Angelqueen.org

[Otremer6]

[And now...]

[petros]

[SamwiseG]

[Tom]

From the May 2007 New Oxford Review (http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0507-notes-messaros):

Andrew Messaros Saw It Coming

According to Naples Daily News (March 21), Fr. Joseph Fessio, Provost of Ave Maria University (AMU), said in an e-mail: "I have been asked to resign my position as provost and leave the campus immediately." Wow, run out of town!

In a New Oxford Note (March) we reported: "According to Naples Daily News (Dec. 4, 2006), things are not going well for [Tom] Monaghan [founder of AMU]. In a recent letter to Ave Maria University supporters, Provost Joseph Fessio, S.J., said the enrollment, recruitment, and retention are low. Indeed, Fessio referred to it as a 'crisis.'" Fr. Fessio is responsible for enrollment, recruitment, and retention. Fr. Fessio had been touting his relationship with his "friend, Pope Benedict," but apparently that didn't work. Maybe AMU had to fire Fr. Fessio because AMU is in "crisis," and AMU needs a replacement immediately.

Fr. Fessio recruited or allured students and many faculty, and he was the leading fundraiser. Didn't AMU realize that there would be protests from the students and faculty whom Fr. Fessio recruited? Maybe that's why AMU demanded that Fr. Fessio "clear his office and leave campus by the end of the day" (www.catholicnewsagency.com, March 22). But the stratagem backfired. Of the 390 students, 200 students and a majority of the faculty protested the firing of Fr. Fessio in public.

According to the Washington Post (March 25): "The outpouring of support -- which he [Fessio] said included donors threatening to stop giving and parents inquiring about pulling their children out of the university -- 'was very gratifying,' he [Fessio] said." Very gratifying: Fr. Fessio did not object, so was he planning to take AMU down with him -- like Samson? Apparently, Fr. Fessio was going to fight back. You definitely don't want to humiliate Fr. Fessio.

Probably due to the protest (AMU is hoping for 5,000 students, and as of now has only 390 students, so AMU cannot afford to lose a single student), and donors threatening to stop giving, founder Tom Monaghan and President Nick Healy came to Fr. Fessio and wanted to work something out, according to Naples Daily News (March 23). A deal was reached. Fr. Fessio will be the "designated theologian in residence" at AMU. He will spend a significant amount of time off campus -- in Europe. Fr. Fessio will no longer be the Provost, and he will no longer be involved in a leadership role. Fr. Fessio has been put out to pasture. But we doubt that he will go silently into the night.

AMU officials did not give a reason why Fr. Fessio was fired, and Fessio couldn't guess why he was fired. According to Naples Daily News (March 23), Fr. Fessio "doesn't think the firing was tied to fundraising or student enrollment coming in below expectations." But that could be why he was fired. What else could it be? According to www.catholicnewsagency.com (March 22), AMU officials fired Fessio because of "irreconcilable differences over administrative policies and practices," but not differences in the University's "mission or the Magisterium of the Church." If Fr. Fessio's firing wasn't due to fundraising or student enrollment, AMU could have let him go in the summer, instead of "immediately" -- in the middle of the semester. But clearly AMU is in "crisis."

Fr. Fessio once told your Editor that he's an explorer, not a settler. Perhaps he didn't tell Monaghan that. In response to Fr. Fessio's NOR article (Jan. 2005) defending AMU and his role in it, Andrew Messaros penned an article titled "Fr. Fessio's Next Educational Disaster?" (NOR, March 2005). Messaros said, "At the administrative plate, Fr. Fessio's batting average is so far zero for two in keeping highly promising orthodox Catholic colleges open (Campion College is already defunct and AMC [Ave Maria College] will soon be). Will AMU be next, making him zero for three?" Fr. Fessio admits that AMU is in "crisis." And Fr. Fessio is not a "settler." Perhaps the AMU officials fired him because he was not a settler and could not run the store.

As we said in a New Oxford Note (March), we've "heard rumblings that Ave Maria University may not survive." What a mess! After this shock wave, will AMU survive? It's a perilous proposition.

[Tom]

According to a recent posting on the the Fumare weblog (http://fumare.blogspot.com/2007/05/amsl-development-director-dave-kelly.html), Dave Kelly, the former Development Director of the former Ave Maria College in Michigan, is now the former Development Director of the soon-to-be former Ave Maria School of Law (also in Michigan), because he resigned his position.

Advocatus Militaris, who made the posting, speculates on the reason for the resignation:

[Tom]

Whispers In The King's Ear

Ave Watch
Tue, May22, 2007
http://www.avewatch.org/files/b272b4b40d7529e102cd00b03a1f8a3c-72.html


Deal Hudson is the former go-to man on all things Catholic for the Republican National Committee - "former" because of a sex scandal with one of his college freshman students. On March 23, 2007, he released a statement on the firing of AMU Provost Fr. Joseph Fessio. Excerpt:

A friend asked me yesterday "why do conservative Catholics beat each other up so much?". Good question. One reason that I have observed is their parochialism, in the generic sense, that is. They recognize only the validity of their familiar, local form of belief, worship, and spirituality. They need to keep in mind that the Church has a legitimate diversity, as illustrated by the lives of the saints themselves. Fr. Fessio may be one of those saints, for all we know. Monaghan or Healy another.

Is Hudson suggesting that belief-based parochialism on the part of the aforementioned saints in potentia is the basis for Fessio's firing? This seems unlikely given the co-existence of both 'traditional' and more 'charismatic' conservative elements on the Michigan Ave Maria campuses (AMSL, AMC, and St. Mary's). One should also consider the opportunism of these administrators, including the chance to "use" each other to enhance their own personal and collective influence over orthodoxy's rule-or-ruin. Finally, this observer finds no evidence in any available Ave Maria documents to corroborate belief-based tension on any scale, much less that of a magnitude to trigger implosion.

To understand the parochialism that does appear to be at work, one must go beyond spiritual narrowness and consider managerial and cultural narrowness. Unfettered access to extreme wealth creates a dulling insulation that constricts the ability to recognize other valid assessments of situations. When reading Nick Healy's explanations to Tom Monaghan on the basis for strife at Ave Maria, this becomes apparent. Healy's speculative focus on "what is motivating" critics belies his own parochialism - and it is anything but saintly. There may be no better example of this than Healy's analysis of "Thoughts on AMC", a document by former AMC faculty member Janet Smith.


Professor Janet E. Smith is one of the most popular and prolific writers and speakers within America's orthodox Catholic community. In May 2003, she wrote "Thoughts on AMC" (PDF) - a reaffirmation of Tom Monaghan's original vision for a Catholic university, and an analysis of existing problems and solutions to attaining that vision.

After reading the full-text of Smith's "Thoughts" and Nick Healy's "A Reponse to Thoughts on AMC" (sent to Tom Monaghan, May 6, 2003), it is difficult to believe that Healy read the same document.

Since much of the above memo is criticism aimed at me I thought I should respond.You might wonder what is motivating Janet. My conviction is that Janet has become personal friends with some of the original AMC faculty, and is both reflecting their distress and, by her volunteering to be their somewhat public champion, is encouraging them (perhaps inadvertently) to hang on to their disappointments.



That was Healy's opening remark. First, there is no evidence to suggest that Smith was "volunteering" to be a group spokesperson. Further, Smith's "Thoughts" is hardly "aimed at" Healy or anyone else. Smith does state "Indeed the failure of AMU Florida to attract a high profile academic as a president not just to shape the college in its early years but to lead the University has been noticed by the academic community." This conclusion, however, is factually based, consistent with the reports submitted by hired educational consultant Dr. James Burtchaell (2000) and by AMC Board member Ralph Martin (2003) - "We recommend that we immediately launch a search for a President or Provost of AMU who has significant academic leadership experience." With Father Fessio out as Provost, AMU is now lead by a lawyer-President without academic credentials (Healy) and a Chancellor with a high school diploma (Monaghan).

Healy's lack of academic experience appears to be a sensitive spot for him. In 2003-2004, Andrew Mesaros, a former AMC professor, engaged in a series of exchanges with Healy and then-Provost Fessio in New Oxford Review. Unprovoked by any mention of the President's credentials, Healy lashed out: "What plainly galls Messaros is that non-academics are in charge of academic institutions. The myth that only professors are qualified to head up colleges or universities dies hard. The reality of universities today is such that their academic dimension, while central to their identity and mission, is only one of an array of responsibilities that fall to the administrators. Hence it may be that entrepreneurial skills and administrative experience are more essential in a university’s leadership than formal academic training."

According to the testimony of the former top financial officer of AMU, Healy's sensitivity to being a lawyer may have deprived the Board from full access to a consultant's report: "The [Burchaell] report was very blunt and very direct regarding the improper influence that the Foundation had on the governance of the College. It was also very blunt in suggesting that Nick Healy was good as an interim choice, but we needed to get a seasoned academic to replace him and that Nick Healy was also treating, because he was a lawyer by training, was treating Tom Monaghan as his client and was basically working at his beck and call… The report was very blunt as it was my understanding that Nick Healy decided never to deliver this report to the Foundation because he thought it was too blunt and inflammatory, so we never – he buried it, to my understanding. We never heard anything more about it, but that was verbal, so I don’t know what he actually did."

On this topic of Healy's background, Healy said of Smith's "Thoughts":

There is a certain naivete in the idea that the reported problem of AMC Michigan could be "briskly eliminated" by the hiring of a first rate "academic president" for AMU. Given the scope of what the authors of "Thoughts" believe are systematic problems... it is hard to see how a change in one office could solve the problems. Indeed, what is clearly implied (though carefully not said directly) is that it is your [Monaghan's] leadership that is flawed. In part the difficulty is the unusual integration of a business model of governance with an academic mode. Many academics simply cannot abide that, and chafe at the leadership exercised by you.



Sowing the seeds of discord with the boss by putting words into Smith's mouth? In fact, Smith praises Monaghan multiple times in "Thoughts". Notice too that Healy now refers to "the authors" (plural), reinforcing the unfounded idea that Smith is not the sole author. He also attempts to have Monaghan outright dismiss Smith's analysis:

Neither Janet nor her faculty friends have any experience in the administration of enterprises, academic or otherwise. It is rather presumptuous to be proposing solutions...



So, only administrators can engage in "proposing solutions"? Healy goes even further in attempting to discredit the faculty by undermining, of all things, the dedication and sacrifices of employees:

A second underlying issue concerns the many references in the memo to "great sacrifices" made by faculty and staff "to help Tom Monaghan achieve his vision," which sacrifices implicitly have gone unrecognized. With all respect, the faculty and staff are well paid, some very well paid. I am not aware of a single one that took a pay cut to move to Ave Maria. I can think of several who would be lucky to find a position elsewhere. .. I do not think that there was anything special or unique about the sacrifices required to move to Ypsilanti.



Salaries are not gifts; they are earned. It is a violation of human dignity to believe that giving Ave Maria employees their earned salary absolves an Ave administrator - a steward - from recognizing the deep sacrifices of time, energy, career, earning potential, and family-life that have been poured-out as an offering by Ave Maria's founding faculty. But, are these employees even "well paid"? In March 2006, AMU Florida advertised for a senior level faculty position (Associate Professor) with a PhD in Biochemistry for a salary of $37,000 / year. How much house can a single-earner Catholic-sized family get in Ave Maria Town on $37,000? With regard to sacrifice, Andrew Mesaros wrote:

"My wife teared up when I told her, only days after unpacking our moving van to start work in Michigan, that I was asked rather unapologetically by AMC's administration to leave for Florida within the year. Just eight weeks earlier, before signing my contract, I was told repeatedly by the administration and my department chairman that I'd be in Michigan for three years - "on the last train to Naples, Flordia."

"Susan and I had already given up so much in a short time to get to AMC Michigan. I abandoned my grant-writing and publication progress in a tenure-stream faculty position at a large medical school, leaving a group of colleagues whom I treasured, and an $80,000 research laboratory under my direction. I accepted a $16,000 pay cut along with a large reduction in benefits. We sold our house and four beautiful acres, had our first child, bought and repaired a small house before the move, moved to another state, all in the seven weeks between when my AMC contract was offered and our moving date. During that time, our son had a string of health problems and I had emergency abdominal surgery."

Healy may not be incorrect in saying "I can think of several who would be lucky to find a position elsewhere". Maybe he is thinking of the professor who teaches anatomy and physiology on his Florida campus. She was released by neighboring Edison College for not having "enough appropriate credit hours of instruction in the courses" being taught (Naples News, Oct. 2005, full text). This professor teaches at AMU the same areas taught at Edison, which raises the question of whether AMU's Chaplain Fr. Robert Garrity is correct in saying "Ave Maria Univeristy is not an ordinary university. We have lofty goals and high standards" (Naples News, March 2007). The motivation behind Edison College's decision was to come into compliance with SACS accreditation standards that mandate professors have at least "18 graduate semester hours in their teaching" area. AMU had one SACS application returned, and currently has no application in.

Healy also appears to shrug-off the origin of complaints from students:

But if morale is impaired, I suggest it is precisely because of the chronic complaints and the exaggerated criticism that Janet and a few dissatisfied faculty continue to make.



In The Two Towers, Eomer returns from the battlefield to tell King Theoden that his son was mortally wounded by Orcs who are freely roaming the kingdom and "killing at will". Eomer implores the King to defend the country. In response, the King's adviser, Grima Wormtongue, says "Why do you lay these troubles on an already troubled mind? Can you not see? Your uncle [the King] is wearied by your malcontent, your war-mongering." How much easier it is to stand before the king and label the messenger of difficult news a rebellious malcontent.

[Fabian]

I'm just getting back here - I've been traveling a lot. I just read Gratia Plena's post from May 6. Interesting investigation work. It sort of comes down to one thing....who you believe.

I can affirm that many (and close to all) faculty like Fr. Fessio.....as a priest. Not as an administrator. In fact, I couldn't name one who likes him in administration. Do some prefer him to Tom or Nick? Maybe. They don't trust Nick or Tom. They see what happened at AMC and AMSOL, and the numerous faculty and staff the tag team has run off over the years. Some could even be using Fr. Fessio's firing to find a way to oust Nick. However, the number that openly grow frustrated with Fr. Fessio as an administrator is substantial. It comes down to personal conversations I've had with many of them and with other administrators. Fr. Fessio wouldn't know this about the Faculty, because they are scared to death of him.

The number of people (and it has nothing to do with the Charismatic Renewal) that dislike Fr. Fessio the administrator is substantial. The number who have left because of him is substantial.

As for the John Gordon connection, all I can say is that an administrator of the university told me that the hiring of John is why Fr. Fessio got fired (another administrator confirmed it). Fr. Fessio knows this.....whether he wants to admit it to you or not. However "excited" (and that is Fr. Fessio's word anyway) Tom was about Gordon on the weekend was not present by Wednesday when he was fired. You are right that Nick and others may have gotten to Tom, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Fr. Fessio hired Gordon without Nick's approval, and Nick won the struggle.

This entire thing is a total mess. Fr. Fessio, Tom, Nick - all of them are a mess. I came here to shead light on Fr. Fessio not having clean hands in this. Asking him if he's clean in all of this won't get you the truth on this one. Fr. Fessio can stir the pot pretty good himself.