Dear Faculty, Staff, and Abbey Colleagues,
On Thursday, March 21, 2024, the Faculty Senate of Saint Martin’s University overwhelmingly passed separate votes of No Confidence against Dr. Roy Heynderickx and Dr. Tanya Smith Brice. Later that same day, these decisions were supported by the Full Faculty, who voted overwhelmingly to support the Faculty Senate’s votes of No Confidence.
In what follows, I intend to offer a partial explanation for the faculty’s position and explain why it is that we have lost confidence in the administration’s ability to set us on a path that will contribute to the stability and well-being of Saint Martin’s University.
When Dr. Roy Heynderickx was installed as Interim Co-President in the fall of 2023, the SMU community was informed that he had been given three tasks by the Board of Trustees: (1) to balance the budget; (2) to perform program reviews; and (3) to prepare the way for a next university president. As of the writing of this email, the university’s budget remains unbalanced. Furthermore, it is unclear how our community will be able to right-size our financial situation before the end of the fiscal year. Despite the administration’s claim that the issuing of terminal contracts to fourteen tenured and tenure-track faculty was the necessary byproduct of keeping full-time faculty salaries at the agreed upon market rates, Dr. Heynderickx has admitted that the financial savings from the fourteen terminal contracts will not be realized until AY 25-26. As such, the issuing of terminal contracts has nothing to do with balancing the budget for AY 23/24 or AY 24/25.
Like the situation with the budget, the performance of program reviews has yet to be completed. When Dr. Heynderickx and Dr. Smith Brice first informed the SMU community about the need for program reviews, it was unclear what this might mean. Was it being driven by financial concerns? Were there academic/curricular issues that needed to be addressed? Were there other forces at work? To date, the community has yet to receive a comprehensive answer to these questions, although there is a growing sense among many that there are numerous factors behind this initiative. But whatever the reasons, it is a fact that academic program reviews cannot be conducted or completed without faculty participation. After all, it is the faculty who are the creators, owners, and custodians of our academic curricula, not the administration.
Any decisions about the cutting or restructuring of departments, faculty, majors, minors, and/or concentrations must be made in collaboration with the faculty. The faculty must also be included in conversations about the possibility of subscribing to online course sharing programs, such as Acadeum, which would allow SMU students to take Core and elective courses at other universities across the country. Given that faculty were not informed about the decision to issue terminal contracts in advance of legitimate conversations about academic restructuring and seeing that the university has established a formal relationship with Acadeum without wide-spread faculty involvement or participation, one could justifiably argue that the process of program review has yet to begin. And given that the AIP’s related to restructuring were dissolved by Dr. Smith Brice several months ago, it is unclear how the administration intends to work with faculty on these issues.
As for the third charge given to Dr. Heynderickx by the Board of Trustees (i.e., preparing the way for the next president), it is difficult to see how we are in a better position than we were in August of 2023. Our university continues to run a massive deficit and there is precious little collaboration between the administration and faculty on program review. Moreover, the unexpected issuing of terminal contracts to tenured and tenure-track faculty has sent shock waves of fear and doubt through our community.
Among the fourteen faculty who are set for termination, thirteen are from CAS and one is from CEC (see attachment). Of this group, five have won the Monks of Saint Martin’s Faculty of the Year Award, three are Fulbright Scholars, and another five have served, will serve, or are currently serving as faculty president. Cumulatively, those who received letters of non-renewal have taught at SMU for 234 years. If some of the longest serving faculty can be treated as such, and the concept of tenure can be disregarded whenever it suits the needs of the administration, then no faculty member, regardless of their rank, college, or discipline, is safe. How it is that this situation successfully prepares the way for our next president is unclear, but undermining the confidence of the faculty and causing widespread panic and fear would appear to be the antithesis of paving the way for a successful transition.
The act of reducing faculty lines behind closed doors, without projecting a sense of empathy towards those who have been affected, is a relationship and reputation destroying move. The impact of this decision will be felt for years to come and the results of this act are already affecting our community partners, staff, alumni, students. The resignation of several faculty earlier this year (with more to come), our increasingly poor retention rates, and high levels of turnover at the staff and administrative levels are further evidence that our leadership has been unable to set us on a path towards success.
On several occasions this year, the administration has publicly claimed that their efforts to roll back salaries and issue terminal contracts will have no impact on the student experience. More than any other statement, this attitude on the part of the administration exemplifies a complete misunderstanding of the relationship between students and faculty, which is grounded in communication, dialog, and trust. Without a strong awareness of what will or will not impact the student experience (i.e., arguably the most important consideration for any administrator in higher education), it is impossible to see how our current leadership can cultivate the widespread buy-in and agreement that we so desperately need.
For the reasons stated above, and others, the Faculty Senate overwhelmingly passed Votes of No Confidence against Dr. Roy Heynderickx and Dr. Tanya Smith Brice. These decisions were subsequently supported by the Full Faculty, 95% of whom expressed no confidence in Dr. Heynderickx and 91% expressing no confidence in Dr. Smith Brice. Please see the attached letter for the details of the voting. Should you have any questions about the attached documents, or what I have said above, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best,
Ian Werrett, Ph.D.
Faculty President - 2023/24
Professor of Theology and Religious Studies
