Review of the Work of the Co-Institutional Study Committee from October 1967 to June 7, 1968

Report of the Co-Institutional Study Committee of the College of Saint Benedict

Request for Grant for CSB/SJU Study in Cooperation

A joint proposal to study the Academic Exchange Program between Saint John’s University and the College of Saint Benedict was presented to the Louis W. and Maud Hill Family Foundation on August 29, 1967.

A letter from the Louis W. and Maud Hill Family Foundation dated September 26, 1967 was sent to the Presidents of Saint John’s University and the College of Saint Benedict authorizing a grant of $40,200 to the two institutions in support of a study focused on the development of greater inter-institutional cooperation between the two colleges.

Organization of Study Committee

In a meeting of the Presidents, Deans, fiscal officers, and faculty representatives at Saint John’s University on September 27, 1967, a committee was established to set forth guidelines for the study. Two faculty representatives, Sister Dunstan Plantenberg and Dr. John Lange were named co-chairmen. Other members included Reverend Gordon Tavis and Terrence McKenna as fiscal officers. The Presidents and Deans were considered ex-officio members and were to attend meetings at intervals.

This Co-Institutional Study Committee met regularly every week. It asked department reports on cooperation to’ the present time, and began conversations on various levels of  cooperation, fiscal, administrative and academic. Some attempt was made to identify a consultant for the study.

In early November, leadership of the Co-Institutional Study Committee was changed. Sister Firmin, Academic Dean of the College of Saint Benedict was named chairman, with Reverend Hilary Thimmesh, Academic Dean at Saint John’s University as vice-chairman.

Work of the Committee

From October, 1967 to June, 1968, thirty-four committee meetings were held. The principal tasks accomplished during these eight months are outlined here.


Securing a principal consultant, arranging consultants’ visits, and supplying these persons with information which would help them to draw up a position paper was the work of the committee.

Dr. Lewis B. Mayhew, Professor of Education at Stanford University, agreed to accept the leadership for the study in early November. He named two associate consultants, Dr. James L. Fisher, Vice-President of Illinois State University at Normal, Illinois, and Dr. Robert Hassenger, Director of Research at Notre Dame University.

These consultants visited the campuses of the two institutions between January and April. The two associate consultants worked with different segments of the faculty, administration and students, individually and in groups. Dr. Mayhew worked with the Co- Institutional Study Committee, the principal administrators, the Administrative Councils and the Boards of Trustees.

Dr. Lewis Mayhew invited five outstanding educators to be a reacting panel to the position paper of the consultants. The five educators who accepted the invitation were Dr. Louis Benezet, President of the Claremont Colleges and the University Center; Dr. Rosemary Park, Vice-Chancellor of Los Angeles University; Reverend Paul Reinert, S.J., President of Saint Louis University; Mr. Alan Simpson, President of Vassar College; and Dr. Stephen Wright, President of United Negro Fund, Incorporated of New York, New York.

Elmer Jagow, President of Hiram College visited the campuses in May. His background as Vice-President for finance and treasurer of Knox College, past President of the National Association of Educational Buyers and current director of the E and I Cooperative, equips him to be an excellent consultant in business areas. He had been recommended by Lewis B. Mayhew. (See Appendix A.)

Department Reports

Department reports on the present state of cooperation were requested, summarized, and sent to the consultants. Not only did this report include academic .departments, but administrative offices as well. Presidents, Academic Deans, Registrars, Admissions Officers, Business Officers, Public Relations Officers, Personnel Officers, Guidance Directors, Development Officers, Chaplains, Bookstore and Food Managers had an opportunity to submit a statement on the state of cooperation as it was viewed in their particular area of activity. These reports consisted of a large number of studies from various offices.

Faculty Questionnaire

An instrument was drawn up to give faculty an opportunity to react to several questions which could measure the cooperative program and the possibility of further development. (The results of this questionnaire are included in the position paper of the consultants I a part of this total report.)

Communication to Campus Personnel

From the first, the committee recognized the need to keep campus personnel acquainted with the work of the committee. A series of letters in the form of a progress report were drawn up and sent to the Boards of Trustees, the Associate Boards of Trustees, the Administrative Councils, and the Faculties of both institutions. Letters were written to all students class presidents, presidents of the Student Councils, and to the editors of the campus newspapers, the Record and Torch Early in the study an article from the North Central News Bulletin for December, 1966 entitled, “Inter-Institutional Cooperation in Higher Education” by Howard R. Bailey was reproduced for every Board and faculty member. The article provided a survey of many types of cooperation now in existence.

A variety of materials gleaned from the trips made by committee members. to Kentucky, Missouri and California colleges were circulated widely.

Several lectures by’ prominent educators were distributed. One 6f particular worth was titled, “Faith and Despair-The Future of Higher Education” by Lewis B. Mayhew, an address given at the Association for Higher Education meeting in Chicago on March 6, 1968. Another lecture by Dr. Louis T. Benezet, President of the Claremont Graduate School and University Center, called, “College Groups and the Claremont Example,” delivered at the American Council on Education meeting in San Francisco on October I, 1964, was reproduced for circulation.

A report pertinent to the study was called “Coeducation or Coordination.” In September of 1967, Colgate University asked a special committee to study the strengths of a program of coordination or coeducation. This, Colgate Report gave many insights which could well be applied to the SJU-CSB situation. (See Appendix B)

The minutes of each weekly committee meeting were distributed to members of the Boards of Trustees, the Administrative Councils and to the consultants.

Interviews of Campus Personnel

A program of interviewing was set up by the committee. At the request of Dr. Mayhew I these were individual interviews covering all departments and administrative offices. Four persons from the committee and three other faculty members engaged in interviewing faculty for about two months. Reports of these interviews were sent to the consultants. Some of these interviews are summarized in the position paper of the consultants”

Visits With Office Personnel From Both Campuses

The committee met with the representative administrators of both campuses of the following Offices: Registrars. Admissions Officers, Deans of Students, Directors of Development and Librarians. Pertinent information showing the degree of cooperation in each area and significant data on each college was sent to the consultants.

Fiscal Analysis and Projections

Much of the time of the two fiscal officers of the committee was spent in Making a ten-year budget projection for each separate college and one for the joint colleges. Many assumptions had to be made in developing these projections.

Because of the committee, present fiscal policies in the academic change were reviewed and recommendations made for improvement. Some of these policies are now in operation. (June 1968)

Student Involvement

Considerable effort was exerted to bring students into the study. A series of meetings with students was carried out by several committee members. Articles were written for the school newspapers to stimulate interest and questions. The Student Councils of both campuses met separately with a committee member. A combined Torch (CSB) and Record (SJU) was devoted to the subject of cooperation.

College Visiting

To broaden the committee members I vision of the cooperative picture and to acquaint the faculty with other types of cooperative programs, members of the committee spent some time visiting campuses engaged in varied cooperative programs.

1) The College of Saint Catherine and the College of Saint Thomas, Saint Paul, Minnesota

These two colleges invited several interested persons to attend their joint faculty meeting on November 14, 1967. These colleges are engaged in a cooperative study and it was profitable to view different approaches to cooperation.

2) Bellarmine-Ursuline College, Louisville, Kentucky

Three members of the Committee visited these two colleges on December 6 and 7, 1967. Interviews with key persons on both campuses were granted. Since the visit, a merger has been announced. (See Appendix C)

3) California Colleges

On January 29, 1968, two members of the Committee visited two colleges in Los Angeles.

Loyola University of Los Angeles is anticipating a coordinate arrangement with Marymount College of Los Angeles. Though both Colleges will keep some identity, both will be located on the Loyola campus. (See Appendix D)

Immaculate Heart College of Los Angeles. This college expects to move to the Claremont campus. Details have not yet been worked out.

The Claremont Colleges –January 30, 1968, Dr. Louis Benezet, President of the Claremont Graduate School’ and University Center invited members of the Committee to visit this unique group of colleges where each maintains identity though carrying on considerable cooperation with central services for all colleges in several areas. (See Appendix E)

The University of the Pacific — January 31, 1968.

Dr. John Bevan, Vice-President of Academic Affairs of the University of the Pacific was host to committee members for a full day. Each of the liberal arts colleges stresses a distinctive feature. Callison College, for example, has no academic departments or a traditional curriculum. Non-western studies is the accent of the college. Elbert Covell College has all of its instruction conducted in the Spanish language. Though the group of Colleges has a high degree of centralization, it is significantly different from the Claremont College concept. (See Appendix E)

University of California, Santa Cruz — February I, 1968

This University is the only State-University built on the cluster college concept. Unlike either the Claremont Colleges or the University of the Pacific, the organization is under a chancellor ,with one vice-chancellor over a division for all the colleges. A Provost is the principal officer in each individual college. (See Appendix F)

4) Missouri Colleges

On February 2, 1968, two Missouri Colleges were visited, Westminster College for men and William Woods College for women. Considerable cooperation is now in progress under a coordinator and at present, the program is considered a coordinate one. (See Appendix G)

5) Other Visits by Committee Members

Other visits which committee members made in behalf of the study included a full day’s meeting with Dr. Mayhew by the chairman of the Committee on March 1 in Chicago.

The fiscal officers spent one day with Mr. Roman Sevenich of the College of Saint Thomas reviewing approaches, which the Saint Thomas-Saint Catherine Task Force on fiscal matters had developed in their inter-institutional study.

Meetings, Workshops and Seminars

As part of the study, meetings which would give a broader view of coordination or cooperation were attended by members of the committee or other faculty members. Since media, data processing -and communications systems needed to be understood by faculty and since these techniques must be a part of the educative process, committee members and other faculty personnel were encouraged to attend symposia and workshops dealing with such information. The list of workshops and seminars so attended is included as a part of this report.

October 26-28             Minnesota School Facilities Council, Minneapolis, MN (1 CSB administrator)

November 27-             The Learning Systems Approach to Instruction and the Changing Role of

   December 1, 1967    the Educator, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1 CSB faculty person)

December 11-12, 1967            Association for Educational Data Systems, Minneapolis, MN (1 faculty, CSB)

December 13, 1967     Systems for Learning by Application of Technology to Education, Kansas City,

                                    Missouri (2 faculty members, 1 CSB, 1 SJU)

December 26, 1967     Seminar on Communication Media and Education, Cleveland, Ohio

   January 1, 1967        (2 students, 1 CSB, 1 SJU)

January 16-17, 1968    American Association of Colleges National Meeting on “Cooperation Among Institutions,” Minneapolis, MN (The complete Co-Institutional Study Committee)

April 1-3, 1968            Television Seminar at CSB, SJU, and SCS (10 faculty members)

April 22-24, 1968        College and University Machine Records Conference, University of Iowa, Iowa

                                    City, Iowa (2 SJU personnel)

April 25-27, 1968        Small College Computing Symposium, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota (1 CSB Administrator)

May 5-8, 1968             Library Application of Data Processing, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois (Librarian from CSB and SJU)

June 8-15, 1968           Institute on Inter-institutional Cooperation for Administrators, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Sister Firmin)

Responses to the Panel Report

The six members who made up the working committee of the Co-Institutional Study responded individually to the Report of the Panel of Educators on June 15, 1968. Each response was affirmative. Thus, there was unanimous agreement on the major substance of the document by members of the working committee. This group of six persons had worked closely together for a period of eight months. To have a united affirmative response to the Report is significant and provides a real climax to the part it played in the study.

The Report was sent from the Co-Institutional Study Committee to the Chairmen of the Boards of Trustees. After circulation’ to the respective memberships of each Board, a meeting by each Board was held. The Board of Trustees of the College of Saint Benedict met on June 19, 1968 for: deliberations on the Report. The Saint John’s University Board of Trustees met on July I, 1968. Both Boards favored a joint meeting of the Boards.

On July 12, 1968, the members of the Boards of the College of Saint

Benedict and Saint John’s University met at Saint John’s Abbey at 2:00 p.m. The following is a statement released from that joint board meeting:

Statement submitted to the communities of Saint John’s Abbey and Saint Benedict’s Convent, to Associate Boards of each institution and to the faculties of Saint John’s University and of the College of Saint Benedict.

During the past months, Saint John’s University and the College of Saint Benedict have undertaken an intensive study, financed by the Hill Foundation, of the questions related to closer cooperation between the two schools. In the fall of 1967, the co-institutional committee invited a panel of experts, headed by Doctor Lewis B. Mayhew, Professor of Education at Stanford University, to assist in this study. On 5 June 1968, Doctor Mayhew submitted to the constitutional committee the recommendations of the panel of experts, as follows:

Our panel has thought most seriously about the problems of the two institutions and has reached the unanimous conviction that merger of the two into a new corporate entity is the only plausible solution. Thus, we recommend that the two institutions merge and. merge quickly. We believe to delay more than two years would so irreparably damage either or both institutions that ultimate merger or cooperation would no longer be possible. In our longer report we indicate some of the details which must be arranged, but for the moment we simply wish to urge three major steps: 1) that the Boards of the two institutions agree and announce publicly their intent to merge; 2) that the two Boards combine themselves into an ad hoc joint Board of Trustees to make the many decisions necessary as the two institutions move toward merger; and 3) that these combined Boards appoint an individual to serve as a coordinator of the development of the merger and that he be given status equal to the presidents of the two institutions.

The report of the panel of experts was received by the co-institutional committee and unanimously accepted by the members of this committee. The report was then sent to the Board of Trustees of the College of Saint Benedict and to the Board of Trustees of Saint John’s University. Both Boards met separately to discuss the report of the panel of experts, and both Boards decided that a joint meeting of the two Boards would be desirable.

The joint meeting of the two Boards was held on 12 July 1968. After a thorough discussion, the following Motion was made and seconded: “Be it resolved that the joint Boards of Saint John’s University and of the College of Saint Benedict today declare the desirability of a merger, to take place within the next thirty months, and that the Boards engage immediately in the hiring of a coordinator for this task; the final decision on the merger is to be made not later than thirty months from this date.” The vote on this Motion was 19 affirmative; 1 negative.

We need to state in explanation that during the next thirty months therefore a plan of merger will be developed which will be presented to the chapter no later than thirty months from this date for the chapters’ decision.

After further discussion, the following Motion was made and seconded: “Be it resolved that the Presidents of Saint John’s University and of the College of Saint Benedict, with their Administrative Councils, make a recommendation to the joint Boards of a coordinator, with a job description.” The vote on this Motion was; 20 affirmative; 0 negative.

The joint Boards agreed also that information concerning their action should be given out simultaneously by the two institutions, that the information first be given to the communities, faculties and Associate Boards of each institution, and then only later to the general public through a press release.

We, therefore, ask all the members of our committees, our faculties and our Associate Boards to consider carefully the two Motions approved by our Boards of Trustees and to cooperate with the agreement the Boards arrived at concerning publicity.

Abbot Baldwin Dworschank, OSB                  Mother Henrita Osendorf, OSB
Chairman, Board of Trustees                       Chairman, Board of Trustees
Saint John’s University                               College of Saint Benedict

With the implementation of these motions of the joint Boards of Trustees, it would seem that the purpose and function of the Co-Institutional Study Committee has been accomplished. With  the hiring of a coordinator and the naming of personnel from both institutions to work with this coordinator to develop cooperation further, much progress can and should be made with in the immediate future. A new chapter on interinstitutional cooperation is about to be written. The year before us is one in which many decisions must be made which will affect the direction and growth of the educational program. It is the earnest wish of the Co-Institutional Study Committee that these two institutions can develop together in such a manner that the purpose for which this study was begun, namely, to provide a strong educational program through the sharing of resources, can be realized.

July 25, 1968