Valpo Strategic Plan

[DejaVU]

David81: great finding and post. So revealing. It does reinforce my observation that this was an issue that was neglected time and time again...
Maybe the faculty as a whole is also at fault for being "too nice". Now, some of them raise the stink over the paintings...Would be awfully great if the same revolutionary energy happened years ago  (or now) over compensation

People also sometime mistake the full meaning of the compensation. It is not only about making enough to put a roof over head and eat. Clearly if 50K allows one to live in Valparaiso  then a brain surgeon can get by with the same after all he belongs to the same species. Yet no sane person would expect a surgeon to earn 50K. My point is that the compensation reflects a certain path in life which, once chosen, implies not only talent and sacrifices but lost opportunities.
One thing about certain fields in academia is that the more one gets into the education side of things the less marketable that person is for jobs outside academia. THis is not true for all fields but it is for many.

Anyway, as I said before, I don't expect Padilla to turn leaves into dollars but, my God, do I wish I see him as the captain of a sinking ship trying desperately to keep it afloat.  I wanna see some fervor there worthy of the moment. Try to plug a freaking hole now and stop re-arranging the seats on Titanic.

Who knows maybe is trying to do all that and I can't see it...Would be more than happy to give credit when due

[crusadermoe]

David81 listed interesting numbers.  We know that college prices have risen much faster than the CPI. In fact it is by far the fastest increase of all products.  All of them are irritating, but only #2 can be addressed in reality.

I would guess there are at least 3 causes for costs to have grown so much faster since '79-80 than faculty salaries. 

1)  The "sticker price" is raised well beyond expected per student income for branding reasons and for parents to brag that Johnny got $20,000 in "scholarships."
2)   The ratio of non-faculty personnel cost to students is vastly higher than '79-80.  I suspect we would be angry to learn that cost.
3)   Education costs are very personnel driven.  Health insurance is another cost that rose MUCH faster than inflation since '79-80.

[DejaVU]

ValpoDiaspora: interesting perspective on keeping faculty and the board pitted against each-other. Never thought about that...
One more thing to add about the inflated administration. Some of these higher up positions not only are useless...But they are also invented for political reasons and the person that gets into that position needs to justify his/her own existence. Often that results in some "interventions" that will ultimately create more work for the faculty.   They often invent a problem that fits the "solution" defining their own existence. It's bad enough that they draw from the pitiful salary pot but they often increase the work burden

[David81]

Crusadermoe, agree 100% on your #2 -- Administrative bloat has become the biggest source of personnel expansion in higher ed, and I'm sure VU is no exception. The budget implications are huge, as these admin titles proliferate almost comically, with darn good salaries, often more than faculty. How about "Deputy assistant dean for evaluating new towel dispensers," $90,000. OK, just kidding on that, but not by much!

Diaspora, agree 100% on your #4 -- Raising caps on student loan limits only invites institutions to keep raising their tuition. I've had disagreements with folks on this point. They say, but, but, how will students be able to afford college/grad school/professional school if you cap student loan amounts? My reply: These schools need students, and that includes those who take out loans to subsidize their educations. They'll have to either cap their tuition and/or give more generous gift aid -- or, face lots of students disguised as empty seats.

[crusadermoe]

ValpoDiaspora makes the bloat case from another potential angle. 

We don't know the exact figures. But administrators may well have perfected the "shiny object" technique he describes. Does cutting the small salaries out of the A&S departments and closing small majors really cut costs that far as compared to cutting back the roles that generate zero revenue?

[David81]

My experience on the role of administrators as situating themselves between board and faculty has been one of senior administration playing that faculty sabotage role with the board, whereas mid-level administrators (including those who owe their jobs to admin bloat) tend to try to keep their heads down when the salvos are traded among the three constituencies. A couple of university presidents ago at my school, we had a guy who tried to work with our board to get rid of tenure through a sneaky gambit using a new proposed draft of the university faculty handbook. Fortunately, some of us were on it and put up a ferocious and ultimately successful opposition. Things are much calmer now on that front.

I find that the worst aspect of mid-level administrative bloat is that some of these folks become multi-level gatekeepers who make it more time consuming and sometimes harder to get simple things done. Last semester, my request to have a public event I was hosting recorded and posted to the school's YouTube page had to go through at least three administrators, ultimately concluding with a two-day exchange of emails with a guy who apparently was bound and determined to wear me down to the point where I'd agree to have the recording posted to a 3rd party site that most people using search engines will never find. He underestimated my determination, however, and eventually relented. But the energy required to deal with that kind of B.S. is draining. I came away thinking, ...and we're paying people to do this s**t?

[valpo95]

The sticker price is a terrible benchmark. In the 1980s and 1990s, many universities increased their tuition prices and simultaneously increased their financial aid grants and so-called scholarships. This occurred for a variety of reasons, yet one was that the sticker price was perceived as a mark of quality, and if a school's peer institutions did it, then it made sense for that school to do it as well. Second, as tuition increased, the aid awards did not once a student entered the university - a student that got a 50% "scholarship discount" in year 1 might only be getting a 40% scholarship discount by year 4. Yet for that student, it probably did not matter all that much. It was a reasonable decision for the school, as long as the tuition prices could keep going up. In addition, typically a few students paid the full price so that was more revenue for the university. Again, it was not just VU, yet many of its peers did the same thing.

The downside of this is that over time, many students and families had the perception that the sticker price was the actual tuition, so some of them did not apply thinking that it was too expensive. It is easy to see why - If you compare Indiana and Purdue's in-state tuition of $11K and $10K, why would someone want to come to VU and pay tuition of $45K? The difference is that most students will get a significant discount to go to VU, and may end up paying nearly full tuition at IU or Purdue. (The other interesting thing is that typically, the living expenses are about the same for any of the universities.)

[David81]

The sticker price is a terrible benchmark. In the 1980s and 1990s, many universities increased their tuition prices and simultaneously increased their financial aid grants and so-called scholarships. This occurred for a variety of reasons, yet one was that the sticker price was perceived as a mark of quality, and if a school's peer institutions did it, then it made sense for that school to do it as well. Second, as tuition increased, the aid awards did not once a student entered the university - a student that got a 50% "scholarship discount" in year 1 might only be getting a 40% scholarship discount by year 4. Yet for that student, it probably did not matter all that much. It was a reasonable decision for the school, as long as the tuition prices could keep going up. In addition, typically a few students paid the full price so that was more revenue for the university. Again, it was not just VU, yet many of its peers did the same thing.

The downside of this is that over time, many students and families had the perception that the sticker price was the actual tuition, so some of them did not apply thinking that it was too expensive. It is easy to see why - If you compare Indiana and Purdue's in-state tuition of $11K and $10K, why would someone want to come to VU and pay tuition of $45K? The difference is that most students will get a significant discount to go to VU, and may end up paying nearly full tuition at IU or Purdue. (The other interesting thing is that typically, the living expenses are about the same for any of the universities.)

Valpo95, while sticker price is not the only benchmark to be considered, it's not exactly a terrible one for the reason mentioned in your 2nd paragraph. The opt-outs who don't even bother applying may reduce the socioeconomic diversity in an incoming class.

Furthermore, gift money increases did not cover tuition increases for those who need financial aid to go to school, not even close. We would not have the exorbitant student debt service of today had it been otherwise.

[valpopal]

As I mentioned in a post the other day, "I attended a faculty meeting with Padilla and his cabinet last week in which all the details of the art sale plan and the Board's overall budget were offered. For the sake of ethics, I cannot repeat any of the conversation here."


However, as part of the administration's coordinated public relations campaign, Padilla offered "an exclusive interview" on the front page of the local newspaper today in which he now revealed one of the details disclosed in our meeting. He is seeking to sell the O'Keeffe for $7 million rather than $15 million, the price that had been reported previously and for which museum director Brauer said the artwork had been valued in a 2016 appraisal. If Brauer and Padilla are both accurate, this cut-rate sale might be a result of the manner in which the university has proceeded, trying to operate secretly behind closed doors and looking to sell the artwork privately rather than in an open auction where it would garner a much higher income, simply to avoid further embarrassment and censure by other museums who would refuse to participate in an auction. Consequently, the painting could more likely be sold to an individual rather than a museum and be withheld from future public viewing. Also importantly, if it is true that the painting could be worth as much as $15 million, but the university lets it go for less than half that price in a private sale, that would be even more shameful.


On another note, the NWI Times article continues a narrative previously seen in other news reports that this controversy is a duel between Padilla and Brauer. In the Valparaiso University community this is not a wise tactic for the VU public relations effort, since Brauer is one of its most beloved and revered members. Padilla will come up short every time.   

[valpo95]

I'm no art expert, yet often the appraised value is much higher than the market value - this is common for insurance purposes. The highest price ever for an O'Keeffe that I could find was $44M, and it is hard to say what this particular painting would bring at auction or at a private sale.

What seems more disappointing is that this process is so badly mismanaged from a public relations perspective. The president had to know it would be a public-relations nightmare, and that is exactly what it has become.

[vu72]

Could they have proposed selling the Art in order to secure/endow the Brauer or the Communications and Arts department, and then diverted the funds ordinarily paid out of general budget for those arts programs to renovate the dorms?

In these times, I feel like arts defenders might have been more willing to support the sale if it were somehow bringing them a real benefit, like ensuring the protection of arts staff and programs from getting cut, even if it were an indirect way of moving assets around to get the dorms fixed.

Maybe that wasn't possible for some logistical/legal reason, but the headlines sure would have looked a lot better if they were separate:

"Valpo endows permanent Arts faculty, through tough decision to part with Georgia O'Keefe. The newly promoted "Brauer Endowed Chair of Painting" will be hosting a Master class..."

"Valpo constructs beautiful freshman dorms to improve residential community!"

Sneaky!  I like it!

[David81]

I'm no art expert, yet often the appraised value is much higher than the market value - this is common for insurance purposes. The highest price ever for an O'Keeffe that I could find was $44M, and it is hard to say what this particular painting would bring at auction or at a private sale.

What seems more disappointing is that this process is so badly mismanaged from a public relations perspective. The president had to know it would be a public-relations nightmare, and that is exactly what it has become.

valpo95, I've been wondering the same thing about anticipating the public relations aspect. Did no one anticipate that this could blow up on them? Or maybe they thought it could happen, but assumed they could ride it out and that the art sale will be forgotten when everyone sees how fancy the new digs happen to be?

And now it appears that the anticipated sales prices are much lower than originally shared. Oh boy.......

[Valporainsnow]

The details on Bradley led me to peruse the Bradley U. website and get a sense of how they landed that huge $100 million commitment.  No luck on that front yet.

I found a Peoria Journal-Star article entitled "Bradley University unveils new, $100 million business-engineering building" dated November 1, 2019 about the Bradley BECC dedication. It adds a bit more info about funding.

The project had the most individual donors of any in Bradley's history up to that point. Fourteen donors gave at least $1 million each, totaling $28 million between them. Local state legislators also worked to provide some state funding. The article did not state how much state funding went toward the building, nor did it state the sources of the remaining funds.

I'm still not able to post external links, but the article is easily found searching for the title in Google. It doesn't appear to be paywalled.

[crusadermoe]

Well thank you for the specifics toward my memory. Bradley landed 14 gifts of $1 million or more for a total of $28 million toward their $100 million project.

Now Bradley hired the #2 Valpo guy who was not chosen as the new Valpo VP. Prior to Valpo he was a leader at DePauw (which  has a $600 million endowment.) 

On a close read of the announcement, you can see that the newly appointed VP did her major gift work at Purdue Northwest. I suspect they don't have a 5-figure endowment. But I am open to correction. So.....Beacons plus Brauer plus.....?  Yikes.

[valpo95]

Could they have proposed selling the Art in order to secure/endow the Brauer or the Communications and Arts department, and then diverted the funds ordinarily paid out of general budget for those arts programs to renovate the dorms?

In these times, I feel like arts defenders might have been more willing to support the sale if it were somehow bringing them a real benefit, like ensuring the protection of arts staff and programs from getting cut, even if it were an indirect way of moving assets around to get the dorms fixed.

Maybe that wasn't possible for some logistical/legal reason, but the headlines sure would have looked a lot better if they were separate:

"Valpo endows permanent Arts faculty, through tough decision to part with Georgia O'Keefe. The newly promoted "Brauer Endowed Chair of Painting" will be hosting a Master class..."

"Valpo constructs beautiful freshman dorms to improve residential community!"

valpo22 - an excellent idea. I was thinking the same thing yet hadn't had time to post it. I think a combination of this approach could have worked.

Imagine if the paintings were sold for $20M: Devote $1M as an endowment to support the operations of Brauer and/or the VUCA, and another $1M to pay for acquisition of new pieces for the collection for the next decade (say $100K per year)-the other headline would be "Valpo Sells Beloved Paintings, Looks to Add to Collection."  This would result in $18.9M available for new dorms right now, more funding for operating expenses, and some new art. Even the $1M increase in endowment could be used to guarantee part of a construction loan.

Why random fans on a message board can come up with these ideas (or at least be aware of the public relations issues) is surprising.   

[crusadermoe]

The VU Alumni Association ostensibly has a member on the VU board.  In the 80s that person was elected by ballot by every alum who attended Homecoming. 

VU95 - Could you find out the election process now?  Grassroots influence is important.  And how are the actual board members elected?   I probably have this quote wrong.......

John Adams - "Government only has power to the extent it is chosen by the governed." 

[FWalum]

The VU Alumni Association ostensibly has a member on the VU board.  In the 80s that person was elected by ballot by every alum who attended Homecoming. 

VU95 - Could you find out the election process now?  Grassroots influence is important.  And how are the actual board members elected?   I probably have this quote wrong.......

John Adams - "Government only has power to the extent it is chosen by the governed." 

The president of the Alumni Board of Directors is chosen by the members of that board and voted on at the Homecoming open meeting (which few if any alumni outside of the board members attended), at least that is the way it was done when I was on the board in the late 80's early 90's. The Alumni Board president is on the Lutheran University Association Board of Directors. Alumni Board candidates were nominated by alumni and other Alumni Board members and ballots were sent out with the homecoming info packets. Voting was not done for board members at homecoming as far as I was aware. I am not sure how board members are selected/elected now.

[therevev]

The proposed sale of the artwork causes me worry that the ship is sinking faster than we have been informed. If the administration is at the point of thinking of the art at the museum like flotsam and jetsam that must be thrown off the ship to prevent the whole ship from going down, then how close is the university from collapsing?

This proposed sale not only endangers the relationship of donors to the university, it will also require prospective students to pause before committing four years to this school. The significant layoffs, early retirements, and program eliminations that have taken place over the last couple of years has already caused concern among the parents of prospective students.

The momentum of crisis is dangerous. The strategic plan of the university has established imperatives for growth, but I am concerned that this university has forgotten what happens when confidence is lost.

[DejaVU]

The proposed sale of the artwork causes me worry that the ship is sinking faster than we have been informed..

Well, they said selling assets is not uncommon occasionally during trying times. But yes, the perception and confidence is everything. But, hey, they changed the mascot. So if nothing else, when the current President retires he is sure to check at least one accomplishment


In any case, as a side note, the students should probably pony up more muscle because, believe it or not, they may actually have more power than faculty over the administration.  One claimed reason for this sale is that freshmen rank the bad quality of the dorms as one of the major issues. Either that is true or not...If it is, then maybe they are right to sell the damn thing. If not, then maybe more students should knock over the doors in Kretzmann and tell them what they really want in decreasing order of importance. I have the feeling that it is neither the dorms nor the paintings

[VUSupport]

What a public relations disaster as this definitely puts the feather on the cap of a not so stellar presidential run for Padilla. He's a shady guy and his desire to make Valpo an HSI is falling flat on its face. His hire of a new VP of Enrollment is another dumpster fire to his legacy. Getting ready to burn the boats soon with this sinking ship

[mj]

What a public relations disaster as this definitely puts the feather on the cap of a not so stellar presidential run for Padilla. He's a shady guy and his desire to make Valpo an HSI is falling flat on its face. His hire of a new VP of Enrollment is another dumpster fire to his legacy. Getting ready to burn the boats soon with this sinking ship

This is a cheap shot that's uncalled for. I'm not seeing the evidence to back up these claims.

[valpo64]

I agree with you  mj.

[valpo64]

I agree with you "mj".  It just goes along with some other cheap shots that have been fired in the past on this Board.

[VUSupport]

Don't be so sensitive Chief! Applications and deposits are significantly lower and if you say otherwise than either you're in denial or lying. The proof is there just ask your fearless leader

[crusader05]

One thing is I keep hearing about all these donors that are going to walk but...why don't they donate the things the university needs then? Step in and help fund the dorms if you think the art work is so valuable or offer to buy it and than donate it. When schools announce cuts sometimes you get alums who actually step up but all I ever here is complaints.

The university has decided they have an opportunity to be able to move forward on this reno idea quickly with lower enrollment as they have the housing still for all students and found a way that while painful allows them to do it without taking on debt or cutting operations/staff, dipping into donor or funding pockets that maybe they have ear-marked for Nursing or the Arena etc. It says nothing about their ability to meet their current obligations or to "keep the ship afloat" but more as a decision to readjust assets in a way that they think will benefit the university overall. The people out here screaming that it's a sinking ship are doing more damage than the selling of the paintings honestly. Students have been complaining about the dorms for ages. Citing it as reasons to stay as commuters, saying that it's why they choose other schools, or just complaining about them constantly.
If these ideas were simple and easy they would have been done already. It's rough out there in lots of places. Smaller schools than us are struggling, bigger schools than us are struggling.