Coordinate Cabinet Meeting, February 23, 1998, 1998

Coordinate Cabinet Meeting, February 23, 1998 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 achievement of progress on the coordinate agenda in the last five years (11 responses): The consensus about the positive factors was that process superseded procedures and infrastructure.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 hierarchically 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 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 shared functional areas as possible without compromising the separate identify of each institution