6. Transportation schedule to and from SJU second semester
    7. SJU students to CSB first semester
    8. CSB students in exchange program second semester
  5. 1965-1966:
    1. CSB 1st semester class schedule; CSB students to SJU with names of students and courses and transportation schedule
    2. 1st semester courses at CSB and numbers of SJU students
    3. 2nd semester CSB students to SJU with names and courses
    4. 2nd semester SJU students at CSB with names and courses
  6. 1966-1967:
    1. Students in Exchange Program (Names, Courses, schedule)
    2. First Semester list of courses taken by CSB students at SJU with numbers of students listed
    3. First Semester tally of courses and numbers of CSB and SJU students taking each course
    4. Father Colman Barry’s response to a CSB/SJU Faculty Opinionaire (due December 1, 1967) on evaluation of some areas of the cooperative program. [notes taken in Coop.txt;]

Co-Institutional Study Committee Minutes 1967

(September 27, October 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, November 6, 13, 17, 20, 27, December 1, 11, 15, 20); and 1968 (see especially the minutes of the joint meeting of the two Boards and the administrative councils with Dr. Mayhew, March 22, 1968)

Position Papers from Committee Members 1967-1968

(Hilary Thimmesh, Gordon Tavis, — the remaining documents don’t appear to be position papers from committee members)

Co-Institutional Study Report, July 1968

(then called the Mayhew Report)

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Consultant Mayhew et al 1967

Cooperation (Other Sites) Reports: Colgate U 1967; California and Missouri 1968

Cooperation Reports, 1967-1968

  1. October 12, 1967, memo from Father Bertram, chair of biology, to the Co-Institutional Study Committee to notify them that S. Dunstan is teaching Embryology with 4 CSB present.
  2. October 13, 1967, memo from Van Cleve to Father Alfred Deutsch, Chair of Faculty Handbook Revision Committee in re proposing a Division of Student Affairs at SJU headed by a Dean with faculty rank.
  3. The major part of the file is a collection of departmental responses to the
  4. The majority of this folder contains the reports from SJU chairs in response to October 9 memo about cooperation in both academic/non-academic areas.
  5. A long memo in re the two Art Departments is included in this file which gives further insight into the evolution of cooperation there.]
  6. Memo by Father Gervase Soukup, on December 15, 1967, to the committee
  7. Memo from Mother Henrita to College Board of Trustees, February 22, 1967
  8. Memo from S. Dunstan [Phyllis] Plantenberg and John Lange October 12, 1967 to Colman Barry, Mary Grell, Firmin Escher and Hilary Thimmesh
  9. Memo from CSB and SJU Registrars to Firmin Escher, December 9, 1967 in re further “combining” of the registrars’ offices
  10. Program of AAC meeting January 16-17, 1968
  11. Letter from Firmin to Hilary, January 19, 1968
  12. Memo from Hilary to Colman, February 5, 1968 (recommends no transferring CSB tuitional funds for girls enrolled in an SJU chemistry following the cancellation of S. Rogatia’s class “in order to remove any grounds for complaint that St. John’s stands to profit from the deplorable confusion surrounding the cancellation of Sister Rogatia’s course…on our campus.”
  13. Memo from Colman to Hilary, February 6, 1968. Colman approves Hilary’s recommendation of no tuition charges for CSB chemistry students in case of the cancellation of S. Rogatia’s class
  14. Letter of Mary Grell to Colman Barry, February 6, 1968 (Mary thanks Colman for the offer but wishes to pay the tuition of the girls in the chemistry class – “We want to pay our just debts, and tuition for students enrolled on your campus constitutes such a just debt. I regret that the confusion occasioned by the course cancellation has taken on such great proportions. Hopefully it will not prove a major set back in the cooperation that is working out so beautifully in many respects.”
  15. Letter by Firmin to Mary Grell and Colman Barry, March 12, 1968
  16. Letter by Imogene Blatz to Firmin Escher, March 15, 1968 (in re update on possible ways in which the two libraries might cooperate)
  17. Letter by Firmin to Hilary Thimmesh, March 27, 1968 (she asks Hilary to review her draft copy of the report of the Joint Meeting of the Boards of Trustees on March 22, 1968) [where is there a copy of this?]
  18. Memo of Hilary to Firmin, March 28, 1968 (he approves of her copy but suggests a few changes to emphasize the direction Mayhew gave rather than giving details he suggested by way of example but which remain to be worked out in further planning.)

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Joint Administrative Council Memos and Reports, 1967-1969

  1. Firmin Escher, “One Co-operative Venture: The CSB/SJU Academic Exchange Program (date ? probably sometime in Fall 1967)
  2. Statement by Abbot Baldwin Dworschak and Mother Henrita Osendorf on July 16, 1968 to the communities of St. John’s Abbey and St. Benedict’s Convent, to the Associate Boards of each institution, and to the faculties. (Gives a quote from Mayhew recommending merger and the Joint Board decision to support his recommendation at a meeting on July 12, 1968)
  3. Minutes of Joint Administrative Councils, May 7, 1969 (Most of the discussion was on the student request for “community educational” experience. Idzerda also summarized the efforts of cooperation in 1968-69:
    1. S. Imogene was to be head librarian for the unified library staff;
    2. Joint appointments in Spanish, Sociology, Public Information;
    3. Admissions offices are moving closer together with a joint bulletin committee, and publication of “The Two of Us,” common application form and schedule for recruitment;
    4. Committee on joint staffing is created
    5. Efforts have been made to find a joint coordinator; Sylvester Theisen was recommended by Father Colman Barry and Idzerda agreed to “discover the pulse of the CSB campus concerning Dr. Theisen as a coordinator”
  4. Minutes of the Coordinating Committee – Joint Administrative Councils (November 26, 1968):
    1. discussion of a possible newsletter that would describe the accomplishments of the two schools;
    2. SJU Associate Board want to be involved in choice of any coordinator;
    3. SJU Associate Board unhappy with a corporate merger and want the word “merger” defined, and a clarification of terms and objectives of further “cooperation” – “coordination”; they also want a legal and financial analysis of both schools before they would consider a merger
  5. Memo from Idzerda to CSB/SJU Administrative Council Coordination Comm. (November 29, 1968)
    1. since SJU Associate Board concern about merger prompts Colman and Conway to articulate the meaning of “merger”
    2. the continuing repetition of this request seems to prevent SJU administration from a clear declaration of intent to implement the mandate of the joint Board of Trustees.
    3. CSB administration also has a problem: Its Board and Associate Board want to know what we are doing to carry out the declared wishes of the legal Boards of both colleges – four months of apparent inaction (Idzerda gave them an unsatisfactory reply that the SJU Associate Board doesn’t agree with the meaning or implications of the joint resolution of July 12)
      • Ruvelson and Anderson + ca half dozen SJU Associate Board members met to discuss the issue. Ruvelson and Anderson felt there is a good deal of common ground for closer integration of CSB and SJU.
    4. Idzerda proposes:
      • to allay further talk of fiscal unreliability or instability on the part of either SJU or CSB, the members of legal and Associate Boards at each school be given a copy of both colleges audits for 1967-68 and a summary operating budget for 1968-69 for each college;
      • that the SJU Associate Board and interested members of its legal Board set a time/place to meet for a frank discussion with the CSB Board and interested associate board members in re the joint resolution of July 12.
  6. Letter to Colman and Idzerda from Louis Vaccaro, VPAA at U of Portland, (Jan. 20, 1969) an “honest appraisal of our chances to achieve what the co-institutional study recommends”
    1. the Mayhew recommendation is sound but five years ahead of its time for church-related colleges: “too abrupt change is required in inst. character and related to this is the fact that the personal lives, desires, biases and fears begin to surface when such changes appear imminent”;
    2. but church-related colleges must realize that change is necessary, but the kinds of changes are not necessarily a complete merger: possibly merge finances, admissions, registrar, purchasing, etc., but this requires a combined faculty senate with sufficient authority to make proper decisions.
  7. Minutes of the Joint Coordinating Committee (February 4, 1969) in regard to the role of a coordinator and who he would respond to.
  8. Memo from Michael Blecker to SJU President Colman (February 21, 1969) SJU theology department approves a joint department with CSB theology and he recommends Colman’s approval of this decision.
  9. Memo from Director of Financial Aid (April 22, 1969) in re off-campus students and financial need.
  10. Joint meeting of CSB/SJU Administrative Councils (April 25, 1969): in re the Community Education Project approval for another year.
  11. Minutes of Registrars’ meeting (June 19, 1969): issues of policies for cooperation in re communication problems, etc.
  12. A statement of philosophy by the students wishing to be members of the Community Education Project (undated)
  13. Statement by Colman Barry and Stanley Idzerda (nd): it is undesirable at this time to approve additional Community Education proposes + rationale for this decision.

CSB Cooperation: Mayhew Progress Report 1968 (two documents)
CSB Cooperation: Report to Religious Communities 1968

    1. Letter from Abbot Baldwin to Mother Henrita (July 2, 1968): after a lengthy discussion of the Mayhew Report, the Board of Trustees (monks) passed the following resolution: “We have received the report of Dr. Mayhew and welcome the opportunity for an exploratory discussion of its implications with the Board of Trustees at the College of Saint Benedict on the basis of a previously prepared agenda.” A second motion: “We favor closer cooperation with the College of Saint Benedict through the appointment of a coordinator whose role should be defined at the joint meeting.” Baldwin also stated that the Mayhew report must be discussed with their Associate Board and the faculty after the joint meeting but doesn’t want Mayhew present for the joint Board meeting. He lists the items that should be discussed at this joint meeting:
      1. the name of the proposed institution
      2. how debts and gov’t loans of each institution would be handled and the amount of these
      3. the type of incorporation that would be most suitable
      4. the effect a merger would have on a fund drive
      5. the role of the coordinator and his authority
      6. the reaction of the Associate Boards and the faculty
    2. Minutes of the Joint Board July 12, 1968 Mother Henrita asked them to discuss “Are we in favor of the proposals made in the report?” Idzerda felt it should not take place for 2 or 3 years. Hilary thought discussion of a merger in the abstract is not as helpful as discussion on the difficulties and sticky problems (e.g. financial burdens and separate incorporation).
    3. Draft of a “suggested statement by Father John (sent by Abbot Baldwin on July 13, 1968) to go to both faculties and the Associate Boards. Baldwin asks for responses from members of the Joint Boards. It states the two motions made at the joint meeting of the two Boards on July 12, 1968 and asks the members of both communities, the faculties and the Associate Boards to consider the two motions and to cooperate with the agreement concerning publicity.
    4. Statement submitted to the communities, faculties and Associate Boards sent on July 16, 1968
      1. Joint Board of Trustees Statement after their July 12, 1969 meeting.
      2. Minutes of the meeting of the CSB and SJU Boards of Trustees (7/19/69)
      3. “Summary of meeting of Joint Boards, July 19, 1969)” – announcement of Sylvester Theisen as Coordinator and a report of the cooperative efforts of the two colleges during 1968-1969 + three suggestions for the future.
      4. Letter of Idzerda to Barry (8/12/69) in which he summarizes the meeting of August 5 in which Father Gervase stated that “every physical exchange of either student for faculty between CSB and SJU was represented as a ‘cost’ to the respective colleges….On his reckoning CSB owes SJU more than $24,000 for 1968-1969.”
      5. Memo from Colman Barry on August 18, 1969: he forwarded a letter from Stanley Idzerda (dated August 12, 1969) to Abbot John, etc. and stated that he asked Sylvester Theisen to make a recommendation.
      6. Memo from Sylvester Theisen to the Members of the Coordination Committee of the two colleges and to college administrators (August 20, 1969): Subject: Financial Arrangements for the excess credit hours taken on one or the other campus in the student exchange. He refers to Idzerda and Barry memos and recommends postponing the decision until a policy for 1970-1971 is established.
      7. Description of the position of Coordinator (dated September 18, 1969)
      8. Letter from Colman Barry (September 22, 1969) to Stanley Idzerda in which he confirms Idzerda’s memo of September 18, 1969 in re Sister Imogene and Father Eugene as joint appointments and their salaries. He recommends they be very definite in re pro-rating the salaries to avoid future misunderstandings.
      9. “Cooperation between the College of Saint Benedict’s and Saint John’s University” by Sy Theisen (undated but in 1969-1970 file folder)
      10. Memo from Sy Theisen to Idzerda, Firmin, Colman, and Lange (9/23/69) in re a centralized Registrar’s Office
      11. Memo from Theisen to relevant administrators (9/25/69): since the presidents and deans agreed with the memo of 9/23/69, Eugene and others are pro- ceeding with moving the registrars’ files to SJU. Financial costs have not yet been agreed in re a centralized registrar’s office.
      12. Ad Hoc Meeting concerning Financial Arrangements in creating a single Registrar’s Office (September 26, 1969) – mainly business officers there
      13. artial memo from Gordon Tavis (October 6, 1969): he suggests we should “have the student pay the tuition for his class load and let the money go to the institution from which he is taking the classes.”
      14. Memo from Theisen (October 8, 1969) to Ad Hoc Joint Board Committee on Cooperation: in re centralized registrar’s office.
      15. Memo from John Lange to administrators (10/27/69): in re Vita International stipulates the difference in cost by SJU and by CSB and proposes a solution.
      16. Memo from Theisen to Eugene, Florian and McKenna (10.28/69): in re charges for costs for January Term for students from Mary College.
      17. Memo from Theisen to administrators (11/2/69) agenda for meeting on November 5, 1969 (next states meeting was November 6).
      18. Summary of meeting on coordination November 6, 1969.
      19. McKenna to Firmin (Nov.10, 1969): a copy of department cost per credit hour.
      20. Theisen to presidents and deans (December 8, 1969) in re quality of staff for a strong unified academic program in re sabbaticals and promotions.
      21. Theisen to presidents and deans (12/8/69): in re better communication and agreement on admissions policy.
      22. Theisen to administrators (12/12/69): in re the Committee on Convocations and Lectures.
      23. Theisen to administrators (12/16/69): in re Committee on Concerts/Lectures.
      24. Theisen to Chair of Sociology on Theisen’s teaching assignment for ‘70-71.
      25. McKenna to Idzerda (12/24/69): in re 1969-70 Incremental Costs of Cooperation.
      26. Theisen to Lange (January 8, 1970) in re Catalog for 1970-71.
      27. Theisen to Ad Hoc Joint Board Committee on Coordination (January 8, 1970) in re possible formation of a corporation to conduct the unified educational enterprise.
      28. Theisen to Lange in re faculty load norms (January 9, 1970).
      29. Theisen, “CSB/SJU Cooperation” (January 12, 1970).
      30. Theisen to SJU selected faculty (January 21, 1970) on S/U Implementation.
      31. Idzerda to Colman, Lange, Van Cleve and Theisen (January 21, 1970) – a copy of the results of the Institutional Functioning Inventory and suggests a discussion of comparisons.
      32. Minutes of the January 22, 1970 meeting of the Jt. Board Ad Hoc Comm.
      33. Lange to Olheiser (January 28, 1970) on staffing assignments for 1970-71.
      34. Lange and Firmin to both faculties and administrators (February 6, 1970) in re speaker on experimental college within a U structure
      35. Memo from Sylvester Theisen to Ad Hoc Joint Board Committee on Cooperation (January 8, 1970) in re “Possible Formation of a Corporation to Conduct the Unified Educational Enterprises.”
      36. Ebacher and Lange to faculty and administration (Feb.16, 1970) in re J.T.
      37. Theisen to Jt. Faculties (March 9, 1970) – a summary of cooperation history.
      38. Theisen to education faculty (March 17, 1970) in re appointment of S. Mary David Olheiser as chair of the Education Department Fall 1969 for one year.
      39. Theisen (April 1, 1970), “The SJU-CSB Cooperative Program (challenges a faculty vote on March 10 in re cooperation).
      40. Lange to presidents and deans (April 3, 1970) in re Counseling Services
      41. Theisen, “Answers to Questions Asked about the SJU/CSB Cooperative Program, “ (April 1, 1970 and also a copy of the revised April 6).
      42. Theisen to presidents and deans (April 14, 1970) on unilateral decisions which affect both schools – suggest more communication in advance.
      43. Minutes of meeting (April 15, 1970) on Counseling and Placement Services.
      44. Leonard Valley to SJU faculty (April 21, 1970) in re teaching loads.
      45. Theisen to presidents, deans and business officers (May 26, 1970) in re office space for 1970-1971.
      46. Theisen to presidents, deans, business and development officers (May 27, 1970) in re search for an Institutional Researcher.
      47. Theisen to same group (May 19, 1970) in re Van Cleve’s application for the position of Institutional Research Director.
      48. Theisen’s Annual Report for 1969-1970 (June 30, 1970).
      49. Van Cleve to Lange (February 23, 1970): Counseling Service Scope and Operation.
      50. Theisen to Idzerda and S. Firmin (April 14, 1970): Nomination of chairmen by departmental members.
      51. Theisen to Leadership Groups at CSB and SJU (May 11, 1970): Update on decision not to have co-ed housing on our two campuses.

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Implementation of Cooperation Program 1969-1970

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Co-Institutional Planning, 1970-1971

July 1970:

August 1970:

September 1970:

October 1970:

November 1970:

December 1970:

January, 1971:

February, 1971:

March, 1971:

April, 1971:

Idzerda to Henrita (April 5, 1971): he protests Father Colman’s intent “his successor, and his combination of lies to individuals and preventing persons in power from meeting together will mean he’ll succeed again as he has before.” Idzerda offered to resign. “Everybody seems worried about their position; it’s time that some of us worry about the survival of the two schools after our petty ambitions are buried within us.”

May, 1971:

June, 1971:

Theisen to Michael Blecker and Stanley Idzerda (August 19, 1971): in re the procedures for making decisions about cooperative matters – that decisions about cooperation must go through his office rather than be decided only by the two presidents between themselves.

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Office of Joint Institutional Research (Hearn Reports) 1970-1971

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Academic Exchange Accounting, 1970-1971

  1. Theisen to Presidents and four others (July 24, 1970): Salary of Sister Imogene for 1969-1970 as Head Librarian (should be $13,500 instead of $13,000).
  2. Chart (June 16, 1970) on What CSB Owes and What SJU Owes.
  3. Chart (undated and unsigned) for 1968-1969 on Costs of Student Credit Hours, Faculty, and Food Service Costs.
  4. Theisen to Presidents and Others (August 20, 1970): Adjustments of financial exchange in the interests of fostering the spirit of cooperation. He explains his rationale for what “Some SJU people are still irritated by my solution of last year’s impasse because it seemed to give a one-sided financial benefit to CSB.”
  5. Theisen to Father Gervase with copy to McKenna (August 20, 1970): Expenditures of Coordinator’s Office, 1969-1970.
  6. Theisen to Presidents Idzerda and Colman and Others (August 26, 1970) on recommendation for Biology courses to be taught at SJU for fall 1970.
  7. 7. Idzerda to McKenna (September 24, 1970): a request for information on academic exchange costs as of January 1. Also on liability in re use of horses owned by CSB.
  8. List of figures on yellow lined paper (seems to be numbers of students from other campus, e.g., “SJU at B” and CSB at J), undated but an accounting sheet from St. John’s Abbey listing costs for 1970-1971.
  9. A “rough draft” from Theisen for Fall 1970 figures of CSB at J – list of Sisters who apparently were teaching one or all courses at SJU.
  10. Similar draft for SJU at B with list of what CSB owes SJU: $27,663.
  11. Hand-written memo from Theisen to McKenna (October 3, 1970?) which gives a list of information on faculty for purposes of salary estimates.
  12. Theisen to Firmin and Lange (Academic Deans) (October 16, 1970): on chemistry courses for Spring 1971.
  13. Theisen to Presidents and others (October 16, 1970): on costs of Biology Department last year.
  14. Undated list of figures from Gervase Soukup — unclear purpose.
  15. Lange to Theisen (October 26, 1970): on Freshman Chemistry.
  16. Theisen to Business Officers (January 27, 1971): on Food Costs and Exchange of Money.
  17. Undated and unsigned list of SJU costs at CSB for February Meal Exchange.
  18. McKenna to Florian Muggli (February 8, 1971): Check for $15,000 to be applied to the total costs for 1970-1971.
  19. Theisen to Presidents and Others (March 1, 1971): 1971 JT Exchange.
  20. From SJU Food Service Dept to that at CSB (March 1, 1971) — bill.
  21. Theisen to McKenna (March 9, 1971): on food service bill.
  22. Hearn to CSB/SJU Administrators (April 2, 1971): on JT Costs.
  23. Theisen to Business Officers McKenna and Janzen (April 21, 1971): on Miscellaneous Financial Exchange Items.

CSB and SJU Cooperation: International Studies Reports (1970)

  1. Report from Father Thomas Thole to John Lange (June 15, 1970) in re advice on what needs to be done for our foreign students and also for international education in general.

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Presidents’ Correspondence 1971

  1. Memo from CSB/SJU Food Service to Resident Students at both colleges (3/8/71 listed as date in pencil) – “The meal exchange program becomes effective today”
  2. Letter from Blecker to Idzerda (August 9, 1971) “I enjoyed the chance to speak frankly with you and expect to do so at all times.” (the written exchanges in this folder demonstrate a continued pattern of very frank but respectful discourse between the two presidents)
  3. Memo from Idzerda to Blecker (August 10, 1971) restating the agreements and issues they discussed at their meeting on August 5 (Blecker became President July 1, 1971)
  4. Memo from Sy Theisen to several administrators (August 12, 1971) in re food service exchange proposal to see if they agree to its terms
  5. Memo from Blecker to Idzerda (August 18, 1971): a recapitulation of the agreements they made at a meeting in re S. Imogene/library; financial aid issue; what they want Theisen to do: in re moving music dept. to CSB, make recommendations on joint appointments to faculty and on steps to be taken in moving SJU art faculty to CSB in 1972-1973; S. Joyce would receive a joint apt. to direct Black Studies Program; bookstore cooperation; SJU faculty interpretation of CSB 5-year planning = CSB now locked in (Blecker wants Idzerda to tell him what to say to them; requests a meeting on September 8).
  6. Memo from Theisen to CSB administrators (August 24, 1971) in re a meeting with Dr. Hearn on August 26 to discuss his research reports.
  7. Memo from Idzerda to Blecker (August 31, 1971): a few elaborations/ clarifications on Blecker’s memo of August 18.

Correspondence among Administrators, 1971-1972:

  1. Firmin Escher’s memo to Dr. Lange (September 16, 1971) in which she explains why one course in Biology was added and why Mr. Haechler was hired in the German Dept.
  2. 2. Blecker to S. Merle (September 22, 1971) in which he asks her about the meaning of her phrase “superior-inferior relationships” used in her letter to him.
  3. Memo from Theisen to CSB/SJU presidents and deans (September 22, 1971) in re cooperation with St. Cloud State College in communication and theatre; rather students can take the courses needed there on an independent basis.
  4. Memo to Firmin from Blecker (October 6, 1971) responding to her memo to Lange (see # 8 above). Blecker’s objection was not that some changes weren’t needed but that the decision was taken without the consultation of SJU dean and that he will void the decision the next time it happens. “I think it should be clear though my statements seem blunt that what I want is more cooperation and not separatism.”
  5. Memo from Blecker to Idzerda (October 6, 1971) in re several minor issues.
  6. Memo from Idzerda to Michael (October 8, 1971) response and update on some other issues.
  7. Memo from Blecker to Theisen (October 14, 1971) response to Theisen’s memo which reprimanded him for his October 6 letter to Firmin. He restates his position which is basically trust and respect but insists on his right to point out serious breaches of protocol. He had wanted to make it abundantly clear to Firmin his major concern of unilateral action.
  8. Memo of Blecker to Idzerda (October 18, 1971) in re relationship with the Black Student Union; he enclosed his memo to them (a very respectful and honest response to their concerns)
  9. Memo from Idzerda to Blecker (October 25, 1971) a review of their meeting of October 14 on several issues (one item of note is his memo seems to hint that SJU shouldn’t be overconfident in greater use of BAC for classes and offices for SJU arts faculty since the building was built for 1000 capacity).
  10. Blecker’s draft of his report to SJU faculty in October 1971 – he asks Idzerda for any corrections he has. In this draft he says: “…we have altered our expectations about our present and near future relationships. Up to the beginning of the last academic year, 1970-1971, both schools set before themselves the goal of corporate merger. When I became president that goals had already been set aside, at least for the time being. As I see it, our model should not be merger but ‘marriage’, the preservation of two, autonomous academic communities working in close cooperation. Neither should be subordinate to the other, but both should be mutually dependent….Rather than work toward a conglomorate corporation, I think we should strive to make the machinery of each community’s decision making more sensitive than it is now to the values we set before us and the needs we bring here….We should strive to preserve the human dimensions of our educational communities, which best, in my judgment, foster creativity, participation, accessibility and religious growth.”
  11. Blecker to Idzerda (October 27, 1971) responding to Idzerda’s memo of October 25: here Blecker responds to Idzerda’s comment on the limits of the BAC: “In regard to the Benedicta Arts Center, I have yet to hear you state that reciprocity between the two schools involves planning for a joint student population with regard to facilities offered to students and faculty. I point out, I hope without need, that we built larger facilities, that is for 2500, and owe money on these facilities and are paying for them. If CSB seriously expects cooperation to continue, I hope to hear something in the way of your readiness to provide space for our joint student bodies at CSB and at what point of time such facilities would be ready in your “Five Year Plan.”
  12. The actual finalized President’s Report to Students, Faculty and Administration (October 28, 1971) has some revisions from draft report
  13. Memo from Idzerda to Blecker (November 9, 1971) in re fiscal relations between CSB and SJU. He reports what he heard from SJU students understanding of Blecker’s report; they resented CSB for being a financial burden on SJU. He goes on to respond to Blecker’s analysis of the financial inequality and asks several questions that need to be examined.
  14. Blecker to Idzerda (November 10, 1971): a response to Idzerda’s memo of November 9 on financial issues – very blunt but respectful.
  15. Memo from Drekonja to CSB administrators in re students able to keep their federal and state aid while studying abroad.
  16. Lange to Theisen (November 15, 1971) asks whether we need co-directors of JT and that this would be a good time to consider a single director since McDarby is resigning as SJU co-director of JT.
  17. Idzerda to Blecker (November 23, 1971) in re several issues . Idzerda reiterated his request for some common meetings of the two Boards “I remain convinced that our cooperation should be one of the major matters of common concern and attention for the Boards.”
  18. Lange to Theisen (November 24, 1971) in re complaints regarding faculty office space and acceptance of faculty coming to the other campus.

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Presidents’ Correspondence, 1972

  1. President’s Report (February 7, 1972) by Michael Blecker, O.S.B. at SJU “I am optimistic about our future cooperation. There are several reasons why I believe this optimism is not unfounded….The only thing I am not certain of is the exact structure which will best support that cooperation…. I have serious doubts about the value of merger., I prefer’marriage’ to merge. What I value about us is that we are two alive communities, two campuses in which students can discover themselves and participate in what is going on….I think some have mistaken cooperation or ‘unification’ for identification,” making everything the same. If we achieved that we would surely reduce tensions but also support complacency. I think what we should seek to foster as small colleges is diversity and creative tension, not an over-reaching unified bureaucracy. What our world needs is another example of cooperation that admits diversity, individuality, pluralism….My point in using the marriage analogy is that marriage involves complete and wholehearted cooperation of two beings. A beautiful marriage guards the fullness, completeness and individuality of each partner. So, I would hope, our cooperation could assist two learning communities become more individual and effective places to learn.”
  2. Michael Blecker to Abbot John Eidenschink and others (February 18, 1972): Joint-Sub-Committee of the Governing Boards for Cooperation. Blecker says he has tried to reassure Idzerda “that we are not presently considering going co-educational. In a meeting of January 28 SJU administra- tors said that “our going co-educational is a possibility only if effective procedures to handle our joint concerns are not established and if a mutually satisfactory financial sharing of costs and revenues is not achieved.” Blecker goes on to state that an Idzerda memo of February 10 “appears to me to be a demand that our Governing Board declare that it will maintain Saint John’s as a single-sex institution in cooperation with Saint Benedict’s but assumes that the basis of cooperation whether in matters of administration or financing is something that can be settled later….I do not believe that is an appropriate way to proceed. A vision of the whole of our relationships must be set forth before we can move effectively forward.” Blecker goes on to criticize Theisen for “working to put into effect the Governing Boards’ earlier decision to merge the two institutions. I think the merging of departments is a good thing, but need not lead to unification of “merging” of the two institutions.” [strong and clear statement of his position – revisit it]
  3. Note from Idzerda to Michael Blecker (April 20, 1972): a restatement of two points of agreement made by them at their last conversation. 1) in history, psychology and sociology, CSB would make any new staff appointments in the foreseeable future to make CSB’s contribution to those departments more equitable. 2) that both Boards would recommend tuition to be held at $1800 and housing increased $100.
  4. Blecker to Idzerda (April 24, 1972): Blecker is unwilling to approve these two except as part of an over-all settlement which must be outlined soon.
  5. Minutes of the Joint Educational Policies Committee Meeting (April 26, 1972): Members of this committee believes joint meetings are necessary — “more than the Presidents do.” CSB faculty wish to formally object to the separate SJU meeting: “ The Joint Educational Policies Committee herewith reiterates its unanimous vote of the 20th of March 1972, namely that we have only joint Educational Policy meetings because at the present level of cooperation there can be no matters which pertain strictly to one of the colleges.”
  6. Sister Alberta Huber, President of St. Catherine’s to Idzerda (April 28, 1972): St. Catherine’s and St. Thomas don’t exchange fees for exchange of classes. “We find the exchange beneficial in so many ways that we have not considered limiting it, or trying to balance it.”
  7. Blecker to Abbot and others (April 29, 1972): Blecker is opposed to a unified budget for each department since it would immeasurably increase departmental autonomy at a time when small colleges are limiting it. He also mentions several issues dealing with the issue of merger and the notion of single-sex college which CSB wants to keep in re women living at CSB campus.
  8. SJU Reporting Structure (undated)
  9. Areas of Concern for Academic Vice Presidents: Curriculum, Staffing, Budgeting, and Governance as general categories (undated) [[good list but not specific in exactly what each concern is – e.g., January Term]
  10. Blecker to Idzerda (June 21, 1972): SJU Executive Governing Board on June 16 did not approve one recommendation of the Joint Sub-Committee – i.e., CSB request that SJU guarantee it will not go co-educational. While they presently don’t intend to go co-ed that option must be left open to impacts in the future.
  11. Statistical statement of “Results to SJU of the Two Institutional Stances” [undated]
  12. Two memos (June 30, 1972):
    1. Abbot John’s memo to the CSB/SJU Committee on Cooperation explains SJU’s Executive Governing Board’s position
    2. copy of Blecker’s memo to Idzerda of June 21, 1972,

Correspondence and Reports, July to December 1972:

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Joint Administrative Council Reports, 1972

  1. A Statement of Proposals for Discussion by the SJU and CSB Administrations
    (December 13, 1971): suggests a revised basis for future cooperation proposed by SJU. At the end it states: “Should neither the proposed tuition exchange modification, nor the alternatives be acceptable then the SJU administration believes each college would be free to go co-educational. This latter alternative would allow each school to develop a diverse student body and curriculum without overly increasing overhead expenses.”
  2. Theisen memo to Blecker and SJU Administrative Council members (January 3, 1972): Memo is confidential as a response to #1 above. A 7-page document with Theisen’s response to individual points in #1). Attached is an analysis of costs at SJU dated November 18, 1971 and copy of Student Exchange for Fall 1970.
  3. Mother Henrita Osendorf, Chairman of CSB Board of Trustees (April 7, 1972): Memo sent to all members of CSB Board urging them to meet with other groups at a meeting on April 30.
  4. Seems to be a memo (from Idzerda?) in re Mother Henrita’s role in the joint meeting of trustees and Councils on April 30, 1972.
  5. Guidelines for Small Group Discussions at the Joint meeting of Boards and Councils on April 30, 1971.

CSB and SJU Cooperation: Institutional Coordinator Reports, 1970-1971

  1. Theisen to Ad Hoc Board Committee on Coordination (January 9, 1970): on Financial Arrangements for Credit-hour Exchange Imbalance.
  2. Theisen to Deans with copies to Presidents (December 29, 1971): Location of Classes.
  3. Theisen to January Ad Hoc Committee (December 23, 1971): Notice of next meeting: January 4, 1972).
  4. Theisen report on Cooperation, SJU-CSB, 1970-1971 [undated]: “Whatever the problems and frictions, there is no doubt at all that CSB and SJU are joined in cooperation forever. However, as the five-year master planning of CSB undertaken during the 1970-71 school year made clear, one school can still plan and take action on many fronts within the overall framework of cooperation.”
  5. Theisen to Sassen and Conway (September 13, 1971): Cooperation of the Development Office. Gerber recommends the two colleges approach the national foundations together rather than the MN based ones.
  6. Theisen to Registrar Eugene McGlothlin (September 14, 1971): A proposal to reduce bus costs: Extend period from 20 minutes to 30 minutes which would require only half the buses.
  7. Theisen to Robert Joyce (September 14, 1971): a reminder that Joyce needs to avoid two sections of a class with very few students in each class.
  8. Theisen to CSB/SJU Administrators (June 7, 1971): in re Food Service Charges, 1971-1972.
  9. Theisen to Faculty/Staff at CSB/SJU (August 25, 1971): in re Cooperation between CSB and SJU: Exchange of Students; Exchange of faculty members; Registrar’s Office; Food Service; Bus Transportation; Unification of Departments; Admissions Office; Facilities; Fund Drives; Miscellaneous Concerns; Cooperation Not Merger.
  10. Theisen to CSB/SJU Members of Governing Boards (August 26, 1971): in re Cooperation: enclosure of the memo above to faculty and staff and his recognition of the good work of the Board Committee on Cooperation (possibly have different Board Committees oversee different issues as joint sub-committees).
  11. Theisen to Appropriate Administrators (August 30, 1971): on Procedures for Food Service Exchange.
  12. Theisen to Presidents, Deans and Financial Officers (October 18, 1971): Tabulation of Student Credit Hours Exchange, Fall 1971.
  13. Theisen to Presidents, Deans and Development Officers (October 29, 1971): Short summary of meeting on October 27 with Deans and Development Officers in re possibility of joint applications for grants in certain areas.
  14. Theisen’s Analysis of Costs at SJU (November 8, 1971): “I submit that the pro rata system plus unified department budgets plus tight controls by deans, through the help of a single vice president for finance, serving both schools, offers us the best approach in our cooperative relationship. I am ready to defend it with reasoned arguments, but unfortunately I cannot make the conclusion demonstrably inevitable. We must discuss these matters at length.”
  15. Theisen to Mary David (November 10, 1971): in re the November 8 memo on Human Relations Regulation on her request for an ad hoc committee of CSB and SJU professors to deal with this issue.
  16. Statement by Sy Theisen for Meeting of Presidents and Deans (November 11, 1971): We must solve the financial arrangements before we can make any further decisions on the unification of departments and offices. The present system results, as I repeatedly said last spring, in hopeless chaos for budgeting and governing purposes. It worked for the transitional stage but it does not work for academically unified departments. He urges a shift to the pro rata system.
  17. Theisen to Presidents (November 23, 1971): in re cost of bus transportation. Registrar will proceed with scheduling classes with 30 minutes in between them.
  18. Theisen to Presidents, Deans and copies to Financial Officers (November 23, 1971): in re Financial Arrangements. Of all the other options, Theisen firmly supports the pro rata system.
  19. Departmental Costs at CSB, 1970-1971 [undated] Fall Term, 1971 Estimated costs in re credit hour exchange.
  20. Theisen to Presidents (November 29, 1971): a response to the points in Idzerda’s memo to Blecker on November 22, 1971.
  21. Theisen to Deans Lange and Firmin Escher (December 6, 1971): Deans are to appoint a January Committee on Cooperation to establish guidelines for future cooperation. Theisen will chair the committee.
  22. Theisen to members of the January “ad hoc committee on cooperation” (December 14, 1971): in re their January work for this committee. Theisen to Deans Lange and Firmin (December 16, 1971): in re a review of the course registrations for Spring 1972.
  23. Two reports by the ad hoc committee (February 10, 1972): in re the recommendations of the 8-faculty committee – their report represent what is widely held t be a consensus of faculty thinking on both campuses. Recommendations include topics of budget, committees, deans as related to chairmen, faculty or faculties, and implementation. The second report is a one page report to the CSB faculty (February 29, 1972) which states that the committee recommends a joint faculty meeting to discuss their recommendations.
  24. Theisen memo to be discussed at the Administrative Council Meeting (February 26, 1972): Theisen’s comments on the Faculty Recommendations for further cooperation and he recommends the report should also go to the Joint Board Committee on Cooperation.
  25. A series of Reports by Theisen:
    1. Theisen to Joint Administrators (March 1, 1972): Basic question has been raised: should we continue the cooperative process along the lines followed during the past few years? Or should we halt that process and find a different route or routes? It seems that since the Hill Fdn grant for consultants has been submitted by the presidents no action seems possible until we get their report.
    2. CSB/SJU Cooperation to Date – Statement to CSB Board (January 6, ’72)
    3. Letter to CSB Board Members (January 7, 1972): If their meeting yesterday seemed that cooperation was in shambles, Theisen states that several misunderstandings have been dissolved and this brought about “a renewed commitment to cooperation.” Both administrations believe some mutually agreeable arrangements are possible.
    4. Theisen to Mother Henrita and Idzerda (December 9, 1970): Board of Trustees motion relation to preparation of proposal for legal merger.
    5. Answers to Questions Asked about the SJU-CSB Cooperative Program (April 1, 1970) – report to the Faculties:
      1. Why has the faculty not been consulted about cooperation?
      2. Are the schools really committed to cooperation?
      3. Is unification of departments and offices not the same as corporate merger?
      4. Can we go back to 1962 and take a different direction?
        What choices do we have now?

    CSB and SJU Cooperation: “Institutional Coordinator – Reports, 1972 by Dr. Sylvester Theisen

    CSB/SJU Cooperation to Date: Statement to the CSB Board, January 6, 1972

    1. Three-page report
    2. Attachment: 1971 Student Enrollment and Exchange Chart
    3. Memo to CSB Board, January 7, 1971


    Memo to Presidents Idzerda and Blecker & copies to others (January 10, 1972) on results of our meeting of January 7, 1972:

    1. both presidents agree to have unified departmental budgets for 1972-1973 with instructional costs to be shared on the basis of credit hour consumption, if the financial consequences appear reasonable to them;
    2. registrar and business offices will prepare a tabulation of instructional costs for each department and the percentage and dollar amount payable if this system were in effect for 1971-1972 (current school year)
    3. if the overall calculations for this current year is discouraging, we will select those departments where the pro rata system seems the only fair mode of division—e.g., biology, chemistry, physics, psychology and sociology at SJU and art and education at CSB


    *Memo to Mother Henrita from Stanley Idzerda (January 12, 1972) in re relations with SJU [see my copy of his letter] Idzerda is concerned that the Board might think him “particularly aggressive”

    1. that St. Ben’s will not initiate a coeducational program, but if St. John’s does, then there will be no cooperation between the two schools at all: “I have thought about this matter for some time every day since the first week after Father Michael’s accession, and have worked out what seems to me a necessary ‘game plan’ which will both cause St. John’s to pause before it makes any radical moves, and which will also give us the best chance of survival in the even we are faced with coeducation in Collegeville.”
    2. “…I appeal to your knowledge of my temperament and working style; I am not given to direful predictions. Typically, I have always insisted with a great deal of confidence that while other colleges were failing, we would survive and end up in the black. Thus, I am not creating chimera when I speak about a sudden, irrational or radical act on the part of our colleagues across the way.”
    3. he cites the examples of the various Catholic colleges that have tried to cooperate where male colleges went coed as a unilateral decision. Ergo, he urges Mother Henrita to keep continuing contact with Father Abbot and to press for the reconstitution of the ad hoc committee.


    *Warren Janzen’s summary of Prorata cost (January 27, 1972) – 7 pages long Theisen to Sister Firmin (February 3, 1972) in re CSB students in SJU Honors Program Theisen to Blecker (February 10, 1972) in re Coeducation and Cooperation [See my copy of this memo]
    “Nearly every week (including this one) has brought to me some comment from an SJU staff member that you have given them to understand that it is perfectly possible for SJU to become coeducational and that it remains a reasonable option for the near future. I can agree that both of the two propositions reported to me are possible choices for SJU. However, I would ask that you add a codicil to any further speculations concerning a decision for SJU to become coeducational, namely, that at the last Board of Trustees meeting at CSB this matter was discussed because it had been mentioned in one of your memoranda. The CSB Board concluded (a) CSB would under no circumstances initiate a coeducational program; (b) If SJU did initiate such a program, i.e., decide to become a coeducational undergraduate college, all forms of cooperation between CSB and SJU would cease forthwith; © CSB would probably feel impelled to become a completely independent coeducational college too.” [referred to copy of CSB Trustee Minutes, January 6, 1972]

    1. Theisen to Presidents Idzerda and Blecker (February 10, 1972 –date penciled in) submission of the report of the January Committee on Cooperation with the 17 recommendations (February 10, 1972).
      General Statement: “The growth of cooperation between CSB and SJU has been a series of responses to needs arising from experiences, rather than a fulfillment of an ideology imposed from above. This pragmatic approach, staying close to our experience, seems very slow to some persons and highly ambiguous to many, but we believe that it is organic and healthy. This process out to continue without disruption. “The considered judgment of these eight chairmen clearly favors greater unification in the entire decision making process of the two schools. Since departments are now unified, faculty members will feel increasingly united in each department rather than divided between two schools. Therefore, to keep committees and other administrative structures completely separate seems unrealistic and dysfunctional.” Seventeen recommendations are then given under the following five categories: Budget, Committees, Deans as Related to Chairmen, Faculty or Faculties, and Implementation.
    2. Theisen to Members of Committee on Cooperation of the Executive Governing Boards (February 16, 1972) – background material for their first meeting on cooperation [members: Abbot John Eidenschink, Mother Henrita Osendorf, Sister Mary Reuter, Joseph Schiely, Father Gervase Soukup and Albert Hartl]. Theisen recommends they read the five-page report by the January Committee on Cooperation and a memo from Idzerda to Blecker, and Theisen’s 4-page memo of April 1, 1970 “which gives answers to questions about cooperation.
    3. Theisen’s memo to Board Committee on Cooperation (see #8) (February 22, 1972) in re Blecker’s memo of February 18 to them in which Theisen clarifies some of Blecker’s comments in his February 16 memo (see #8 above). [see my copy of this memo]
    4. Theisen to Presidents, VPs/Deans and Members of Committee on Cooperation of the Governing Boards (March 1, 1972) “Circumstances and developments have made the role of the Institutional Coordinator a study in frustration this school year….“The basic question has been raised: should we continue the cooperative process along the lines followed during the past few years? Or should we halt that process and find a different route or routes?” Theisen says we cannot answer that question until we hear if we get the Hill Foundation grant to reassess our cooperation unless the two colleges want to finance that study from their own funds. He raises several questions about having a consultant before the recommendations by the Chairs is discussed.
    5. Memo to Committee on Cooperation of Governing Boards (March 3, 1972) – Asks if they can attend a meeting on Friday, March 17.
    6. Memo to Committee on Cooperation (March 8, 1972) asks if they can have a meeting in April since no-one was free on March 17.
    7. Review of Financial Arrangements, CSB/SJU (March 15, 1972) Includes a summary of the history and a present proposal.
    8. Report from the Claremont Colleges on their cooperative endeavors (March 8, 1972).
    9. Memo to Governing Boards’ Committee on Cooperation (March 20, 1972) Gives background material for the April 4th meeting.
    10. Theisen to Governing Boards’ Committee on Cooperation (March 29, 1972) Lists the subject matters to be discussed on April 4th meeting.
    11. Minutes of the April 4, 1972 meeting of the Governing Boards’ Committee on Cooperation. The meeting dealt mainly with financial arrangements relative to the exchange of students and professors. The Committee recommended the adoption of unified department budgets plus pro rata sharing of costs, department by department for 1972-1973. The Committee also recommended that the Governing Boards of each institution give assurance that neither institution will become coeducational independently of the other, without at least a two-year advance notice to the other.
    12. Theisen to Presidents and copy to Boards’ Committee (April 6, 1972)’ Recommendations relative to cooperation from the Minutes of the April 4 meeting of the Boards’ Committee on Cooperation.
    13. Theisen to Blecker with copies to others (April 10, 1972) in re status of Sociology Department: SJU or Joint? Theisen questions Blecker’s memo to Blaske on April 6 that says “the sociology department has been and remains a Saint John’s Department.” Theisen relates the history of that department to show its cooperative arrangements since 1958. He says, “I hope I have indicated that the sociology department is a joint department, responsible to both deans and both presidents. It has not been and is not now a SJU department only.” Theisen goes on to say that the Boards’ Committee and the Coordinator, in line with “1968 and 1969 directives from the Boards repeatedly indicated that all academic departments will be unified, will be joint, will serve both schools….At the present time…we cannot abandon our mutual understandings unilaterally without causing both chaos and anger.” On page 3, Theisen adds, “I think that you, as president of SJU must, for the short term at least, respect the developments of the last three years and that you should respect the present understandings of the chairmen that they are responsible to both administrations. However, I sympathize very much with your desire to explore whether a different governing model cannot be found.”
    14. Theisen to Father Gervase (April 11, 1972) in re Credit hours Bennies earn at SJU. Theisen tries to correct the mistaken impression at SJU with the actual facts on this issue.
    15. Theisen to CSB/SJU Administrators (April 13, 1972) in re bus transportation and class schedules. Theisen is asking for a meeting to discuss the cost of busing.
    16. Theisen to both Administrations (April 18, 1972) on class schedule and bus costs. Theisen recommends that for 1972-1973 the schedule would be 70 minute periods with 20 minutes between classes.
    17. *Memo from Michael Blecker to Idzerda (April 19, 1972) – A response to “a couple of undated notes and Idzerda’s memo of April 12”: One of the comments is, “There are several actions which, as I pointed out, you and other CSB administrators have taken that are infamous here. Up to this time I have patiently borne with actions which CSB has taken in its own best interests without first exploring that their impact may be on SJU. I am tired of being painted a villain of CSB for my concern for SJU, and of hearing that all ladies are heroines. I would hope that when you see me disagreeing, you will try to find out what concerns me. Perhaps, since your leadership is supposed to be “expressive- inspirational,’ you might provide an example to your staff of seeking to recognize that Saint John’s might have legitimate interests which I am responsible to represent….”
    18. Theisen to Boards’ Committee on Cooperation (April 27, 1972) Agenda for a meeting on Friday, May 5, 1972.
    19. Theisen to Boards’ Committee (May 1, 1972) on Costs of Cooperation for busing.
    20. Theisen to Board’s Committee (May 2, 1972) clarifies his May 1 info on busing costs.
    21. Theisen to SJU Administrative Council (May 2, 1972): in re their negative decision on proposed scheduling and busing and Theisen’s explanation/justification of the proposal he had made on this subject.
    22. Memo from Hilary Thimmesh to Theisen (May 5, 1972). He corrects Theisen’s “implied distortion” of the action of SJU Administrative Council.
    23. Minutes of Governing Boards’ Committee on Cooperation (May 5, 1972) Recommends the pro rata sharing of instructional costs department by department to be tried for 1972-1973. “Sister Mary Reuter noted that some persons are willing to work within a developmental process, responding to values and needs with no clear image of the distant future, while other persons demand a clear image as a goal, which they then try to achieve by the imposition of structures corresponding to the goal. Sister senses hesitations and fears which lead to mistrust.”
    24. Theisen to Boards’ Committee on Cooperation (June 5, 1972): CSB Board approves recommendations at June 2nd meeting.
    25. Memo from Theisen (May 5, 1972) [doesn’t state to whom he is sending it]
    26. 1972 Proposal to the Hill Foundation for funds for consultants in 1972-1973 to assist colleges in developing a model of a cluster or federated model that would provide a sound basis for cooperation. It was funded but amount of grant was not specified here.
    27. Theisen to CSB Planning Committee (May 8, 1972) on cooperation relative to planning at CSB to be discussed at meeting on May 10.
    28. Memo from Michael Blecker to Abbot John, Father Gervase and Al Hartl (April 29, 1972) [see my copy of this document]
    29. Theisen’s response to Blecker’s memo of April 29.
    30. Miscellaneous items for Committee on Cooperation (May 5, 1972)
    31. Theisen to Firmin Escher, Kathleen Kalinowski, and Emmanuel Renner (May 8, 1972) on Students Abroad and ISP
    32. Memo to Father Hilary (May 8, 1972) in re Hilary’s memo on bus question.
    33. Sister Alberta Huber to Idzerda (April 28, 1972) : St. Catherine’s and St. Thomas do not exchange fees in re class exchange.
    34. Theisen [to Joint Board Committee on Cooperation –pencilled in] (May 1, 1972) on some items for discussion at May 5th meeting.