The following two Sense of Faculty Motions were brought to the faculty in April and May of 2025 and passed with overwhelming support. Although not binding, they are a clear statement on the Faculty’s opposition to gutting Middlebury College in order to save Monterey over the course of 20 years. They are also a clear statement to Middlebury senior leadership that they need to negotiate with representative groups as we continue to navigate the financial crisis that they ignored to the tune of $300,000,000.
Sponsored by the AAUP Executive Committee and Faculty Council
Motion:
We, the Middlebury Faculty, demand that Middlebury’s trustees and administrators rescind the recently announced compensation cuts and enrollment increase. Instead, we call on them to collaborate with our elected committees to effectively address the causes of the deficit without betraying commitments to employees or reducing the quality of the student experience. We call on incoming president Ian Baucom to state his position on these measures, as they will mark his first institutional impact at Middlebury.
Rationale:
In their April 2 announcement, “The Budget, Our Way Forward,” President Steve Snyder, Provost Michelle McCauley, and CFO David Provost announced the end of the long-standing 15 percent retirement match contribution for Middlebury employees hired before 2017, among other austerity measures. This cut unilaterally reduces the compensation of hundreds of employees and breaches commitments the College made to its workers.
While this measure will result in significant financial loss for many employees, its broader impact on employee morale, engagement, and trust may be even more damaging. If administrators break one commitment without respecting shared governance, it signals that it can break others. An institution that breaks its commitments to workers undermines its own mission.
This announcement comes after a decade in which both our endowment and tuition have grown by twice the rate of inflation—and during a period of record fundraising. Meanwhile, employee compensation has not kept pace. Middlebury College has long touted its total compensation as competitive with peer institutions, even though our salaries are not. This measure undermines publicly stated goals for employee compensation, effectively reversing any progress toward competitive compensation. This compensation cut is being made despite the fact that the administration has declared that our instructional costs (i.e. faculty salaries) are comparable to our peers and thus not a cause of our deficit, effectively undercutting our educational mission to offset cuts to other areas.
Equally concerning, the April 2 statement announces an increased workload by expanding student enrollment “without a parallel increase in faculty or staff,” a change that will undoubtedly compromise our educational mission and campus culture, undertaken without any consultation with faculty or students. Claims that “we found we could support an undergraduate population of more than our historical 2,500” have been made without evidence, details, or consultation. In fact, we have ample evidence from the past four years that we cannot support an increased population without compromising our educational mission and residential experience: over-enrolled courses, elimination of dorm lounges, shortage of faculty able to teach FYSE and WT courses, overcrowded dining halls, and historically low faculty and staff morale.
Taken together, these two changes demand that we do more for less. Crucially, the administration’s process for implementing these policies bypassed and undermined the principles of shared governance by disregarding ongoing discussions with our elected committees. Faculty Resources Committee has been discussing potential budget savings measures in recent years, working collaboratively to find strategies that would both be least disruptive to employees and address the key underlying budgetary issues. Faculty Council has discussed over-enrollment concerns for years, with repeated administrative assurances that we would be returning to the low 2,500s as a target.
Despite these ongoing conversations, the administration took unilateral actions against shared governance. These actions are particularly dismaying at a moment of external turmoil and uncertainty, as well as our internal leadership transition; this moment calls for unity, cooperation, and mutual trust more than ever. For all of these reasons, the Middlebury faculty declares that these top-down changes to our terms of employment and size of our college are unacceptable.
SENSE OF FACULTY MOTION REGARDING THE FUTURE OF THE INSTITUTE AT MONTEREY
Motion: We call on the Board and administration to immediately begin a comprehensive restructuring of the Institute with the goal of closing the California campus within three years. With the institution as a whole facing severe budget challenges and the Middlebury Institute’s financial position continuing to deteriorate, it is the sense of the faculty that Middlebury can no longer maintain our California campus.
Rationale: The Institute has not met the interim targets of the current four-year plan, and even if this plan were successful, it would at best return the on-campus enrollment to the same levels as have prevailed since the merger in 2005, when the Institute was on the verge of closure due to under-enrollment. While we wish the situation were otherwise, the Institute’s persistent structural deficits threaten the viability of the entire institution’s core academic mission, and further delays will only worsen the inevitable consequences, as the College loses the financial flexibility necessary to implement these changes in an orderly and humane fashion.
There have been significant opportunity costs associated with the many heroic efforts to grow enrollment through our “Big M” strategy. Our leadership cannot fully focus on the College’s challenges as long as Monterey exists–financially and academically. Monterey has destroyed Middlebury’s finances, distracted our administration, and distorted our priorities.
Finally, taking action now allows us to maximize the opportunity to find alternate positions in the organization for affected employees, relocate programs where appropriate, and expedite the rezoning processes necessary to reduce the real estate footprint of the California campus.
Background: Middlebury is now completing the 20th year of its merger with the Institute in Monterey. Although the merger was originally justified by promises that the Institute would be a net source of revenue and reputation to the college, it has instead incurred enormous losses. While full accounting data are not available for much of that history, a reasonable estimate yields an average fully allocated Institute deficit of approximately $6 million per year, similar to its standalone deficits prior to the merger. (It is essential to include the approximately $3 million per year cost of shared services in these calculations, since those expenses represent the work carried out by staff, both locally and in California, necessary to operate that campus.) Multiplying this annual estimate by 20 years and compounding the lost endowment return approaches $300 million in total losses.
It is instructive to look back at what was said and promised in the early years of our affiliation with the Institute:
At the April 2005 faculty meeting: “[President Ron Liebowitz] said that MIIS will be self-sufficient, in spite of their $23 million debt. We are currently investigating whether the real estate involved, valued at approximately $37 million, could be liquidated if necessary. Bob Huth and Patrick Norton [then Middlebury’s finance leaders] and their staff are currently developing financial models for MIIS that would not affect Middlebury’s budget. These models include increasing enrollments and fundraising among MIIS supporters. He noted that some Middlebury alumni have come forward to ask questions. Although no financial support has been requested, several past donors have asked how they can help. He has declined any assistance offered at this point, as no decision has been made. He also pointed out that our operating budget is approximately $160 million, while the operating budget of MIIS is approximately $17 million. It is not a big operation.”
At the September 2005 Faculty Meeting: Pres. Liebowitz: “We will not use funds from Middlebury to support Monterey. Instead we will make subordinated loans to Monterey. Under California law, a corporate subsidiary was set up to allow Middlebury to be in charge, without incurring debt. We have $7 million cash in hand to support international issues at Middlebury and Monterey if necessary. We need to improve Monterey’s enrollments. If enrollments grow to 900, Monterey will be able to operate on its own. This year’s enrollment is 600, which is higher than expected.”
The enrollment details are telling: MIIS annual FTE enrollments were 698 in 2004-05 (pre-merger) and 674 in 2005-06 (post-merger). Enrollments peaked in 2008-2009 at 788, and have declined steadily ever since, despite increased discounting, a new dormitory, and the addition of numerous programs and centers, to less than 440 today.
Most recently, MIIS deficits have increased to about $12 million per year (after allocation) amid a roughly 40% enrollment decline. Current enrollment is half the original target of 850 FTE students planned at the time of the merger. As a result, past losses and current deficits combine to more than $25 million per year lost to the College’s operating budget.
Conclusion
Simply put, the financial drain of the institute undermines our ability to execute our mission and imperils our financial future. We therefore call upon the Board and the administration to immediately begin restructuring the MIIS campus with the goal of closing it within three years.
