Marriott Agreement

Marriot Agreement

  1. If the imbalance is 1200 credits or less, nothing is done.
  2. If the imbalance is over 1200 credits, the deficit institutions hires the number of faculty necessary to offset the imbalance in future years.

Example: Imbalance of 5,000 credits
             5,000/600 (average faculty productivity)
             Equals -8.33 faculty

Advantages: No cash payment

1) Additional faculty hired
2) Faculty hired after the deficit
3) Faculty hired during declining enrollment
4) New faculty may not change deficit in future years

Example of Marriott Agreement

Sociology Department

1)      Imbalance of 1332 credits
2)      Five faculty teach in Sociology
3)      Average productivity is 600 credits
4)      3,000 credits produced by departments

1332/600 = 2.22 faculty
2.22 faculty are hired by deficit institution
Now 7.22 faculty teach Sociology
The next year students consume 3,000 credits
The average productivity is now 415.51 credits per faculty member.
Imbalance is still 500.98 credits

Imbalance 1971-72 through 1977-78

1971-72           CSB owes SJU                2813
1972-73           “        “        “               3151
1973-74           “        “        “               2457
1974-75           “        “        “               2311
1975-76           “        “        “               1870
1976-77           “        “        “               3069
1977-78           “        “        “               4921

Balancing the Imbalance

1971-72           Paid SJU $56,260        2813 credits x $20
1972-73           No payment               Marriott Agreement
1973-74           No payment               Marriott Agreement
1974-75           Paid SJU $44,202        2.8 faculty x $15,263
1975-76           No payment               Marriott Agreement
1976-77           No payment               CSB paid for $17,000 of equipment
1977-78           Pay SJU $70,855         Proposed Agreement


Meeting of the Presidents with their Executive Academic and Fiscal Staffs of the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University.
January 31 and February 1, 1973

President Blecker, President Idzerda, Sister Mary David Olheiser, Dr. William Perlmutter, Father Gordon Tavis, James Sassen, Father Gunther Rolfson, and Sister Firmin Escher (chairperson), met at the Marriott Inn in Bloomington on January 31 and February 1, 1973, to review the Report of the six consultants who visited the two institutions in December.

During the past several months of the 1972-73 school year, the Joint Study Committee on Cooperation has been working with consultants to help identify ways of developing and continuing cooperation between our two educational institutions. When the team of six consultants came in December, they had been asked to reexamine the nature and condition of cooperation between the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University with specific recommendations to be made concerning three areas: 1) an educational development office; 2) a joint academic line officer; 3) fiscal sharing. Mission statements on each of these areas had been prepared by the Joint Study Committee on Cooperation.


The consultants worked with five assumptions as an operating frame of reference. The executive staffs responded affirmatively to these assumptions with further explanations and delineations in some instances as follows:

1. No merger is recommended in the immediate future.

Merger of the two schools in a legal sense will not be pursued nor is it desirable. However, many kinds of joint programs can develop within our cooperation, have developed, and are developing if the institutions continue to intend that cooperation should unfold in significant ways for the benefit of students and faculty of both institutions.

2. Each school, possessing and de siring its unique and separate qualities, cannot speak from a completely common and unfettered base. Some conflicts will arise which require means for resolving differences.

Each institution has individuality and uniqueness and wishes to retain it. Variety and diversity in each can contribute to a richer offering within cooperation some of which is common and some separate. An understanding of what is of what is common and what is separate, freely shared, will go far in dispelling differences. A course must be charted to accomplish this goal.

3. Each school will maintain essential authority and control over its internal affairs.

From the summer of 1968 to the fall of 1971, the two schools were set on a course of merger. When a decision not to merge but to continue to improve the coordination of the two undergraduate programs, a different attitudinal approach to program development and coordination is required.

A key to the resolution of this problem is coordination of programming through the chief academic officers. Some elements identified for achieving this coordination were the need and opportunity for faculty development, a stronger relationship between the chief academic officers and with chairpersons, the need for co-chairpersons in some departments, and greater emphasis on the student and student needs.

4. To the extent that institutional autonomy is not threatened, areas of cooperation between the two schools are to be explored and implemented.

There was complete agreement that this assumption confirms the understanding of cooperation as it was expressed by the institutions’ representatives.

5. The intent of cooperation is to provide for students a more effective educational experience and in some areas to make possible more efficient management.

The assumption places in proper order the effects of cooperation – an effective educational experience for students first of all, and then, more efficient management as a support to the educational process.


The consultants made some general observations which were helpful in identifying sources or causes for fractures within cooperation. Need for Understanding and Rational Negotiation

It was obvious to the consultants that there is an undergirding of commitment to and appreciation for cooperation. However, there is a need for dispelling elements of mistrust which remain, and a need to find a rational and orderly way of resolving differences.

Communications appeared to be one of the best ways to achieve a freedom of spirit and trust on every level. Between the two presidents, the Academic Vice-President for Academic Affairs and the Academic Deans, the Vice Presidents for Development and Finance, the Deans and chairpersons, the deans and faculty, the chairpersons and the faculty, faculty and students, and on every level in between, there must be a constant effort to relate, communicate and understand. The consultants believe that two Christian colleges should be able to meet this challenge.

Autonomy and Disinterested Cooperation

Another observation indicated that the institutions have been working with two expectations which are good within themselves but together create conflict, on the other hand, a desire to achieve cooperation through selfless trust and confidence, and on the other, an expectation of emphasizing the special qualities of both institutions which naturally generate programmatic and attitudinal differences.

The members agreed that positive aspects of working together should be stressed, that planning and developing programs together should bring positive results, and that ways to come together on all kinds of issues should continually be sought.

Identifiable Salutary Effects

Another observation which the consultants made but which was not dwelt upon at the meeting was the increased number of cooperative activities which have had salutary effects. “Students and faculty have profited beyond measure, II the consultants said. If there had been time, it would have been a good exercise for the College representatives at the meeting to list these salutary activities. By contrast, other difficulties might appear less threatening.


The consultants observed that the issue of coeducation had been “manufactured beyond importance.” They did indicate that two single- sex cooperating colleges is a more attractive package.

The discussion on this subject included the necessity for evaluating the kind of coeducation presently existing in all of its aspects and the value of our present form of two single- sex but cooperating institutions. The suggestion for a study of coeducation on both campuses was endorsed by the committee.

Fiscal Parity

The necessity for fiscal parity in cooperation was another important observation of the consultants. More about the resolution of this matter was one of the major issues given to the consultants to review and appears in another part of this report.

Principle Areas of Investigation

Educational Development Office

The Joint Study Committee on Cooperation in its mission statement recommended the establishment of a combined Educational Development Office. The consultants agreed with that recommendation, and gave considerable space to the development of such an office, its “overarching” function, the staffing required, the organization of such an office in relation to other administrative offices, its several functions, and the planning committees working with it.

The College representatives believe that coordinate planning is necessary and desirable. There are three particular aspects to planning which are particularly important in cooperation: I) the gathering and analyzing of data necessary for decision-making; 2) academic (programming) planning; 3) means for sharing the information.

The group thought that the plan for an Educational Development Office proposed by the consultants was too complex and too expensive. SJU thinks that adding another administrator is untimely since there is an effort to cut back on the number of administrators. Many of the current offices now collect data.

A proposal to further planning was made and agreed upon:

1. Collection of data be made in current offices using the same processes to arrive at that data when used for joint decisions.
2. Sharing of all statistical data.
3. Sharing of information on academic plans between the principal academic officers and an agreement by these officers on the plans which are common to both and those which are separate.
4. Initiation of regular Presidential Executive staff meetings quarterly to act on statistical and planning information.

It was agreed that each institution can have its own level of planning but that each share its plans with the other. However, it was cautioned that the institutions not be carried away by an autonomous existence and miss the opportunities of stronger combined programs.

The basic purposes of cooperation remain: I) to provide a broad and better educational experience for students to make more effective use of resources, including personnel.

Joint Academic Line Officer

The consultants did not recommend the establishment of a joint academic line officer. There were some members of the group who thought some common officer, a provost perhaps, might be better for cooperation. Others thought that the combined executive officers have to make cooperation work. Some consider the two institutions too small to justify such an office.

To increase cooperation, understanding, and communication on this level, it was agreed that the quarterly meetings of the chief executive staffs would allay fear and mistrust and could cope with difficulties as they arise. More meetings of the presidents and other officers on all levels with their counterparts on the other campus in non-business situations would help toward greater understanding and create an esprit de corps. All procedures and planning would be explained and communicated to all.

Other Matters Relating to Academic Affairs:

Academic Policy

Matters of common academic policy rest with the two principal academic officers. These policies need to be defined and written and should include at what point consultation must occur, when information is exchanged, and a method of coordinating educational planning. (The faculty should be informed of procedures and modes of operation.) Matters which require joint deliberative action will be decided at the joint executive committee level.

Matters of decision on commonality rest with the top administrative group. Coordination occurs at the major level of administration in which the issue appropriately falls. Wherever possible, common policies are desirable. Some effort should be made to bring Handbook items together whenever possible and should read alike when commonality can occur.

A minimal standard to be used when initiating new programs follows: Any program change affecting income, expenditures, or enrollment should be a matter of direct discussion by the top administrative staffs of both institutions.


The idea of coeducation as a threat or blackmail to either institution was rejected. The three-year formalized agreement that neither institution become coeducational recommended by the consultants was not agreed to.

There are two definitions for coeducation: l) that of merely adding residential women on a male campus or vice versa and 2) the enhancement of coeducation as it exists on our two campuses in all areas.

To strengthen the value of our present mode of coeducation, it was agreed that a joint commission be appointed to study all aspects of coeducation in the two colleges. The executive administrative staffs will meet to select persons for such a committee and will set up the categories to be studied along with established guidelines to conduct the study. Such a commission would report by February of 1974.

Improving Communications

To allow for a free flow of information the following recommendations were agreed upon:

1) Scheduled quarterly meetings will be set for the Presidents I Executive staffs.
2) The joint consideration of academic policy by the two principal academic officers. They will pinpoint the time when decisions occur and will write the ways in which deliberative matters are to be dealt with.
3) More frequent, regularized professional and personal contact between the presidents.
4) Two regular Presidential staff meetings a year. (This is to be distinguished from the President’s Executive Staff by the inclusion of other persons besides those reporting directly to the President.)
5) The establishment of regularly scheduled meetings of Chairpersons which will meet at least twice a year.
6) To give consideration to the faculty teaching on the other campus by an invitation to attend faculty meetings with voting rights.

Fiscal Sharing

The consultants gave three principal recommendations of fiscal sharing:

1) No exchange of fees
2) Pro-rate sharing of costs
3) Sharing all costs including physical plant costs according to certain formulae.

The rationale for no exchange of costs is based on 1) the identification of the joint programs which are shared as well as the separate programs which are also shared by mutual agreement, and 2) an agreement on a different kind of control, perhaps credit hours and/or faculty-student ratio.

This kind of fiscal sharing will require a real commitment on the part of the academic officers to have worthwhile programs with exceptional teaching.

A free flow of students to the programs of their choice will show where good teaching is occurring and will be a strong indicator for facilitating change in curriculum and in teaching and learning styles.

An operational principle for monitoring a program with no fiscal exchange would be a periodic audit based on equitable faculty-student ratio and per credit.

Some CSB persons thought recommendation c or pro-rata sharing would give faculty a sense of fiscal equity on an objective base. Cooperation could occur more easily under pro-rata and faculty appointments could more easily be made. One person thought that all programs would have to be joint to make the pro-rata system work.

It was suggested that some equitable faculty-student ratio would have to be established. The worth of recommendation, no exchange of fees, would depend on the monitoring of academic programs by the academic officers. There was agreement to recommend no fiscal exchange. This method can succeed if it has the clear, explicit support of all administrator s as communicated to our constituencies. If there are incremental costs in any program, it would require the deliberation of the top administrative group.

The monitoring or adjudicating in academic programs will be performed by the academic officers, the adjudicating of the aggregate, by the Presidents’ Executive Staffs.

Joint Programs


Library services and technical processes are to be joined with the academic officers responsible for the development.


There is agreement that a joint placement office with career counseling be established.

Graduate School

A joint Graduate School was given endorsement with a proposal to be drawn up by Dr. Perlmutter and presented at the next Presidents’ Executive Staff meeting.

Admissions Program

Several other programs were alluded to.

A joint admissions office with cooperative leadership, one in outside recruitment, the other for internal cooperation was suggested as a possibility for study.

Continuing Education

A joint Continuing Education program was discussed. SJU would consider some coordination within the degree completion area. Because of the variety of programs in the summer, evening, Saturdays, and in special institutes, it was agreed that Continuing Education should have its own catalog and not be linked to the academic year Catalog.

Fine Arts Program

There was brief discussion on a Joint Fine Arts Program but no conclusions were reached.

Fringe Benefits

There has to be further clarification on fringe benefits for faculty and employees.

This will be worked out by Father Gordon and James Sassen. This study is to be presented at the next administrative staff meeting.

Action Items

  1. Study on Fringe Benefits; Father Gordon and James Sassen        
  2. Placement Office; Sister Mary David and Dr. Perlmutter
  3. Library; Dr. Perlmutter
  4. Coordinating Procedures; Sister Mary David and Dr. Perlmutter
    1. consultative procedures
    2. deliberative touch points
    3. departmental structures
  5. Graduate School; Dr. Perlmutter
  6. Admissions Program; Stanley Idzerda
    1. Development of Compatible Data Base; Sister Mary David, Dr. Perlmutter, Father Gordon, Sister Firmin


Consultant funds are still available up to August 1, 1973 for any consultants which can effect our cooperative program: library, food service, or other areas requiring consideration.

The Manner of Con1munication to Our Constituencies

1. A draft of the January 31 – February 1 deliberations will be made by Sister Firmin.
2. This draft will be circulated to all per sons present for the meeting for review and annotations. It is to be returned within 24 hours.
3. A second draft will be written based on the changes suggested by the membership.
4. This second draft will be reviewed and finalized with the two presidents.
5. This finalized draft and a copy of the synthesized report of the December consultants will be sent to the members of the Joint Study Committee on Cooperation.
6. On February 13, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m., the Joint Study Committee will meet at CSB to review the final draft and to get reactions to it.
7. After reactions from the JSC on Cooperation, it will be sent to the Sub-Committee of the Boards of Trustees and Regents on Cooperation and to all members of the faculty.
8. Faculty will be given an opportunity to respond to the statement in a Faculty Forum or through some other suitable means.
9. The feedback from the faculty will be reported to the Joint Sub-Committee of Trustees on Cooperation through the presidents.

Further Meetings

A tentative date, February 13 at 2:00 p. m. has been set up for the Joint Study Committee on Cooperation to review the final draft and to receive reactions from members.

Another whole day in late February or early March will be identified for the Presidents’ Executive Staffs to deal with issues and proposals outlined in this report.

Redrafted from the February 5, 1973 report

Sister Firmin Escher
Chairman of the Joint Study
Committee on Cooperation
February 7, 1973