Minutes of Coordinate Cabinet, Spring Semester 1997-1998, 1997-1998

AC 06.02 Box 11: Minutes of Coordinate Cabinet, Spring Semester 1997-1998: January 13, 1998: Proposed Revisions for Strategic Plan FY '99 Preliminary Findings for NCA Self-Study Initial Preparation for Strategic Plan FY 2000 February 23, 1998: Administrative Review Process Assessment of Coordinate Administrative Structure: Introduction: Presidents Lyons and Reinhart hired Carol J. Guardo to spend three days at CSB/SJU to assess the work of the coordinate cabinet and the efficacy of the coordinate administrative structure Discussion of Working Concepts; structure, policies and plans, processes, procedures, personnel, decree of relatedness ("the coordinate agenda has moved along a continuum which ranges from separate to cooperative to coordinate to joint to integrated to merge. The option of merger has been explicitly rejected by the two Boards. Guardo asks them "When will you know when you get there (when will the institutions have achieved as full coordinate relationship as is deemed both desirable and feasible? In its new governance structure, e.g., the Boards have committees designated as separate, parallel (cooperative), coordinate and joint....Destinies are intertwined, but identities are separate. It raises the issue of the degree to which the two cultures and communities of the institutions are succeeding in developing a third Benedictine culture and community that will carry into the future. It also raises the intriguing challenges of how to preserve the rich and complex past of the two in a rapidly changing environment both within the institutions and in higher education in general.: Outcomes of the Small-Group Session: Smaller discussion groups responded to four questions: 1. Identify the most significant markers of progress or achievement in the coordinate relationship over the past five years (18 were identified), There was a sense of the two institutions being on the same page and moving in shared directions) 2 Identify the positive factors that had facilitated the achieve- ment of progress on the coordinate agenda in the last five years (11 responses): The consensus bout the positive factors was that process superseded procedures and infrastructure. Working together, discussion, coming to trust and respect counterparts and other members of the coordinate institution, were paramount in bringing about the significant degree of change that has taken place. As a by-product of working together in constructive ways and toward ' common ends, better working dynamics and relationships emerged. 3. Identify the most intractable issues or challenge to further progress (13 responses): None of these items were perceived as totally intractable, but rather as hurdles or challenges that remain as the institutions continue to move forward with their coordinate relationship. Affordability and cost control issues ere underscored as critical challenges for the coming years. 4. Identify the impediments that had contributed to the intractability of some issues (11 responses): Differing histories, differing perceptions of prestige, and resource differences were cited as the most difficult factors to address. Participants were of the opinion that several of the other items could be improved or modified by changes in management style and approach. Communication and trust-building to achieve steps toward trust-building, particularly those of the intermediate levels of function. The institutions are now structures hierarch- cully and vertically, but need to function and work together more horizontally, i.e., across divisional or area lines. The challenge is how to achieve more horizontally and yet maintain accountability. 5. Individual Interviews: Observations and Suggestions: Those pertaining to the make-up and workings of the coordinate cabinet; Those that have to do with the overall structural arrangements and movement along the continuum; Those regarding current and anticipated strategic planning 6. Other Points of Discussion: Degrees of Relatedness Defined: Separate, Cooperative, Coordinate, Joint and Integrated; Historical Highlights of the Coordinate Relationship, 1953 to 1996; Statement of Purpose of Coordinate Relationship (2000) 1. enhance the educational experience of collegiate men and women in both coeducational and gender-specific ways through the efficient and effective sharing of educational resources -- programs, faculty, facilities; 2. exploit the uniqueness of the coordinate relationship in higher education by developing and p;promoting a marketable presentation as Benedictine institutions of higher learning offering a high quality, value-based education in the Catholic university and liberal arts tradition; 3. leverage new resources to their maximum, and to effect cost-saving and operational efficiencies in as many share functional areas as possible without compromising the separate identify of each institution The Coordinate Governance Structure, June 30, 2000; I. Introduction; 2. Board Governance Responsibilities; 3. Underlying Premises of Coordinate Governance; 4. The Coordinate Governance Structure: a. Board Committees: Joint, Coordinate, and Board Task Forces b. Committees of the Board of One School: parallel, unique, and separate Board Task Forces; 5. Identifying Priorities for Board and Committee Attention; 6. Coordinate Governance Structure: SJU; Boards Acting Together; and CSB Board; Items which need to be addressed in the next set of strategic plans for the institutions: 1. Development of an integrated learning experience : The integration of the curricular and co-curricular experiences of students as well as the integration of gender and multicultural perspectives. (these might need to be reformulated; 2. Size and make-up of the two student bodies (there are different issues like CSB increasing in size and SJU a downturn in enrollment -- 55 to45% (issue: how closely can approximate an and maintain a 50/50 gender balance March 1998: "Electronic Portfolio project : a tool that allows students to assume greater responsibility for their educational experiences in and out of the classroom in collaboration with faculty and staff. Students would learn and develop in a holistic, integrated way as they engage in both academic and non-academic activities. April 1-2, 1998: North Central Self-Study major findings Academic and Student Development Counterparts to Multicultural Recruitment Initiatives Implications of Academic and Student Development counterparts for multicultural recruitment plan April 22, 1998: North Central Themes Revised List; Review Draft of IGO's; Report on Americans with Disabilities Act, Report on CSB/SJU Fine Arts Series and Programming Direction; Anna Thompson as new joint director of the Fine Arts Series; Mary Milbert's report on the strong enrollment based on yield projections. May 13, 1998: Impact of the Learning Enhancement Service on faculty development Current status of Asian Studies and vision for future growth Reflection on Joint Board Meeting May 26, 1998: Administrative Review Process Facilitating Board Governance Board Agenda Preparation Competitor Research and Strategic Plan Topics for Coordinate Cabinet meeting of July 8-9