Cut, cut, cut: Was it management or malfeasance bringing down USF?

During the Student Government Association (SGA) meeting on Oct. 22, students became aware of the university’s six million dollar deficit. During a time full of confusion and a fair amount of misinformation being circulated, it is vital for students, faculty and staff alike to ask questions and be as involved as they can. In doing so, we can maintain the thin thread of communication, which will help everyone best understand our university’s circumstances. 

The University of St. Francis’ (USF’s) deficit was discovered by Interim Vice President for Business Affairs, Michael Guns, earlier this semester; note that this debt was not accumulated under our current administration but rather the past administration. 

USF President, Ryan Hendrickson, shared how the university is impacted by a decline in enrollment which affects all higher education institutions but is prevalent in the midwest due to many Illinois students opting to go to out of state schools.

Although higher education is taking a hit, a former USF faculty member noted that the past administration was selective of the things said publicly as well as what's said privately. They expand on this by sharing that previous president, Arvid Johnson, “would present the image of financial wellness, which didn’t align with reality.”

This illusion combined with personal observations made it difficult for many to tell if the financial strain was due to “mismanagement or malfeasance.”  

A former USF faculty member shares that regardless of the circumstance, “a financial crisis was obvious and was part of why faculty voted no confidence of Johnson,” leading to his retirement. 

They continue by expressing their understanding of the difficult position Dr. Hendrickson is in, explaining that he walked into his position before the deficit was discovered. It is acknowledged that the university is in serious trouble, in order for the university to improve its situation in the future something has to be cut and full reorganisation is needed.   

Dr. Hendrickson is working towards the betterment of the university, announcing that the university has begun implementing changes that will aim to decrease the debt and pave the path for a better future.

Dr. Hendrickson explains that to combat this deficit the university will aim to increase enrollment but unfortunately has to reduce operational spending and workforce. This reduction in personnel has led to laying off a total 18 staff members, who were required to leave immediately after their dismissal and sending 20 faculty members a letter of non-renewal for the 2026-27 academic year. 

He elaborated on this decision by stating that for many universities the highest cost in personnel and aiming to reduce that in areas of low enrollment can hopefully better our finances. He also emphasized that faculty will have the opportunity to appeal their non-renewal, which involves building a case for administrators to evaluate. 

Although faculty was able to appeal their non-renewal, the process was described as humiliating and seemed to be a mere formality since the decision was, by all appearances, already made. The appeal process was conducted in accordance with the policy manual of the university but faculty members recalled that no questions were answered. 

A faculty member recounts their appeal process, sharing that they asked for materials related to furthering the rationale for why they were offered a non-renewal; the request was ignored and the only information faculty seemed to have been provided with in the town hall is that programs with low enrollment would be prioritized.

Although administrators took into consideration which departments had low enrollment, the faculty member shared, “when their [admin] offering 20 faculty non-renewels, a lot of time, effort and research should be done into who they are targeting.”

 But when faculty asked questions the rooms of these meetings fell quiet, “(it was) like I was talking to a wall.” 

With faculty members being cut down the school will move towards having more adjunct professors, who are part-time faculty on a non-tenure-track, to fill in the gaps. They are typically hired on a semester-by-semester contract to teach one or more courses and are oftentimes more affordable for universities due to the fact that they receive low pay, lack benefits, have little to no job security and limited opportunities for career advancement as explained by the American Federation of Teachers’ (AFT’s) latest “Army of Temps” report.

This reduction in the work force will rely on cheap labor that can negatively affect students as it often leads to better short-term performance within introductory courses but can negatively impact long-term engagement and persistence. Results from Maris Zhu’s study on the effects of adjunct instructors indicate that students do worse on multiple outcomes when they take courses with adjuncts rather than full-time instructors.

Along with cutting faculty, a former USF faculty member reveals that to reduce on operational spending, the university may likely move towards combining departments with low-enrollment and cutting concentration, however, information on how this initiative will manifest itself is unclear until the upcoming town hall meeting scheduled to take place on Wednesday, November 12th.    

Regardless of how these initiatives go, Dr. Hendrickson wants to emphasise that “every student will have the opportunity to complete their current degree plan.” 

Nonetheless, to me, this urges the question: Why should students suffer drawbacks in an education they pay thousands of dollars for? I sympathise with the difficulty of having to make immediate and impactful decisions during such a time but when there are significant pay gaps between admin and faculty salary, is it really personnel who should take a hit?

To elaborate on this the Patch wrote an article on the universities public financial data in which they break down Johnson’s salary and compensation throughout four fiscal years, breaking down recent compensation of $680,013 in 2024, including $623,682 in salary and $56,331 in additional compensation from the organization and related entities. 

The article also explains that while “salaries, compensation and employee benefits climbed from $28 million to more than $28.6 million by the time USF's 2024 fiscal year ended, as Johnson's total compensation increased from $630,799 to $680,013 during that period.” 

This data demonstrates a significant gap in wages between faculty and higher ranking administrators. 

Although all data is from the previous president, it has been noted by faculty that there has been no significant change to our board of trustees and that this academic pay gap, where more money resides at the top than at the bottom, is longstanding. 

To reduce the negative impact these cuts will have on students, should it not be the admin who takes a cut in their salary; not only to partially bridge this significant pay gap but to see our university improve for current and future students.

As Dr. Hendrickson stated, “every president has challenges. I love USF and want to do everything I can to make it better.”