Decoding "Board Speak"
Response to recent events at Mount Vernon Nazarene University
Happy book release week! The Fearless Christian University officially appears on Thursday although copies have already been spotted in the wild. Get your copy here!
In chapters five and seven of the book, I argue that a robust trusting relationship between trustees, administrators, faculty, staff, and students is necessary for a Christian university to maintain a continuity of mission that allows the university to be Fearless. Instead we often find fragmentation of interests that bubble up as various conflicts, which unsurprisingly take similar form from institution to institution.
On Tuesday, January 28th, the faculty of Mount Vernon Nazarene University passed a vote of no-confidence regarding the university president, Dr. Carson Castleman.1 This was due a range of leadership issues but was specifically triggered by what appears to be pretty capricious decisions about non-renewal of faculty under the guise of financial pressure. This action was one of two reported in Forbes magazine by Michael Nietzel president emeritus of Missouri State and author of a book on no-confidence votes (the other school was Lafayette College).
Last Wednesday, the MVNU board of trustees released a statement titled “MVNU Board establishes plan for better communication and reconciliation.” This communication from the board is instructive of how fearful Christian universities respond to minimize crisis.
While this communique is not fundamentally different from those at scores of other institutions, I want to use it to illustrate how to read between the lines as to what is really going on. I’ll quote passages and then comment.
Submitted by MVNU Board of Trustees
It is with great sadness and yet optimism that we write today. The recent events on the campus of Mount Vernon Nazarene University (MVNU) have sparked a firestorm of publicity and rumors. MVNU was even the subject of a recent article in Forbes Magazine as well as other social media forums related to a no-confidence vote by some faculty members.
The letter opens with sadness and optimism and then goes on to describe how “recent events” sparked “publicity and rumors”. The no-confidence vote pales in comparison to the bad publicity that resulted. There is no reference to any specifics leading to the vote.
The author of the Forbes article, Michael T. Nietzel, stated, “While the reasons for no-confidence votes vary from institution to institution, one of the most common scenarios is faculty displeasure with large-scale academic restructuring and budget reductions directed by presidents and chancellors.” MVNU is experiencing similar issues at the present time.2
If one looks at the Forbes article, Nietzel (a former president, remember) does describe “faculty displeasure” at the end of his piece. The board leaves out what he says next, “Those complaints typically center on what the faculty perceive to be administrators’ insufficient regard for shared governance in budgetary decision-making.”
See how this gets elided in their description of what happened.
Near the eve of the implementation of a restructuring change, a no-confidence vote was orchestrated by certain faculty members who believed their voices were not being heard. Reports from some faculty in attendance at the meeting where the vote of no confidence was taken have stated that not all departments were notified ahead, healthy debate and open dialogue were omitted, and the vote was taken in haste. Some faculty voting for no confidence have now come forward to say they were not given the full picture, and having deeply regretted voting, are embarrassed that all the faculty “will be viewed in the same light.” Following the vote, the results were released to the press as if the communication was an official publication of MVNU, rather than being channeled through the appropriate university communication process.
There’s a lot here. Note the “was orchestrated by certain faculty members” who “believed” they weren’t heard (passive voice is wonderful!). It’s only the third paragraph of their plan for better communication and reconciliation and they have minimized the vote and marginalized faculty concerns.
Note also “reports from some faculty” without attribution and vague assertions about the legitimacy of the vote. They don’t reference Nietzel’s reporting that the vote was 43 approve, 13 oppose, 13 abstaining. A review of the MVNU faculty directory page shows 79 full time faculty. So it seems that 10 didn’t make the meeting. However, 43 out of 69 means 62% voted for no-confidence motion. I have no idea waht to do with those who “regretted their vote”. They are grown-ups who need to be responsible for their decisions.
The last sentence complaining about public release is in direct contradiction to the opening sentence of the board statement. It appears that public opinion was a driver in getting a rapid board response.
It is disheartening that the content of this meeting has been proliferated and opinions shared openly what the vote means or does not mean without full knowledge of the concerns of both faculty and administration. In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul reminds fellow believers not to use the world’s tactics to settle disputes. MVNU has tried to foster an environment where healthy debate over issues can take place under the guidance of our Christian values. The MVNU Board of Trustees (Board) understands disagreements will occur in a strong academic environment, and respect among its leadership, faculty and staff, and adherence to policies are essential for a healthy organization. The Board affirms that it will hold its leadership and employees to observe the highest legal and ethical standards. Our encouragement to the entire MVNU community, including the Board, administration, faculty, staff, students, alumni, churches and other constituents, is to heed the wisdom found in James 1:19–20: “My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.”
On the one hand, the paragraph seems to legitimize disagreement as a normal part of institutional life. Yet it manages to do that with two separate scriptural references which seem to deny that very point. Chapter five of my book also addresses the problem when church language is imported into a university.
At the November 2024 meeting, the Board reviewed information detailing how many institutions of higher education were closing their doors or on the brink of doing so. After reviewing the preliminary budget forecast for the upcoming year, the Board realized that, while more improvements were made, the budget will still not be balanced. MVNU is not on the cusp of financial failure; however, unless timely and appropriate measures are taken, it could be. Thus, MVNU leadership must take difficult but appropriate actions. MVNU has prided itself on living within its modest budget, and it must return to a balanced budget. Further, MVNU had found itself drifting away from the principles of the Nazarene Church. Students and the churches that support MVNU were strongly voicing their displeasure through reduced enrollment and reduction in support.
As a result, the Board charged the President, Dr. Carson Castleman, to bring MVNU more in line with the Church of Nazarene and its principles, and to balance the budget within two, but no more than three years, putting MVNU on good financial footing for years to come. This was not a decision and directive the Board took lightly. It reflects our commitment to sustainability and mission fulfillment for generations to come. Though the issues causing the imbalance were created long before Dr. Castleman arrived on the scene, the Board voted on this charge having full confidence that President Castleman could carry out the directive successfully.
The first line of this section really caught my attention. The board looked at a number of failing institutions and precarity in private higher education. What is not clear at all is which institutions they considered and if MVNU was comparable in any way.3 References like this are common. Bad things are happening everywhere so it’s not our fault that we had to make cuts. What they did down the road was even worse!
Then they note budget challenges and assure everyone that they aren’t going to be one of those schools that will fail. Unless, of course, the preferred action isn’t taken. As if they had no options.
Then there is the non sequitur about MVNU “drifting away” from the denomination and its “principles” along with the assertion that students and churches “were strongly voicing their displeasure”. In the second paragraph, notice that the church relations had moved to the fore over the budget issues.
Last fall, the Board was made aware of some complaints against the President. The Board took these very seriously and hired an outside law firm and third-party investigator who over several months performed an exhaustive unbiased investigation into these complaints. The Board determined the complaints of unlawful and unethical activity on behalf of the President were unsubstantiated. However, there were issues of perception identified which were shared and discussed with the President.
This is a telling paragraph. The board was aware that there were issues with presidential leadership. They brought in outside groups (unnamed) who performed “an exhaustive unbiased investigation.”4 But they found that the president (thankfully) hadn’t broken the law or violated ethical commitments. There are, however, “issues of perception”.
When I first became a chief academic officer, I underwent an evaluation from the faculty. It was brutal. I tried to argue that it was just “issues of perception”. Thankfully, two trusted senior faculty helped me to acknowledge the real issues and work to address them.
The Board affirms the incredible contributions of our faculty and staff and holds them to be valuable members of the MVNU team. It also recognizes there is a communication gap between administration, faculty, staff, and MVNU constituents, including local churches. The Board determined there is a need to create better communication among the various stakeholders and is taking appropriate action to ensure the faculty, staff, students, and constituents feel assured that their concerns are being heard, appreciated, and considered.
This week, the Board decided to establish a task force to build better bridges of healthy communication between faculty, staff, and administration and foster reconciliation. The task force will be made up of representatives from the Board, the President’s Cabinet, faculty, and staff with the charge to seek out ways to foster better communication and healing between faculty, staff, and administration. In an all-campus meeting last Friday, President Castleman stated his support for reconciliation and better communication to be of utmost importance.
The board argues that the faculty and staff are “valuable members” of the team and that there is a communication gap (local churches get thrown in here again). So the board is taking action. They are creating a task force!
Representatives will seek ways to foster communication and healing. The president is on board with this action, which is “of utmost urgency”.
Also, this week, with this knowledge and an intentional plan to move forward, the Board of Trustees of MVNU voted unanimously to reaffirm confidence in the leadership of Dr. Carson Castleman as the President of MVNU. Our hope and prayers are that regardless of whether we all see eye to eye, we will unite and work toward a common goal, to make MVNU the best it can be for His sake and for those we serve. We need to move forward in unity. Through these difficult times, the Board has reflected on the powerful impact the alumni have had locally as well as internationally since MVNU’s founding in 1968. We are very proud of their achievements, growth, and service. The Board is now looking forward and focusing its efforts to achieve fiscal stability, healthy communication, academic excellence, and to provide a high-quality Christian education to its students now and for many, many years to come. Organizational change, restructuring, and refining can be difficult at times, and we are optimistic that the future of MVNU is bright.
So the board ends their message stating their full confidence in the president (while announcing a plan for communication and reconciliation to address issues). Religious language reappears in the next sentence with prayers for unity for Christ’s sake. They are “now looking forward” to providing what has always been the mission.
The last sentence says that restructuring is hard but good for everyone. Maybe it’s just me, but I think that a call for communication and reconciliation would at a minimum require acknowledgement that “organizational change, restructuring, and refining” resulted in people losing jobs, families being uprooted from a pretty close knit community, and people losing beloved colleagues. Maybe unity and reconciliation have meaning to some future group of faculty and staff.
As I said at the outset, I could have deconstructed board messages from scores of Christian universities.5 I focused on Mount Vernon because I’ve known the institution, and people in it — administrators and faculty alike — for forty years.
It’s a sad situation that is the unfortunate result when there is too much separation between administrators and trustees on the one hand and faculty and staff on the other. It doesn’t always result in a vote of no-confidence. But some form of institutional crisis is almost guaranteed. Far better to build those connections for “communication and reconciliation” before a crisis emerges.
I have not seen the letter that the faculty sent to the president but I do know that it raised concerns about program restructuring and faculty position elimination.
In earlier announcements about the vote, I read that the presdient and cabinet had developed a restructuring of programs “with input from the faculty”. That phrase actually prompted this post. In my experience, input (but not collaboration) speaks directly to a failure of shared governance.
I would note that Eastern Nazarene announced their closure the summer before this meeting.
That seems like too many adjectives to me. Unbiased but not exhaustive? Exhaustive but biased?
It retrospect, this would have been valuable for chapter five.
Your analysis treats the board’s statement on it’s own, but unfortunately assumes that it is a reliable guide even to the context. The MVNU faculty have become very used to change, fiscal constraints, and hard choices over the last decade; that’s not even the issue. Also, the faculty vote was before any of them were fired (though after numerous resignations by staff and administrators who found the working environment to be hostile). What inspired the faculty vote of no confidence is the president’s pattern of spying, threatening, and narcissistic misrepresentation that create an atmosphere of fear. Furthermore, he is unable or unwilling to articulate a positive strategy or criteria for action, thus fostering an atmosphere of arbitrariness. Hence, the faculty’s vote of no confidence in this specific president.