College of St. Thomas: The Growth Years

In 1991, three major changes would set the stage for further developments for the College of St. Thomas. The first was the selection of a new president. Second was a name change and corresponding mission change from "College" to "University" of St. Thomas. The third was the opening of the new campus in downtown Minneapolis. All of these decisions were informed by the four years of work done by the Long-Range Planning Committee culminating in 1991.

The third major cycle of long range planning since 1973 took place from 1989 to 1991. Provost Keffer convened a group of twenty-five people representing faculty, staff, and students. They met 36 times over this period to develop a document articulating a revised mission and a set of institutional goals and objectives to span the next five to eight years.

This planning process assisted the University in adopting a more focused sense of direction. The following mission was part of the complete long-range planning document approved by the Board of Trustees on May 2, 1991.

In March of 1991, the following four major goals from the long range plan were circulated to the St. Thomas community:

Attaining quality, integration, and coherence of the curriculum and reaffirm the liberal arts in all academic programs.

The development and well being of all members of the community.

Fulfillment of the needs of the larger community.

Strengthening the financial condition of the institution and managing its resources prudently.

A New President

With the departure of Msgr. Murphy, probably the most important of the three major changes in 1991 was the choice of a new president to guide the College in pursuing its new mission and goals. After an extensive search, the committee recommended to the Board of Trustees that Fr. Dennis Dease be appointed the next President of the College of St. Thomas. While Fr. Dease could have qualified as an external candidate, he was hardly an outsider. He earned a masters degree from St. Thomas and had been a student at the St. Paul Seminary where he also served as Director of Spiritual Formation. . Over the years, Fr. Dease had been a part of the St. Thomas faculty as an assistant professor of Theology and an adjunct faculty member in the School of Divinity. He also had been appointed to the St. Thomas Board of Trustees in 1982. He was the Rector of the Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis from 1985 until he became president in 1991.

In the end, the Board was unanimous in their definitive vote to hire Fr. Dennis Dease as the next President. The fact that Charlie Keffer would remain as Provost softened any disruption during the transition and it went much smoother than some had expected. Upon retirement, Msgr. Murphy was named to the emeritus position of Chancellor reporting to the executive committee of the Board of Trustees. In this position he was responsible for special projects and work related to research, planning, and development for St. Thomas.

As Fr. Dease assumed the Presidency, St. Thomas was poised for continued growth in a major metropolitan area that did not have a large private university. Fr. Dease also shared a vision for St. Thomas stemming from the one originally articulated by its founder, Archbishop John Ireland, that the college never intended to be an elite institution but was committed to the education of the middle and poorer class immigrants in St. Paul. Through the years, that mission had enlarged to encompass the drive to become a high quality urban Catholic institution that serves and addresses the concerns of the local community and region. Another piece of Archbishop Ireland’s vision that carried over was the idea that St. Thomas was not simply to be in the community, but be a part of it.

Fr. Dease began his tenure just as the college was taking the second significant step by changing its name from college to university. Some alumni expressed a deep loyalty to the "College" of St. Thomas and found it difficult to identify with the "University." Likewise, there were faculty whose strong commitment to the "College" of St. Thomas was synonymous with their interest in remaining focused on a liberal arts education. Becoming a "University" meant more than simply chiseling a new sign at their Summit Avenue entrance. The formal name change from "College" to "University" reflects both the growth in the number of students and the efforts to offer a wider range of courses of study and a broader number of student and community services. This was a decision that came quite naturally to the Board when it took into account the empirical evidence of growth and expansion completed thus far. Three noticeable changes were 1) St. Thomas enrolled the same percentage of males and females, 2) its programs were offered at three principal sites and a number of smaller ones, and 3) it awarded professional doctorates in three designated areas. In 1991, total enrollment topped 10,156 with 5279 undergraduates and 4877 graduate students. These students chose from 46 undergraduate and 20 graduate programs. The faculty was comprised of 286 full time and 249 part time members. The administrative staff had grown to 805 total employed. Total endowment was at 88 million dollars with a total operating budget of 98 million dollars (see Appendices 1 and 2).

The following were ramifications of the organizational growth as the college became a university:

educating students in a wide spectrum of liberal arts and sciences
developing the means for aiding students with special needs
providing adequate facilities to accommodate the school’s growth
finding an appropriate balance between teaching and research demands on faculty
serving the larger community through projects and centers

Clearly, St. Thomas sought to strike a balance between the aims of maintaining the University’s liberal arts tradition, serving the community, and serving the needs of students in the area of career preparation. The University of St. Thomas found this to be an area worthy of serious reflection as they intended to expand the courses of study available and commit themselves more fully to community service. On the verge of their name change, survey results indicated that, while 76% of St. Thomas employees felt that St. Thomas should maintain its liberal arts tradition, only 41% felt that the University was doing so. Attaining these goals would require timely effort to best manage available resources to serve these varied aims.

Changing the name to the University of St. Thomas also reflected the expansion to multiple campuses. The most significant development occurred in downtown Minneapolis as a result of the success of the MBA pilot program in the temporary facility. The St. Thomas Trustees and administration agreed to move forward with the construction of a permanent downtown campus scheduled to open on August 17, 1992. Initially, this plan was not well received by the community living in and around the proposed complex. They were concerned that placing a university campus in the middle of downtown would increase numbers of people and cause corresponding traffic and parking problems. In anticipation of these concerns, St. Thomas administration placed Dr. Michael Murphy at the Minneapolis campus as the facilities manager and charged him to be the public face of the St. Thomas organization in the City of Minneapolis. Dr. Murphy spent a great deal of time making connections on behalf of the University with various community groups and government leaders.

The strategies used to pave the way for the new building were complex. In addition to Dr. Murphy, significant persons involved in these arrangements were some of the members of the Board of Trustees, including a former Mayor of the City of Minneapolis and an alumnus who owned several properties in the downtown area. This was typical of the type of Board appointments that Msgr. Murphy made. St. Thomas entered into a significant arrangement with the City of Minneapolis that created a win-win situation. Originally the land which would become the 1000 LaSalle building and the central facility for the Minneapolis campus was owned by private owners (75% by one of the Board members). The City briefly owned the land and then transferred it to St. Thomas. St. Thomas owns the property and pays the debt on the land. The City of Minneapolis pays St. Thomas an amount each year that exceeds the principal and the interest payment on the land (this money comes from excess taxes paid on another unrelated parcel of land). In recognition of the amount that exceeds the principal and interest St. Thomas gives a full four year scholarship (including tuition, room and board) to a student from each of the 7 public high schools in the City and one private high school for a total of 8 for each entering class - 32 total per year. Additionally, the University would contribute 1.5 million dollars to the City for the development of single room housing for low income or poor working class individuals displaced by the construction.

In the most recent addition to the Minneapolis campus, similar creative arrangements were made with the City. For the new Opus Hall, which will house the School of Education scheduled to open in the Fall of 1999, the City of Minneapolis would build and operate the parking facility underneath the building for 15 years at which time St. Thomas retained the option to buy the parking garage or exercise the first right of refusal. Through the creative efforts of the administration, the cooperation of city leaders, and the support of business visionaries the Minneapolis campus became a reality.

The downtown campus was built during 1991-92 using the same neo-gothic, limestone architecture that characterizes the St. Paul campus. The unique addition to the Minneapolis structure was the reflective glass used for windows which was widely used in the surrounding skyscrapers. The main atrium is supported by columns painted with larger-than-life murals of the campus’ major benefactors. Across the full expanse of the atrium ceiling is a Biblical fresco recently featured in a 1998 PBS special. The extra-wide corridor on the second floor was designed to be later converted into a skyway that would connect future expansions. In addition to housing classroom space, administrative offices, and student services for the MBA program, the building also was home to many of the St. Thomas Centers. More strategically, the Minneapolis location gave proximity to the University of St. Thomas with major downtown corporations and afforded a direct link to employees of these businesses as a potential pool of students.

The news of the downtown campus emerged just as St. Thomas was engaged in its Century II capital campaign. What started out to be a 30 million-dollar campaign, St. Thomas quickly raised to a 50 million-dollar goal which was surpassed with a campaign total of 85 million dollars (See Appendix 4). While this money was not earmarked for the Minneapolis campus, it was evident that as the plans for the new campus came to the forefront the ability of the University to raise funds had multiplied. The niche that St. Thomas intended to fill was convenient education for employees of the downtown business community. Degree related courses, seminars, and workshops scheduled over noon-hours and after work were within walking distance for adult learners. Correspondingly, the money needed for the downtown business school was then not difficult to raise.

In response to a recommendation of the 1983 Long-Range Planning Committee, an organizational task force was established. The Organizational Structure Task Force (OSTF) functioned over the same time period as the 1989-1991 Long Range Planning Committee and was also chaired by Provost Keffer. The entire organizational plan of the institution was reviewed and revised by the Task Force (See Appendix 3a). The novel pieces of this plan included the following:

Undergraduate departments were organized into five divisions by size and focus (Humanities and Fine Arts, Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Education and Physical Education, Social Sciences, and Business Administration). This divisional structure also provided a pattern for representation on several University and College Committees.

The undergraduate college was reaffirmed as a self contained, principal unit of the institution.

Establishment of five graduate schools - Business, Education, Professional Psychology and Social Work, Technology, Arts and Sciences, and Divinity.

The Director of the Business Administration Division would serve as the Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Business in order to strengthen the link between undergraduate and graduate business.

Each graduate school would have an operating curriculum committee providing oversight and review and the undergraduate college would continue to function with the Educational Policy Committee as the principal faculty curricular review group.

The Faculty governance restructured. The Academic Council, which rendered tenure and promotion decisions, was expanded to include graduate program members among its faculty representatives from across the campuses. The Faculty was split into two sub-units comprised of graduate and undergraduate faculty separately. Finally, a new University Senate was established. Previously, the Faculty as a whole was the decision making body.

The University Takes "Stock" - Back to Top

With the expansions and change of name and leadership which occurred at St. Thomas in the early 1990s, this was not the same institution that was reviewed for accreditation in 1983. In preparation for the 1993 NCA visit, the University of St. Thomas conducted its own self-study survey in 1992. Faculty were asked to consider their involvement in important decisions about the university. When presented with twelve recent institutional policy decisions and on going management processes, respondents indicated the following. First, they indicated a perception of a high level of influence by the faculty as a whole on institutional decisions, particularly with respect to curriculum review. Second and correspondingly, the respondents indicated a perception of a low level of influence by faculty members individually in deliberations by the Board, particularly with respect to the development of the Minneapolis campus and the name change from college to university. Interestingly, membership on administrative committees included representative faculty members.

In their own report, the NCA team focused a major portion of their evaluation on the results of the long range planning cycle. The report critiqued the planning process as follows:

The Long-Range Plan did not appear to be based on any explicit assumptions concerning enrollments, revenues, or other important parameters that might provide a basis for the long-range plan. Furthermore, no priorities were set forth in the plan, and there was no existing process for assessing progress, although there had been in earlier plans...

In addition to the highly structured long range planning process, UST reports that it also engages in ad hoc ‘informal strategic planning’ to identify and respond to changes and opportunities in the external environment of which the university might take advantage. This informal process is used to respond to ideas that may arise from any segment or individual within the university.

The informal strategic planning or strategic decision making seems to be entirely separate from the long range plan, and this could cause problems in the future if entrepreneurial opportunities should conflict with or postpone fulfillment of the long range plan.

In concluding their report, the NCA team highlights the following:

University Relations was commended for improving relationships with its neighbors through the employment of a liaison officer and the successful management of complex relationships with both the St. Paul and Minneapolis governments.

There was a healthy morale among the campus community attributable to the strong administrative and Trustee leadership.

Absence of an apparent linkage between long range planning and budgeting.

Lack of clear connections between long range planning and the short-term opportunistic decision-making conducted in the name of " informal strategic planning."

The University in 1993

Following the major changes in 1991, the University of St. Thomas (UST) revised its publications and pamphlets to reflect its new identity. In 1993, the University’s public descriptions presented three aspects of its institutional identity. Specifically, UST was: 1) a Catholic institution; 2) a comprehensive university; and 3) a self-consciously urban community resource. No one disputed the truth or pivotal importance of the fact that the latter two characteristics represented the acknowledgement of structural change since 1983. At this point in time, the University began describing itself as an "urban" university. Not only had Fr. Dease spelled out his vision to become an "urban university which would contribute to as well as draw from the community" in his 1991 inaugural address, but the opening of the Minneapolis campus in 1992 gave new significance to the term "urban university" because it was located in the heart of the downtown area. Also in the self-study survey of faculty and staff, a majority agreed that the University was contributing positively to the life of the urban community in congruence with its mission. This was quite different than ten years previously when only one third of faculty and staff felt that there was a special emphasis on service to the urban community.

The student population in 1993 was comprised of 5088 undergraduate and 5157 graduate students. The MBA program alone was 2365. Forty-eight undergraduate majors were offered along with thirteen graduate programs. Among them were two doctoral programs: Doctorate of Psychology in Counseling Psychology, and a Doctorate of Education in Educational Leadership. This number also includes the Master of International Management in Montevideo, Uruguay added that fall (See Appendix 2).

From the beginning of his administration as President of the University of St. Thomas, Fr. Dease

was grateful for the Board of Trustees that Msgr. Murphy had developed. For the past 25 years, Msgr. Murphy has been strategically building relationships with prominent individuals and appointing them to the Board (See Appendix 5). He had the uncanny ability to bring people to the board who added substantial value to the organization. Inviting people onto the Board that have direct access to the community was important. One example is long term Board member Gerry Rauenhorst (since 1966), founder of Opus Corporation (the largest contracting firm in MN). The relationship with Rauenhorst has been symbiotic. The money for the air rights to construct the new education building in downtown Minneapolis was donated to the institution by Rauenhorst. He was also the person who donated the old department store for the pilot downtown business school campus. Numerous members of the Board are also top executives from local corporations. Other members are clergy with other academic and administrative credentials such as the Provost and President of two major Catholic universities. Still other members of the Board come from government agencies and lobbying groups.

Generally, observers admit that Msgr. Murphy had pulled together the best governing board in the State. Msgr. Murphy has been able to continually attract board members who are willing to take risks and frankly, who are rich. Mr. Hietpas knew the profiles of everyone being considered for the board. They must fit a set of criteria, and it just so happens that most are wealthy. The Board has been supportive of taking risks and has fostered the institutional growth on all fronts. Perhaps not surprisingly, a fair number of Board members are Alumni. The result is that St. Thomas has a board which is made up of the "movers and shakers" of the region who are dedicated to improving the institution.

Considering the enrollment success that St. Thomas had enjoyed since the early 1980’s, the structure of admissions efforts seemed to be working well. Although the total enrollment numbers for the institution continued to rise through the 1990s (See Appendix 2), undergraduate enrollments had started to decline in 1992. This was partially obscured by the fact that graduate enrollments were increasing at a greater rate than the undergraduate enrollments were declining. By 1995 the total undergraduate enrollments had fallen to 4,908, the lowest since 1987. In light of continued growth in the student population that St. Thomas had enjoyed, this situation was disconcerting and unexpected. In fact, undergraduate faculty never thought that this situation could happen and the administration had become complacent regarding enrollments. The whole institution felt the budget ramifications of fewer undergraduate students.

By 1993, concern over this situation prompted Father Dease and his administration to change their philosophy regarding admission management. Primarily, the University of St. Thomas began to understand the importance of undergraduate numbers. At the time of this dip, there was a single staff person serving as both admissions director and basketball coach, the unit was not staffed well, and it operated on minimal resources. Although they wasted no time responding, it took about three years to turn this situation around. Immediate efforts included hiring a consultant to evaluate the situation and recommend solutions. A new Director of Admissions was hired. The Admissions Office changed its strategy to a simpler enrollment goal of increasing the entering class by 25 new freshmen per year. Admissions efforts began to include the concept of targeted marketing with a focus on the quality of students.

In April of 1994, President Dease established another "Strategic Planning Task Force" (SPTF). Membership on this Task Force was representative of a cross section of the entire University community. It was charged with making recommendations to the President and the Board of Trustees regarding possible strategic directions for the University of St. Thomas. Every effort was made to distinguish this work from the highly structured long range planning process that the University had undertaken on at least three prior occasions over the last twenty years. The issue of mission was a continuing theme for the task force and they also suggested a number of general principles that the University and its constituents should follow in the years ahead.

The Task Force clearly stated how closely the identity of St. Thomas was tied to its mission and the four distinguishing characteristics: 1) a Catholic institution with 2) a Liberal Arts tradition that emphasized 3) integration of Liberal Arts tradition with career preparation, professional development, and life long learning within graduate and undergraduate programs and that stressed 4) Service to the community.

The intent of the Task Force was that strategic directions and decisions for the University should both enhance these elements and be guided by them. Moreover, the University is challenged in the document to provide a quality educational experience. To accomplish this, the SPTF recommended that St. Thomas should pursue programs and activities that meet the following criteria: 1) they are consistent with mission, 2) provide positive educational experiences and 3) provide superior programs. They also recommended that the University continue to see itself as serving the educational needs of the Upper Midwest region while striving for national recognition and encouraged St. Thomas to continue taking advantage of emerging opportunities. In the process of identifying strengths and weaknesses of the institution, the Task Force noted the following potential obstacles for fully attaining a sense of community:

The lack of a clear sense of the mission and future of the university
Tensions among staff, faculty, and administration
Insufficient resources and lack of cooperation among departments and programs

This Task Force believed that some organizational restructuring would be beneficial to the institution. In the past decade, administrative functions of the university had changed significantly. Growth had brought more formalization. Job descriptions and specifications including function, responsibilities and reporting relationships were developed and clearly written for senior management (See Appendix 3b). Included in their plan was a recommendation for a decision making process based on the Vroom-Jago model which is a leader participation model. This model provides a set of rules to determine the amount and form of participative decision making that should be encouraged in different situations. This process was characterized by the principles of participation, collaboration, consensus building and communication.

As the final document produced by the SPTF was disseminated, the University was about to begin a search process for a new Provost, now to be called Executive Vice President. After 25 years of service to the institution, Provost Keffer retired in 1998. Following the spirit of the Strategic Plan, the Administration expected the new Vice President to develop a more formalized decision making process.

Establishing a law school at the University of St. Thomas emerged as another expansion possibility in the 1990s. For a number of years administrators had felt that a law school would add a dimension to the University that would elevate its stature as a comprehensive urban institution. Although the Twin City metropolitan area already had three long established law schools at the University of Minnesota, Hamline University, and William Mitchell Law School, St. Thomas intended to once again fill a unique niche. Fr. Dease’s administration were all in agreement that the goal of the law school would be to educate talented lawyers who would provide moral leadership in their work and society. Moreover, they sought to establish a national program grounded in the University’s Catholic intellectual and moral tradition.

Having a history of partnerships and cooperation with the William Mitchell Law School, a secular institution, it was natural that the administration of both institutions had several sincere conversations regarding a potential merger. The last discussion with William Mitchell concluded in 1994 because the institutions were unable to agree on governance issues. Essentially, William Mitchell faculty were concerned about potential limitations of academic freedom should they become governed by the St. Thomas Board of Trustees. However, the St. Thomas administration would not merge unless their Board of Trustees had ultimate responsibility for the institution. As the interest to develop a law school took shape, the St. Thomas administration came to realize that the missions of the two institutions were significantly different. St. Thomas wanted to establish a law school guided by a Catholic philosophy. Such a program would embody Judeo-Christian principles throughout; not with just one course on ethics but with values that would pervade the whole curriculum.

To move this project from an idea to reality, in 1998 the administration allocated 100,000 dollars to conduct two feasibility studies. Dr. Anthony Santoro, president of Roger Williams University in Bristol, RI conducted one study on everything but fund raising. The other study focusing only on fund-raising was done in-house by Vice President Hietpas. The existing Board of Trustee committees thoughtfully considered the results of the studies and the issues they raised. Specifically, the Finance Committee studied budgetary issues under the guidance of the Vice President for Business Affairs, Dr. Sullivan; the Academic Affairs Committee investigated the unique curriculum that was key to this endeavor; and the Institutional Advancement Committee assessed the feasibility of raising financial contributions and made their recommendations based on the Hietpas study. The executive committee considered the various recommendations and presented overall rationale to the Board.

As suggested by Vice President Hietpas, an advisory board of relevant, prestigious people from across the country was created. This advisory board was comprised of 21 judges, lawyers, business executives, community leaders and law school administrators from other Catholic universities. Working with the consultant, Dr. Santoro, this board considered the issues and offered recommendations. Additionally, forums were held to provide opportunities for both the faculty and the downtown Minneapolis community to discuss and to voice their opinions. Vice President Hietpas and Fr. Dease focused their efforts on developing sources of funds for this project. Prior to the final Board meeting, Vice President Hietpas had identified potential donors to fund both the building and the law library as well as 32 million dollars for student financial aid, and 27 million dollars for faculty chairs.

In the winter of 1999, Vice President Hietpas began to prepare for the final meeting of the Board of Trustees. Knowing the Board would need to be convinced at every turn that a law school was important and feasible for St. Thomas, a well-developed agenda would provide the opportunity to convey a sound rationale. Father Dease would begin by giving his president’s report regarding the process of the law school investigation and a readiness for this issue to be brought to the Board for a vote. He would stipulate that the vote would have one of three outcomes: pass, delay, or deny the motion. Proceeding with this agenda, a fifteen-minute summary of the findings from Dr. Santoro’s study would be followed by a five-minute response to the report given by David Link, Dean of the Notre Dame Law School. Next, the executive committee chair would facilitate all of the committee reports. Judge Diana Murphy (a sitting judge on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals) would offer an opinion via teleconference from St. Louis regarding this issue. Penultimately, the executive committee chair would present the committee’s recommendation and offer a resolution to pass the motion and approve the development of the law school. The full Board would have ample opportunity to question and challenge the administration regarding the viability of the project. This whole process was not intended to convince the Board that the community needs another law school but to answer the question of whether St. Thomas should open a Catholic law school. On May 13, 1999, the Board of Trustees would vote on this issue.

As it approaches the end of this century, Fr. Dease and the Board must consider many of the same issues that continue to hover over the culture of Minnesota’s largest private university. To this day, the University of St. Thomas is still in the business of considering the boundaries of its mission. As the institution continues to evolve, there are still questions around the identity of St. Thomas and the struggles between undergraduate and graduate faculty. After two decades of tremendous growth, the Board needs to consider what size the institution should be and whether they should change how growth related decisions are made. In light of this growth, is it sufficient to assume that general education adequately defines what the institution means when it calls itself a liberal arts college within a comprehensive university? Now, at the end of the 1990’s, with an enrollment of over 10,000 students, can the institution continue to respond to opportunities with the flexibility it has demonstrated frequently over three decades? Amid these ongoing and current issues, the most pressing decision facing the Board of Trustees is whether the University of St. Thomas should open a new law school.