Mayhew Report: Appendix A

Elmer Jagow, Consultant on Management
Discussion with Co-Institutional Study Committee
(Taken from Minutes of the Co-Institutional Committee Meeting, May 17, 1968)

Mr. Jagow began by stating that it was important to know the background of the Co-Institutional Study in order to find a viable basis for further cooperation. He said that there seems to be little doubt that co-institutional cooperation is a desirable thing. In education the emphasis should be on the student and Mr. Jagow said if we accept this premise and recognize that cooperation is popular with the majority of students then it should be something which is ‘pursued by both institutions. Mr. Jagow states further that it was his impression that opposition among the faculty was a minority and that there seems to be a general camaraderie between the two faculties. Mr. Jagow observed that inter-ins titutiona1 cooperation has grown from an infant enterprise to a development of such importance and size that it must now be studied with a view to making suitable financial arrangements to cope with what has developed and will develop in the future. He further pointed out that this financial arrangement is being made so to speak “after the fact.” Financially speaking the cart is before the horse but understandably so and it must be recognized that this is a situation which although it does have its frustrations is not alarming and should be viewed in the perspective of the brevity of its existence. Mr. Jagow stated that we must not be surprised or discouraged to find certain aspects of the politics or the business world entering into the issue of financial cooperation between two Church related schools. Even though we must recognize this we should also realize that we will not experience the ruthlessness that sometimes enters into secular business operations.

Mr. Jagow emphasized that the financial issue is subordinate to what he termed the “people quotient. II Anything like a “merger” will leave survivors in terms of people and institutions on both sides. There would be “remainder men” and also the monastery and convent left as separate. Mr. Jagow asked what thoughts come to mind when this is looked at from an organizational or managerial point of view. In answer to this he pointed out that the corporation model may be helpful, e.g. it is a situation involving unequal partners and it is not a question of one side “selling out.”

Mr. Jagow suggested that the best way to approach the problem of financial arrangement is to start from where we are. He pointed out that neither institution has the option of doing nothing about this. He observed that the present financial arrangement is archaic because it was an arrangement made when cooperation was in an ‘infant stage. In the beginning, the financial arrangement was tolerable or satisfactory in spite of differences in teacher and student exchange rates but because the financial arrangement has not changed from this early settlement it now results in a problem that takes a whole page of ledger to describe.

Mr. Jagow suggested that tuition might be the key to a better financial arrangement but members of the committee pointed out that the inequity in tuition of the two schools will not be removed in the forthcoming year and that it would be hard to predict whether the tuitional figure would ever be equal. The present financial arrangement is unsatisfactory because it does not take into account the tuition difference. Besides the problem of tuition, there is the problem of duplication of services and the need to centralize what can be centralized. Here Mr. Jagow reminded the committee of what he previously referred to as the “people quotient.” Further cooperation, he observed, would be smooth if people were “portable” but he pointed out that the status of religious teachers complicates this situation and is a problem worse than lay tenure. Mr. Jagow said that we must not have precision at the cost of the humane. Financial settlement might result in a situation that is very delicate to the human quotient. After further discussion, Mr. Jagow agreed that to have the same faculty salary scale would help the financial picture. Mr. Jagow was asked if perhaps the financial settlement could be made on the basis of a total financial picture of the two institutions on a proportionate basis. He answered that this might be a complicated computation but he thought that such an arrangement would be possible. Mr. Jagow reminded the committee of the value of thinking of corporation merger as a model in this situation; i.e., no one will be swallowed up. Saint Benedict’s would not become a dormitory operation of Saint John’s University and it would be unwise for either institution to go co-educational outside of the present co-institutional development. Mr. Jagow said that he saw this as-an organizational challenge especially to the faculties. He also mentioned that there must’ be more willingness on the side of each institution to dedicate or donate its own assets in the co-institutional development. Father Hilary agreed that there seems to be a lack of recognition of the responsibility of each institution in the co-institutional development. There seems to be an attitude on each side that the one is doing a favor for the other. Mr. Jagow added that if our focus would be moer on the student this attitutde would diminish.