Valpo Strategic Plan

[David81]

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.

Crusader05, I appreciate your contributions to these discussions, but I respectfully suggest that this challenge to those who oppose the art sale is unfair. It's like someone who doesn't think the University should do a buyout with the MBB coach challenging anyone who favors a coaching change to pay for the buyout themselves if they really believe it's necessary. I don't know how many people here have several million $$$ to spare to buy a piece of art, or have $375-750k to spare to pay someone not to coach for a year or two. But that shouldn't preclude anyone from entering a conversation about the university's priorities and the challenge of funding higher education.

I don't hear screaming about a sinking ship, but I do hear concerns along these lines. I happen to disagree with that dire assessment, but I do think that VU is in the same vulnerable position as many of its peer schools that could become really bad if enrollment isn't stabilized. Will the conversation scare away donors? I can only speak for myself. As someone who is making monthly donations + a bequest to someday fund a small scholarship, I'm not pulling that support because I oppose the art sale.

[valpopal]

if you think the art work is so valuable offer to buy it and then donate it.

That is exactly what was done. Look at the specs on the Frederic Church painting for example. It clearly states that the painting was bought and donated to Valparaiso University by Percy Sloan. The other two paintings were bought through donations to the Sloan Fund for purchase of art to be displayed at the university. This is why there is so much anger. I have never seen members of the university community—faculty (current and emeritus), students, community members—so unified on a topic as they are about opposition to Padilla in this instance. Those who could not agree with one another on past issues have come together on this one. Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings. The letter to Padilla by nearly 100 present and past faculty is a who's who synonymous with Valpo. Even the new director of the museum, hired by Padilla but deceptively and unethically kept in the dark about this plan during the whole process, has now come out in opposition. The destruction done to trust and morale is more extensive than most can imagine, and Padilla's reputation has been permanently damaged. 

[David81]

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

You're calling President Padilla a "shady guy," criticizing his efforts to make VU attractive to Hispanic applicants, and now trashing a new VP for Enrollment, a VU alumna with considerable enrollment experience at Loyola Chicago who happens to have a Hispanic surname? Please assure me that you're not going there by providing specific details supporting your claims.

Padilla is also trying to revive VU's traditional relationship with Lutheran high schools. He's hired a new VP for advancement with extensive leadership experience in advancement & alumni relations at Purdue and in the NW Indiana non-profit sector. Is that further evidence of being "shady"?

(And I happen to disagree with his position on the art sales, but it's a disagreement on the merits, not his character.)

[crusader05]

I guess my biggest frustration is just that it seems that no one wants to acknowledge that there are competing interests  and demands right now and someone is going to have to lose. Is it our enrollment or new students who get subpar residential facilities or is the arts who lose some prized paintings. What is more detrimental to the Arts at Valpo? These paintings being sold or continued lower enrollment necessitating cuts to programs and professors?

The only place I have really heard conversation about this is in this forum so that could be part of it. Compared to the mascot change which lit up my Facebook feed and led to former alums reaching out to each other I have heard nothing about this art sale.

It is upsetting that so many oppose it but also, what are the options? I feel there have been missteps on both sides but I believe that strengthening the overall university must come first.

[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

David,

I think my biggest thing is we constantly hear about donors threatening to walk if the university does X Y and Z and maybe they don't have the funds to do it but I struggle when we threaten a loss of donor money when, historically, getting donors to step up for things has been a challenge. The last residence hall was built with bonds because no one was interested in donating, Same as the new Science Center. I understand they have been pushing the endowment and there's only so much money you can squeeze but if there's nothing left than what choice does the university have but to re-align assets.

[valpo95]

Hard to know where to put this, yet figured it was best under the General VU Discussion area.

As of June 30, 2022, the total investments in the endowment was $326M. This was down from $350M in 2021. (This the net as of that date, inclusive of gifts and grants received less payouts and investment performance.)

Some things to note:

1) In FY 2022, the endowment payout was about $23.7M. The highest sources of revenue came from tuition and fees of $48.5M.
2) The total revenues (including endowment payouts and contributions) in 2022 was $119.6M, and total expenses were $120.7M. This is a net loss of $1.1M. (Yes, the University lost money even including about $7M of donations received in the year.)
3) As of 2022, the university had outstanding loans (notes, bonds and line of credit) of $126M, and paid out interest of $4.3M.
4) Significantly, there seem to be about $21M (of the $126M) that are borrowed two lines of credit in 2022. In 2022, this interest rate on the lines of credit was about 2.05%, which accounted for interest payments of perhaps about $420K. Looking at current rates as of today (LIBOR + 0.6%), the interest payments on $21M are going to be $1.1M.
5) The two $15M lines of credit expire on November 29, 2022 and October 31, 2023. I would assume that the line of credit have been or will be renewed.

The good news is that the University is not going to go bankrupt - they have significant assets that far exceed their liabilities.

However, it may be easy to say that the university should spend more of its endowment for any number of purposes. Yet it is clear that the University also has significant obligations - the reason they can get $30M line(s) of credit is that the have an endowment. In addition, the endowment payout makes up a big chunk of the University's annual budget which funds the continuing operations and programs of the University. Finally, interest rates are going up, so the costs to service the existing debt must be considered. It would be increasingly difficult to take out loans for major construction projects.   

[crusader05]

ValpoDisapora,

I think that's the main difference between this and the mascot.  Most of the outrage about the Crusader was clearly alumni based vs faculty/students where it seemed most of them were happy or indifferent with the mascot change.

I agree this seems to be a fight that is about more than just one thing but it seems to be mostly campus based or only for those really really invested in campus. For the regular alums, those who aren't paying attention to day to day it just hasn't been a blip. I'e asked some of my friends about it and there thoughts range from "they still don't have new freshman dorms" to "I forgot about the art museum"

[vu72]

Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings.

Um, you seem to have forgotten about a few "prominent" figures associated with the university.  Namely, the current members of the board who approved the sale.

[usc4valpo]

Padilla is trying to his best to keep the university moving. I get that most are opposed, but as least trying to provide solutions. Anyone out there have a better idea to upgrade residential facilities and other building requiring an upgrade.

Again Valpo needs to find an identity and work on their strengths, which I think are engineering, business, meteorology and nursing. Regarding liberal arts degrees, that's nice, but there are few majoring in this, and  I would focus more on complimenting liberal arts classes with those strengths. Yes, I'm sorry,  people are going to be pissed, but you can't please everyone with a shrinking enrollment and high tuitions where the cost vs. benefits needs to be considered. It's 2023, most students want to make sure their degrees can lead them to a sustainable career.

[valpopal]

Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings.

Um, you seem to have forgotten about a few "prominent" figures associated with the university.  Namely, the current members of the board who approved the sale.

Thank you for reminding us that the decision was deliberately made in secret by Padilla and approved by the Board without consultation or input from anyone on campus or associated with the museum on the ethical implications, including the individuals responsible for obtaining the art, the namesake of the museum, or the current director who was unethically kept in the dark while hired in the midst of this deception. Consequently, the members of the Board became complicit in the unethical activities.

[vu72]

Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings.

Um, you seem to have forgotten about a few "prominent" figures associated with the university.  Namely, the current members of the board who approved the sale.

Thank you for reminding us that the decision was deliberately made in secret by Padilla and approved by the Board without consultation or input from anyone on campus or associated with the museum on the ethical implications, including the individuals responsible for obtaining the art, the namesake of the museum, or the current director who was unethically kept in the dark while hired in the midst of this deception. Consequently, the members of the Board became complicit in the unethical activities.

Thank you for reminding all of us that you are unhappy about the decision.

[valpopal]

Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings.

Um, you seem to have forgotten about a few "prominent" figures associated with the university.  Namely, the current members of the board who approved the sale.

Thank you for reminding us that the decision was deliberately made in secret by Padilla and approved by the Board without consultation or input from anyone on campus or associated with the museum on the ethical implications, including the individuals responsible for obtaining the art, the namesake of the museum, or the current director who was unethically kept in the dark while hired in the midst of this deception. Consequently, the members of the Board became complicit in the unethical activities.

Thank you for reminding all of us that you are unhappy about the decision.

I was also unhappy about the decision to change the nickname and the mascot, but that was just a PR problem, not the consequence of an unethical action. How do you reconcile hiring a new museum director under deceptive circumstances, especially when the national association to which he is a member deems the university as behaving unethically, and he would damage his career if he had knowingly accepted the job? In fact, how do you accept that the president and Board have been rebuked by multiple national agencies who oversee ethics in such matters?


This situation is so important to the faculty, current and emeritus, because they recognize how crucial ethical behavior is in academics. Adhering to ethics is taught in the classroom. This action crosses a clear ethical line, which is unforgivable. The university's own Duesenberg Chair in Christianity and the Arts has condemned the decision as "violating professional ethics." It is not about being happy or unhappy with a decision. University presidents and board members can make unpopular decisions; but just as the current students are guided, they are expected to adhere to ethics even when it is inconvenient or not expedient.

[vu84v2]

Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings.

Um, you seem to have forgotten about a few "prominent" figures associated with the university.  Namely, the current members of the board who approved the sale.

valpopal - I realize that you are very passionate about this, but there is not universal support against the sale. In fact, i would argue that there is probably more support in favor of the sale. Your "prominent figures" argument seems to follow a process of "we talked with all of the people who are prominent who agree with us that the art sale is wrong...and they agreed with us." Do you have the voices from engineering? business? nursing? health sciences? I have not seen the signatories on the letter from current and former faculty, but I am willing to bet that there are only a few (or no) faculty or prominent figures from the professional colleges.

[NotBryceDrew]

In theory wouldn't hiding behind "ethics" as a shield to back one's own opinion be extremely unethical?

For everyone complaining about the sale: buy the paintings and leave them indefinitely on loan. Paintings don't leave and you have assets that lenders will lend against.

[valpopal]

valpopal - I realize that you are very passionate about this, but there is not universal support against the sale. In fact, i would argue that there is probably more support in favor of the sale. Your "prominent figures" argument seems to follow a process of "we talked with all of the people who are prominent who agree with us that the art sale is wrong...and they agreed with us." Do you have the voices from engineering? business? nursing? health sciences? I have not seen the signatories on the letter from current and former faculty, but I am willing to bet that there are only a few (or no) faculty or prominent figures from the professional colleges.

I hope you are not implying you believe those in professional colleges do not care about ethics. About 20 of the nearly 100 on the list of faculty signing the initial letter to Padilla in opposition includes professors from various non-arts programs, such as Engineering, Math, Computer Science, Chemistry, Biology, Geography, Business, Economics, Health Sciences, and a few former professors in the Law School. Those faculty from engineering further specifically identified themselves with Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Bio-Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering. This does not count many additional faculty who later signed the petition. Additionally, I attended the faculty meeting with Padilla, and I can assure you not a single individual from the faculty in any field expressed support for the decision. The sentiments expressed by faculty were unanimously in opposition. I don't know how much our bet was, but you could forward my winnings to the Athletics fund. 

[vu84v2]

valpopal - I realize that you are very passionate about this, but there is not universal support against the sale. In fact, i would argue that there is probably more support in favor of the sale. Your "prominent figures" argument seems to follow a process of "we talked with all of the people who are prominent who agree with us that the art sale is wrong...and they agreed with us." Do you have the voices from engineering? business? nursing? health sciences? I have not seen the signatories on the letter from current and former faculty, but I am willing to bet that there are only a few (or no) faculty or prominent figures from the professional colleges.

I hope you are not implying you believe those in professional colleges do not care about ethics. About 20 of the nearly 100 on the list of faculty signing the initial letter to Padilla in opposition includes professors from various non-arts programs, such as Engineering, Math, Computer Science, Chemistry, Biology, Geography, Business, Economics, Health Sciences, and a few former professors in the Law School. Those faculty from engineering further specifically identified themselves with Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Bio-Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering. This does not count many additional faculty who later signed the petition. Additionally, I attended the faculty meeting with Padilla, and I can assure you not a single individual from the faculty in any field expressed support for the decision. The sentiments expressed by faculty were unanimously in opposition. I don't know how much our bet was, but you could forward my winnings to the Athletics fund. 

I think that professional colleges should and do care about ethics. Of course, from all of the information that I have on the potential art sale, I do not see this as an ethical violation. For an ethical violation to be present, the ultimate decision makers for the university (current or past Presidents and Boards) would have had to agree (preferably, in writing) that the art would not be sold or that any sale would need to be approved by others. Just because it was never sold for a long time or because the art community (Valpo's and the various associations) feel it is an ethical violation (and/or that the art has nearly unlimited intangible value) does not make this an ethical violation.

20 people across all of those disciplines means, on average, 1 or 2 from each discipline. And this is current AND former faculty. Not exactly a majority - though perhaps additional signatories change this. But I agree that I would lose the bet if we held to my specific prior arguments. I would also argue that people who are in favor of the art sale are much less likely to speak up in faculty senate, as they may feel that doing so unnecessarily casts them in a negative light with some of their peers.

[David81]

So, to reinforce my argument that VU needs to strike a challenging balance between the liberal arts and professional disciplines, and to refute the argument that it should go all in on Business/Engineering/Nursing even if it means leaving the liberal arts behind, it's helpful to look at enrollment numbers and consider related issues.

TOTAL ENROLLMENTS (url says 2020, but these are 2022-23 stats)
Source: https://issuu.com/valparaiso-university/docs/valpo_fast_facts_2020

Arts & Sciences (1170)
Business Administration (330)
Engineering (415)
Nursing & Health Professions (607)
Christ College (297)

Of course, if you add up the enrollments for the professional schools, they outnumber Arts & Sciences. But as an academic unit, Arts & Sciences has the largest number of students. It also accounts for a significant amount of credit hours contained in distribution requirements for the professional schools.

Furthermore, we should factor in the Christ College enrollment, which is not a major in and of itself, but rather a significant complementary curriculum that attracts a fair number of professional students who wish to have a more well-rounded education and an affiliation with a very respected honors college known for its intellectual rigor.

ENROLLMENTS BY MAJORS/MINORS
Source: https://www.valpo.edu/institutional-effectiveness/files/2022/09/major_minor_FA22_v2.pdf

The enrollment breakdown by majors/minors contains too many categories to summarize here, but they reveal nuances not captured in the enrollments by college, especially in Arts & Sciences.

The A&S numbers show a higher #s in sciences, social sciences, and communications/media. What's suffering here is the humanities, reflecting a national trend. But wait, here again is where Christ College comes in. As noted above, it enrolls some 300 students (not reflected in this summary, because Christ College is not a major), and the curriculum is heavily weighted towards (drum roll) the humanities.

There are only 18 English majors + another 3 combining English and Secondary Ed. Does that mean you eliminate the English department? Not unless you want to undermine the ability of students to write clearly and cogently.

And what about the 9 Theology majors and 5 Theology & ministry majors? Is that area of instruction a market casualty as well? After all, kids these days are much less drawn to organized religion than before. Does that mean that VU should de-emphasize its faith side because of limited ROI in terms of $$$?

INTERDEPENDENCE

Basically, VU is what the academic world calls a "comprehensive" university, a term that typically means a private, regional university that offers degree programs in both the liberal arts and professional programs. VU adds a faith component as well. In the zero-sum frame that many of our discussions are operating within, building one component means cutting another. Yes, choices have to be made when resources are limited. But if you cut too deeply in one area, you can see an unwanted ripple effect that negatively impacts the program(s) you wish to keep.

To some degree, the different pieces of this University are dependent upon one another, even if they are not harmonious in worldview or purpose. If the leadership of the University cannot find a way to expand the pool of resources for all meaningful constituencies, then what you've got is a low-morale campus full of resentments and a sense of institutional decline, all of which feeds upon itself.

[ValpoDiaspora]

I don't know if it's unethical to sell the painting (just not that familiar with art/university/ norms), but I do agree with ValpoPal that it is problematic for the university to keep pitching itself to prospective students and hires as a place that values the liberal arts if the university doesn't intend to carry this through in decision-making.

Who knows what administration told the new Brauer director when he was interviewing and accepting the job, but it was probably the typical self-congratulatory 'Harvard of the Midwest' 'private elite liberal arts' 'Valpo excellence' lingo. I'd bet money they probably even talked up the Georgia O'Keeffe to suggest what a great tradition of the arts the Museum was participating in.

The university administration has been doing this now for a long while now.... talking up the liberal arts private education and appealing to the historic strength of the university in the humanities and arts *when trying to get prospective students and hires to come*; and then turning around shortly thereafter to say 'oh, well, sorry, actually the professional schools and the physical plant are what matters for the future; everything else is labor costs and assets to dispense with, to urgently position ourselves for the market!'

Come on, get the story straight one way or another! If Valpo is basically deciding to go professional & technical because those are the short-term financially self-sustaining ones that will get undergrad students into $$ careers, that's fine (not withstanding the actually quite rampant instability and layoffs in the tech fields, ahem!). But then the uni needs to a) quit promoting the liberal arts to get students and staff in the door, b) cut all the stuff out of the campus prospective tours about it, c) acknowledge the new orientation and be honest about the Ivytech/PNW-type market the Board and Administration actually want to operate in, and d) figure out a different and more honest promo line so people who do care about arts and humanities know not to waste their time & reputations moving there. How long can the university keep up the rhetoric of being a serious liberal arts core institution, while all the choices decade after decade, year after year, are otherwise? Maybe there is some stage of hazy nostalgia or earnest confusion that makes for an ethical gray zone. But at some point, it does/will become an unethical form of outright lying to prospectives.

Can we call this bluff? If the professional market is so reliable as the principle on which to decide university identity and decisions, then surely Valpo should really DO it and quit relying on the momentum of its former reputation as a comprehensive liberal arts university. If the humanities are so useless in recruitment, let's see how well the university can do with enrollment just advertising for a few years on the basis of dorms, Nursing, Business and Engineering. Let's see how long the doors of the Valpo College of Professional Studies stay open...

[valpopal]

This is a fine summary, David. You make excellent points. Although we need to be careful when reading the major/minor enrollments. For instance, when you cite 18 English majors. There are majors within English that have other titles (ie. Creative Writing, Professional Writing, etc.) If you add all the categories, the number for English is closer to 50.

So, to reinforce my argument that VU needs to strike a challenging balance between the liberal arts and professional disciplines, and to refute the argument that it should go all in on Business/Engineering/Nursing even if it means leaving the liberal arts behind, it's helpful to look at enrollment numbers and consider related issues.

TOTAL ENROLLMENTS (url says 2020, but these are 2022-23 stats)
Source: https://issuu.com/valparaiso-university/docs/valpo_fast_facts_2020

Arts & Sciences (1170)
Business Administration (330)
Engineering (415)
Nursing & Health Professions (607)
Christ College (297)

Of course, if you add up the enrollments for the professional schools, they outnumber Arts & Sciences. But as an academic unit, Arts & Sciences has the largest number of students. It also accounts for a significant amount of credit hours contained in distribution requirements for the professional schools.

Furthermore, we should factor in the Christ College enrollment, which is not a major in and of itself, but rather a significant complementary curriculum that attracts a fair number of professional students who wish to have a more well-rounded education and an affiliation with a very respected honors college known for its intellectual rigor.

ENROLLMENTS BY MAJORS/MINORS
Source: https://www.valpo.edu/institutional-effectiveness/files/2022/09/major_minor_FA22_v2.pdf

The enrollment breakdown by majors/minors contains too many categories to summarize here, but they reveal nuances not captured in the enrollments by college, especially in Arts & Sciences.

The A&S numbers show a higher #s in sciences, social sciences, and communications/media. What's suffering here is the humanities, reflecting a national trend. But wait, here again is where Christ College comes in. As noted above, it enrolls some 300 students (not reflected in this summary, because Christ College is not a major), and the curriculum is heavily weighted towards (drum roll) the humanities.

There are only 18 English majors + another 3 combining English and Secondary Ed. Does that mean you eliminate the English department? Not unless you want to undermine the ability of students to write clearly and cogently.

And what about the 9 Theology majors and 5 Theology & ministry majors? Is that area of instruction a market casualty as well? After all, kids these days are much less drawn to organized religion than before. Does that mean that VU should de-emphasize its faith side because of limited ROI in terms of $$$?

INTERDEPENDENCE

Basically, VU is what the academic world calls a "comprehensive" university, a term that typically means a private, regional university that offers degree programs in both the liberal arts and professional programs. VU adds a faith component as well. In the zero-sum frame that many of our discussions are operating within, building one component means cutting another. Yes, choices have to be made when resources are limited. But if you cut too deeply in one area, you can see an unwanted ripple effect that negatively impacts the program(s) you wish to keep.

To some degree, the different pieces of this University are dependent upon one another, even if they are not harmonious in worldview or purpose. If the leadership of the University cannot find a way to expand the pool of resources for all meaningful constituencies, then what you've got is a low-morale campus full of resentments and a sense of institutional decline, all of which feeds upon itself.

[historyman]

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.

President Padilla's office is no longer in Kretzmann Hall. His office is now in Heritage Hall in one of the old Law School buildings.

[FWalum]

if you think the art work is so valuable offer to buy it and then donate it.

That is exactly what was done. Look at the specs on the Frederic Church painting for example. It clearly states that the painting was bought and donated to Valparaiso University by Percy Sloan. The other two paintings were bought through donations to the Sloan Fund for purchase of art to be displayed at the university. This is why there is so much anger. I have never seen members of the university community—faculty (current and emeritus), students, community members—so unified on a topic as they are about opposition to Padilla in this instance. Those who could not agree with one another on past issues have come together on this one. Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings. The letter to Padilla by nearly 100 present and past faculty is a who's who synonymous with Valpo. Even the new director of the museum, hired by Padilla but deceptively and unethically kept in the dark about this plan during the whole process, has now come out in opposition. The destruction done to trust and morale is more extensive than most can imagine, and Padilla's reputation has been permanently damaged.

As I have stated before, I would prefer that the art not be sold, but I am more concerned about what is in the best financial interest of the university. First of all, most "gifts", which is what a donation actually is, to a non-profit are irrevocable. I do not know if restrictions were legally placed on these monetary and physical "gifts" by the donors and I don't think most of the opposition know the facts either. Did anyone in the "60's" actually think that these painting would increase in value a thousand+ fold? Second, you state "Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings". This statement is incorrect, because past and present members of the LUA are the most loyal and most prominent of all people associated with VU. Names like Duesenberg, Helge and Hansen are in that group. If those names aren't revered by the oppostion they should be. I know for a fact that many of the past and present LUA members were repsonsible, either directly with their own donations or by soliciting other high major donors, for at least 62.5 million dollars in the last campaign. That the opposition can so easily discount and not find the tiniest bit of merit in the recommendation of that extremely loyal, dedicated, and highly successful group is alarming to me.

[DejaVU]

As I mentioned before, I am not competent to pick a side on the debate of selling versus not selling the art, nor on the urgency of repairing the dorms. In my opinion the compensation problem (a decades old problem neglected by the previous President) is the most urgent issue given the current economic conditions.
I know it is not a sexy topic but it is the issue that has the capacity to destroy this place for good even if it remains open (and that is a big if)

So those who want to die on the hill of defending these paintings should ask themselves if they want to still have a University campus surrounding that precious museum 5-10 years from now.  What good is the museum inside a laughing joke of a school with overworked demoralized instructors working enough to not get fired and envying those who were able to jump ship? I know some folks who regretted they were not old enough to be able to get the voluntary retirement 2-years severance pay.

Now, on the flipside, I have zero confidence that the administration is right on this. I have serious doubts that the dorms situation is indeed the most urgent and crucial issue to address, so crucial that the risk taking in selling this art is worth it. I heard Padilla saying that he does not want new admits to pick Butler over us just cause they have nicer dorms...Well, by the time we make our dorms look nice, maybe Butler will add concierge service to their dorms and we still lose those students. That does not mean we should not renovate...I just don't think this is where the loudest alarm is

Finally, I don't understand why people don't attack the Board. Cause they approved it and Padilla, after all, answers to the board.

[valpopal]

if you think the art work is so valuable offer to buy it and then donate it.

That is exactly what was done. Look at the specs on the Frederic Church painting for example. It clearly states that the painting was bought and donated to Valparaiso University by Percy Sloan. The other two paintings were bought through donations to the Sloan Fund for purchase of art to be displayed at the university. This is why there is so much anger. I have never seen members of the university community—faculty (current and emeritus), students, community members—so unified on a topic as they are about opposition to Padilla in this instance. Those who could not agree with one another on past issues have come together on this one. Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings. The letter to Padilla by nearly 100 present and past faculty is a who's who synonymous with Valpo. Even the new director of the museum, hired by Padilla but deceptively and unethically kept in the dark about this plan during the whole process, has now come out in opposition. The destruction done to trust and morale is more extensive than most can imagine, and Padilla's reputation has been permanently damaged.

As I have stated before, I would prefer that the art not be sold, but I am more concerned about what is in the best financial interest of the university. First of all, most "gifts", which is what a donation actually is, to a non-profit are irrevocable. I do not know if restrictions were legally placed on these monetary and physical "gifts" by the donors and I don't think most of the opposition know the facts either. Did anyone in the "60's" actually think that these painting would increase in value a thousand+ fold? Second, you state "Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings". This statement is incorrect, because past and present members of the LUA are the most loyal and most prominent of all people associated with VU. Names like Duesenberg, Helge and Hansen are in that group. If those names aren't revered by the oppostion they should be. I know for a fact that many of the past and present LUA members were repsonsible, either directly with their own donations or by soliciting other high major donors, for at least 62.5 million dollars in the last campaign. That the opposition can so easily discount and not find the tiniest bit of merit in the recommendation of that extremely loyal, dedicated, and highly successful group is alarming to me.

First of all, the paintings were donated or purchased as part of the 1953 Sloan Fund, which was endowed solely for the purchase of art. Whether the university's lawyers can find some way to have the sale for dorm renovation deemed legal, I do not doubt. But the university cannot undo the determination by the American Alliance of Museums, the Association of Art Museum Curators, the Association of Art Museum Directors, the Association of Academic Museums and Galleries, and others who have denounced the proposed sale as unethical. Are we fine with this, and would we be fine if the colleges of Nursing or Business ignored rulings of unethical behavior set by their oversight associations? Would it be okay if Athletics ignored NCAA rulings of ethical violations? Do we have any standards remaining?


Secondly, my comment about prominent figures primarily included faculty, current or emeritus, as the context suggests: "past and present faculty is a who's who synonymous with Valpo." Obviously, I was excluding the Board members of the LUA (including Duesenberg, Helge, Hansen, etc.) since it was their decision that was being opposed in protest. I value the contributions by those members; however, that doesn't mean their decision isn't unethical, nor does it assure they are always correct. They are not. In fact, considering that they made the decision in secret without any guidance or input from those who would know about such matters—perhaps even the new museum director they were hiring or those who purchased the artwork in the first place—they likely might not have known the university's vulnerability to denouncements as unethical and future censure from the governing associations in that field.


Finally, I sincerely applaud the monetary contributions you cite. Maybe those who are so devoted to the university and were able to raise 62.5 million dollars in the last campaign, would be the perfect group this time to step up and to find a way to raise the money needed for dorm renovation, which would amount to approximately 15% of that amount.

[vu84v2]

The art associations listed above, from what I have read over the last several weeks, would condemn ANY sale of art by a university. In their mind, art has infinite value and thus should never be given lesser priority than ANYTHING else at a university. Who gave them the right to determine what is proper for Valparaiso to do? Valpo should care less what they determine is ethical and unethical behavior.

The major associations for the various disciplines in business, to my knowledge, have never condemned decisions made by universities. Accreditation boards, of course, may not renew accreditation if research and teaching standards are not met - but they are approving programs that are central to a university and its outcomes...not a museum.

[VULB#62]

Jeeze!  Pardon me, but this pissing contest is getting repetitive and boring. 

We have two strongly opposing views. Both sides (the ones with the frickin power to actually get something done) need to sit down together, and 1) first agree on what is best for the long-term growth and survival of the institution and then 2) arrive at a solution that both can live with. No one needs to be an absolute winner — except the university in the long term as a whole. 

And, BTW, none of us on this forum have any credentials that qualify us to participate in that dialog. Let's all move on to spectator status, wait, see what happens, and  then criticize the s[-]\¥ out of it 😜