Valpo Strategic Plan

[vu84v2]

Valpo is selling land not buying it.

As I suggested in previous posts (see below), I would not be so sure about that.
***
As we discuss value and viability of university assets, I believe the most interesting aspect of the Valpo Strategic Plan is the Vitalize Valpo Property Overview, which has some curious details. Especially significant is the Eastgate / Sturdy Road section for which an RFP (Request for Proposal) has already been done. While we are understandably and rightfully distracted by possibilities of a new ARC or Nursing School, my hunch is this could be the administration's more immediate main focus for near future economic development by the university.
https://vitalizevalpo.com/property-overview/

The news I was referencing last month is now public. VU has purchased the Strongbow Inn for $2.2 million cash. Faculty knew about this and it strengthened the opposition to the art sale when they voted their resolution in the Faculty Senate on March 15.

As per another post, the endowment purchased this property - not the university. For now, this means that the land purchase is the same as buying shares of a mutual fund with endowment money. I have no idea if the university will eventually bring this land into university operations (which would require the university essentially buying it from the endowment, the use of unrestricted funds from the endowment, or donors agreeing that their endowment donations could go for the land), but it is not a valid argument that this money could be used to replace proceeds from the art sale.

[valpopal]

Valpo is selling land not buying it.

As I suggested in previous posts (see below), I would not be so sure about that.
***
As we discuss value and viability of university assets, I believe the most interesting aspect of the Valpo Strategic Plan is the Vitalize Valpo Property Overview, which has some curious details. Especially significant is the Eastgate / Sturdy Road section for which an RFP (Request for Proposal) has already been done. While we are understandably and rightfully distracted by possibilities of a new ARC or Nursing School, my hunch is this could be the administration's more immediate main focus for near future economic development by the university.
https://vitalizevalpo.com/property-overview/

The news I was referencing last month is now public. VU has purchased the Strongbow Inn for $2.2 million cash. Faculty knew about this and it strengthened the opposition to the art sale when they voted their resolution in the Faculty Senate on March 15.

As per another post, the endowment purchased this property - not the university. For now, this means that the land purchase is the same as buying shares of a mutual fund with endowment money. I have no idea if the university will eventually bring this land into university operations (which would require the university essentially buying it from the endowment, the use of unrestricted funds from the endowment, or donors agreeing that their endowment donations could go for the land), but it is not a valid argument that this money could be used to replace proceeds from the art sale.

I agree with you, and as I mentioned in a previous post, I think the purchase could be a good future economic development. I do not object at all, nor do I argue this money should "replace proceeds from the art sale." We are on the same page here. However, the faculty's position would be that while the university respects the established guidelines for spending boundaries in this transaction, the administration does not respect the established guidelines for museum proceeds boundaries in the proposed art sale. 

[vu84v2]

"the administration does not respect the established guidelines for museum proceeds boundaries in the proposed art sale."

valpopal - I respect the passion that you and others have for the art. But from the many posts and articles, I have never seen anything that says guidelines were established (meaning written and signed) by those duly designated to represent the university (i.e. university President, board of trustees chairman). One party cannot create guidelines and then just assume that all parties have agreed to those guidelines.

Interestingly (and in the same context as the land purchase), VU endowment could buy the art as an investment (I have no idea if this would be a good or bad investment). However, if such a direction were to be pursued VU endowment would not (and should not) agree that they would never sell the art...since it would be an investment. Like the university itself, VU endowment's mission is not to be an art collector.

[valpopal]

"the administration does not respect the established guidelines for museum proceeds boundaries in the proposed art sale."

valpopal - I respect the passion that you and others have for the art. But from the many posts and articles, I have never seen anything that says guidelines were established (meaning written and signed) by those duly designated to represent the university (i.e. university President, board of trustees chairman). One party cannot create guidelines and then just assume that all parties have agreed to those guidelines.

Interestingly (and in the same context as the land purchase), VU endowment could buy the art as an investment (I have no idea if this would be a good or bad investment). However, if such a direction were to be pursued VU endowment would not (and should not) agree that they would never sell the art...since it would be an investment. Like the university itself, VU endowment's mission is not to be an art collector.

The artworks were obtained through the Sloan Fund, donated in 1953 as part of the irrevocable Sloan Trust Agreement, ironically signed by Paul Brandt, President of the Valparaiso University Association, with the approval of O.P. Kretzmann. The agreement's deaccessioning policy required any funds created from sales be placed back into this art endowment fund for future development of the collection, as is general practice universally at museums and universities. This has been the established authoritative and unquestioned principle in the 70 years since then, faithfully followed by each of the museum directors (Brauer, Hertzlieb, Canning) and every member who has served on the university's museum collection committee, all of whom oppose the university's art sale proposal.


The deaccessioning process has similarly been recognized as established policy at universities and museums across the country, and has been detailed in documents by each of the various professional oversight organizations, including the American Alliance of Museums, the Association of Art Museum Curators, the Association of Art Museum Directors, and the Association of Academic Museums and Galleries, all of whom have publicly denounced as unethical the Valparaiso University proposed sale. Even President Padilla, when General Counsel at Depaul, specifically supported and enforced this policy in the wording of that university's deaccessioning policy documents. The VU administration is the "one party" not abiding by these long established guidelines.     

[vu84v2]

In regards to your first paragraph, I would want to see the document (i.e., the Sloan Agreement) and who from the university signed the agreement. Signed with specific terms is binding. However, one group (museum directors, etc.) is not authorized to set or unquestionably interpret university policy. I am dubious that the Sloan Agreement has specific terms and was signed by the university president or board chairman because no one has produced the document. If I were making that argument, I would publicly show the agreement and point to the relevant passages.

In regards to your second paragraph, Valpo is not obliged to follow practices at other universities or set by outside bodies (i.e., the museum associations).

[crusadermoe]

Going back to the Strongbow purchase, I found it interesting to see that the Endowment, as an entity, purchased the property.  I guess that is fine and probably explained well by another person on the board who said it is like buying a mutual fund (simply another type of investment.) I don't know any legalities, but I would guess that this is the same concept as a Trust or a Pension Fund buying oroperty rather than a person buying it. 

That seems creative, largely in a good sense.  I wonder how much precedent there is in other schools. They would have studied this at length so a risk of loss in a growing Valparaiso metro area and probably found a good forecast.   

Kudos on creativity.  But let's hope we right the ship on an annual operating basis and buy things the old fashioned way.

[valpopal]

In regards to your first paragraph, I would want to see the document (i.e., the Sloan Agreement) and who from the university signed the agreement. Signed with specific terms is binding. However, one group (museum directors, etc.) is not authorized to set or unquestionably interpret university policy. I am dubious that the Sloan Agreement has specific terms and was signed by the university president or board chairman because no one has produced the document. If I were making that argument, I would publicly show the agreement and point to the relevant passages.

In regards to your second paragraph, Valpo is not obliged to follow practices at other universities or set by outside bodies (i.e., the museum associations).

In regards to your first paragraph, I have already reported the agreement was signed by Paul Brandt of the Valparaiso University Association. I don't know all the exact language in the agreement, but I don't care because I am sure it is porous and not airtight, since neither Brandt nor Percy Sloan could ever imagine the university selling artworks as assets to fund dorm renovations. I know the university's lawyers could easily find verbal ways to get around the spirit of the agreement. That is why I have never made a legal argument and have made the case on ethical grounds, where there is little doubt. The historical context over the past 70 years—as seen in the practice of the Brauer Museum's directors and the members of the university's art collection committee, as well as the national history of deaccession at university museums—clearly indicates the art sale is unethical. The various professional oversight organizations have all condemned the sale as unethical. The university's faculty senate has issued a resolution declaring the sale as unethical. Padilla's own policy as General Counsel at DePaul stated art deaccession could only ethically be used to enhance a collection.


Consequently, the university will stand isolated, but you are correct that there is no legal obligation "to follow practices at other universities or outside bodies" (or the guidelines of the campus community groups, for that matter), if the administration is comfortable standing alone on a limb as an outcast (despite the VU's emphasis on ethics in its mission) with hands over ears to block the criticism of being unethical, much like when I spoke to a senior official in a conversation about the university administration's practice; he responded that they euphemistically "don't use the word 'unethical' and prefer to call it 'nuanced.'"     

[vu72]

Consequently, the university will stand isolated, but you are correct that there is no legal obligation "to follow practices at other universities or outside bodies" (or the guidelines of the campus community groups, for that matter), if the administration is comfortable standing alone on a limb as an outcast (despite the VU's emphasis on ethics in its mission) with hands over ears to block the criticism of being unethical, much like when I spoke to a senior official in a conversation about the university administration's practice; he responded that they euphemistically "don't use the word 'unethical' and prefer to call it 'nuanced.'"   

Ethics, practices, outside bodies, campus community group opinions, etc etc etc, all should be taken into account, in a stable, well balanced situation, like for example, might be the case at DePaul University.  What continues to be overlooked/ignored is that in the well educated, feet to the fire board and administration members,carefully considered opinions,(for all we know) Valpo is facing an existential threat from continuing reduced enrollment.  Their judgement, it would appear, is that the negative reaction from groups who view the proposed sale of art work, from their respective "ivory towers", have zero idea what the guys in the trenches are facing.  When the discussion changes from "ethics, practices and guidelines" to cold hard cash survival decisions on Valpo's future, then and only then can concerns about what others might think or, God forbid, sanctions from art societies, be taken as anything other than interesting observations.

[crusadermoe]

So who owns the university?   If it were ever liquidated who receives the money?  Is there a beneficiary in the same manner that a life insurance proceeds goes to beneficiaries? 

At one point there was a rumor that a "Lutheran University Association" owned the university in that name.  Did the charter specify a way to elect the board of directors?  Are they a self-electing board?   The Concordias, to their frequent dismay as managers as administrators, are owned by the Lutheran Church.  The ownership of VU may not be clear to most people.  Does anyone know the charter for governance and any changes along the way?   The "Alumni Association" seems self-electing as well.  States own their universities. Who owns the private ones?

[valpopal]

...God forbid, sanctions from art societies, be taken as anything other than interesting observations.

I got it, 72. In the manner of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre: "Ethics? We ain't got no ethics! We don't need no ethics! We don't have to show you any stinkin' ethics!" 

[David81]

With the Strongbow site purchase, VU is playing an option pioneered by elite universities:
https://www.caliberco.com/what-elite-university-endowments-know-about-real-estate-investing/

This is basically using endowment principal to buy a different kind of endowment asset. I'm no investment expert (though talk to me if you're interested in some Borders bookstore stock 🤣), but it strikes me as being a smart move.

[FWalum]

In regards to your first paragraph, I would want to see the document (i.e., the Sloan Agreement) and who from the university signed the agreement. Signed with specific terms is binding. However, one group (museum directors, etc.) is not authorized to set or unquestionably interpret university policy. I am dubious that the Sloan Agreement has specific terms and was signed by the university president or board chairman because no one has produced the document. If I were making that argument, I would publicly show the agreement and point to the relevant passages.

In regards to your second paragraph, Valpo is not obliged to follow practices at other universities or set by outside bodies (i.e., the museum associations).

In regards to your first paragraph, I have already reported the agreement was signed by Paul Brandt of the Valparaiso University Association. I don't know all the exact language in the agreement, but I don't care because I am sure it is porous and not airtight, since neither Brandt nor Percy Sloan could ever imagine the university selling artworks as assets to fund dorm renovations. I know the university's lawyers could easily find verbal ways to get around the spirit of the agreement. That is why I have never made a legal argument and have made the case on ethical grounds, where there is little doubt. The historical context over the past 70 years—as seen in the practice of the Brauer Museum's directors and the members of the university's art collection committee, as well as the national history of deaccession at university museums—clearly indicates the art sale is unethical. The various professional oversight organizations have all condemned the sale as unethical. The university's faculty senate has issued a resolution declaring the sale as unethical. Padilla's own policy as General Counsel at DePaul stated art deaccession could only ethically be used to enhance a collection.


Consequently, the university will stand isolated, but you are correct that there is no legal obligation "to follow practices at other universities or outside bodies" (or the guidelines of the campus community groups, for that matter), if the administration is comfortable standing alone on a limb as an outcast (despite the VU's emphasis on ethics in its mission) with hands over ears to block the criticism of being unethical, much like when I spoke to a senior official in a conversation about the university administration's practice; he responded that they euphemistically "don't use the word 'unethical' and prefer to call it 'nuanced.'"     

I think it is interesting that in the previous post you seemed to emphasize that the Sloan Trust was irrevocable. That sounds impressive, but the irrevocable part generally refers to the fact that the grantor has received some benefit (most generally a tax benefit). Here is the legal definition of an irrevocable trust:

An irrevocable trust is a type of trust typically created for asset protection and reduced federal estate taxes. They are designed so the creator of the trust (the grantor), can designate assets of their choosing to transfer over to a recipient (the beneficiary).

Once established, irrevocable trusts can't be changed or canceled by the grantor (hence the "irrevocable" in their name). The grantor forfeits ownership and authority over the trust and is unable to make any changes or amendments to the terms of the trust without permission from the beneficiary or a court order. A third-party member called a trustee is responsible for managing and overseeing an irrevocable trust.

I don't know that the trustee has ever been revealed, I am guessing that VU is the beneficiary and that the LUA board may now be the trustee because named trustees may all be deceased.

I still would like to hear views on why the ethical stance of other third parties is more ethical than the widely accepted ethical practice (backed by legal requirements) that nonprofits, especially education nonprofits, should engage in Mission Related Investing. I would prefer that VU not have to sell the art, but lets face facts, these are assets held by VU that are, for the most part, nonperforming assets and as you stated:

neither Brandt nor Percy Sloan could ever imagine the university selling artworks as assets to fund dorm renovations.

Because in their wildest dreams they would have never foreseen that the value of just the O'Keeffe would increase at least 142,900%. These paintings were purchased by VU using money given to the university. They are unique in that they are both academic and monetary assets that have greatly increased in value.

I know the university's lawyers could easily find verbal ways to get around the spirit of the agreement. That is why I have never made a legal argument and have made the case on ethical grounds, where there is little doubt.

I think there is a lot of doubt as to who's ethics should take president. Should the widely accepted ethical museum practices trump the widely accepted ethical nonprofit Mission Related Investing practices that would dictate that holding a nonperforming high value asset is unethical??? Would the Sloan's, who had some regard and perhaps even love for VU, hold the value of these pieces of art above VU's mission and the potential demise of the university??


One other note, I don't believe the endowment could purchase the art because the art is already owned by the university. The endowment could buy the Strongbow property because it must be deemed a prudent investment and obviously was not already owned by VU.

[FWalum]

So who owns the university?   If it were ever liquidated who receives the money?  Is there a beneficiary in the same manner that a life insurance proceeds goes to beneficiaries? 

At one point there was a rumor that a "Lutheran University Association" owned the university in that name.  Did the charter specify a way to elect the board of directors?  Are they a self-electing board?   The Concordias, to their frequent dismay as managers as administrators, are owned by the Lutheran Church.  The ownership of VU may not be clear to most people.  Does anyone know the charter for governance and any changes along the way?   The "Alumni Association" seems self-electing as well.  States own their universities. Who owns the private ones?

I can only make an educated guess, based on the fact that many of the same people/congregations were involved with the Lutheran University Association's purchase of VU as were involved with the establishment of Lutheran Hospital here in Fort Wayne in the early 1900's. When Lutheran Hospital was sold in 1995 for 137 million the money went back to the founding congregations, forming the Lutheran Foundation. The Lutheran Foundation is governed by a board elected by delegates from the congregations. I believe that LUA owns the university. This is pure speculation based on how a similar/related group was organized.

[valpopal]

I think there is a lot of doubt as to who's ethics should take president. Should the widely accepted ethical museum practices trump the widely accepted ethical nonprofit Mission Related Investing practices that would dictate that holding a nonperforming high value asset is unethical??? Would the Sloan's, who had some regard and perhaps even love for VU, hold the value of these pieces of art above VU's mission and the potential demise of the university??

It seems your argument comes down to the single premise that some vague mission related investing practice, in which I see no reference to the category of university museum art, should take precedence over very specific art deaccession policies clearly stated in numerous statements by universities, museums, and cultural associations across the country. I'd also like to see a definition of "nonperforming" that would apply to the university museum collection. In fact, if you want to seek precedents, search museum deaccessioning and discover the fiascos created in the few times when such art sales for purposes other than collection enhancement were tried. There is a good reason we don't see any other universities bartering their art collections. Additionally, your premise assumes "the potential demise of the university" if the paintings aren't sold, which is a totally false dichotomy that implies if VU didn't have these three pieces the doors of the university would be closed.   

[Just Sayin]

These articles may have been presented in this thread. Searched and couldn't find the name of the author, so here they are:

https://www.artsjournal.com/worth/2023/03/it-is-ok-for-a-college-to-sell-art/

https://www.artsjournal.com/worth/2023/03/really-it-is-ok-for-a-college-to-sell-art/

[Just Sayin]

I think there is a lot of doubt as to who's ethics should take president. Should the widely accepted ethical museum practices trump the widely accepted ethical nonprofit Mission Related Investing practices that would dictate that holding a nonperforming high value asset is unethical??? Would the Sloan's, who had some regard and perhaps even love for VU, hold the value of these pieces of art above VU's mission and the potential demise of the university??

It seems your argument comes down to the single premise that some vague mission related investing practice, in which I see no reference to the category of university museum art, should take precedence over very specific art deaccession policies clearly stated in numerous statements by universities, museums, and cultural associations across the country. I'd also like to see a definition of "nonperforming" that would apply to the university museum collection. In fact, if you want to seek precedents, search museum deaccessioning and discover the fiascos created in the few times when such art sales for purposes other than collection enhancement were tried. There is a good reason we don't see any other universities bartering their art collections. Additionally, your premise assumes "the potential demise of the university" if the paintings aren't sold, which is a totally false dichotomy that implies if VU didn't have these three pieces the doors of the university would be closed.

"Randolph College's Maier Museum of Art in Virginia sold a George Bellows painting for $25.5 million to help fund its operations in 2014."

In an interview Saturday, Bradley W. Bateman, the president of Randolph (who is new to the college and wasn't involved in the decision), defended the sale.

He said flatly that Randolph may operate an art museum, but that the college "is a college, not a museum," and has no obligation to abide by the guidelines of organizations that focus on academic or non-academic museums and galleries.

"I have to say that the primary fiduciary responsibility of the college's Board of Trustees is to provide the highest quality liberal education available," he said. "The college has to be financially sustainable," he said. The college's endowment is currently $136 million, so a $25 million boost will be considerable. "It will help us meet our financial objectives," he said.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/10/college-sells-painting-25-million-build-endowment#:~:text=More%20than%20six%20years%20after,%2425.5%20million%20for%20its%20endowment.

[crusadermoe]

Quite interesting about Randolph College art sale in 2014.  It's hard to argue with the idea that the "tail (art) cannot wag the dog" (core mission and viability.)

On the Randolph standard, Valpo is actually to be commended for protecting the asset of a sale windfall for creation of a new asset (the dorm.) It looks like Randolph just decided to bail out their operating revenue in some fashion. Or did they put it into their endowment to yield annually?   

[Just Sayin]

Quite interesting about Randolph College art sale in 2014.  It's hard to argue with the idea that the "tail (art) cannot wag the dog" (core mission and viability.)

On the Randolph standard, Valpo is actually to be commended for protecting the asset of a sale windfall for creation of a new asset (the dorm.) It looks like Randolph just decided to bail out their operating revenue in some fashion. Or did they put it into their endowment to yield annually?

I don't know. It appears they have done this before in 2007. The then president said:

The college's goal is to raise at least $32 million over all to shore up its endowment and reduce a steep operating deficit.
"This has been a lengthy, soul-searching process," John E. Klein, Randolph's president, said in a telephone interview yesterday. The college changed its name and began admitting men this fall in hopes of arresting a decline in enrollment. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/arts/design/02gallery.html

[FWalum]

I think there is a lot of doubt as to who's ethics should take president. Should the widely accepted ethical museum practices trump the widely accepted ethical nonprofit Mission Related Investing practices that would dictate that holding a nonperforming high value asset is unethical??? Would the Sloan's, who had some regard and perhaps even love for VU, hold the value of these pieces of art above VU's mission and the potential demise of the university??

It seems your argument comes down to the single premise that some vague mission related investing practice, in which I see no reference to the category of university museum art, should take precedence over very specific art deaccession policies clearly stated in numerous statements by universities, museums, and cultural associations across the country. I'd also like to see a definition of "nonperforming" that would apply to the university museum collection. In fact, if you want to seek precedents, search museum deaccessioning and discover the fiascos created in the few times when such art sales for purposes other than collection enhancement were tried. There is a good reason we don't see any other universities bartering their art collections. Additionally, your premise assumes "the potential demise of the university" if the paintings aren't sold, which is a totally false dichotomy that implies if VU didn't have these three pieces the doors of the university would be closed.   

I almost don't know why I bother. I ask a question and all you do is reword my question in a manner to fit your narrative and then throw it back in my face without nary an answer. MRI is not some vague practice, if it is I spend a lot of time at investment and financial committee meetings discussing this vague practice. I doubt if our auditors think it is a vague practice.

You are correct, I should have called the art an under performing asset, the art in question is an asset that incurs costs such as insurance, security and storage. I am sure those aren't the only costs involved with maintaining a very expensive piece of artwork. The artwork generates notoriety, acclaim, appreciates in value, and lending revenue for VU. I believe that the artwork costs VU a significant amount of money each year, which one can swallow for a time with most assets because there is generally the opportunity to sell an asset at its appreciated value. Because the art only costs the university money and presumably can not be sold, it under performs when compared to other assets the university has prudently invested.

5 years ago we had donors that wanted to give us a significant piece of art, worth approximately 20 times less than the Rust Red Hills, to be hung in our library. There is other artwork in this space, but nothing worth more than $20,000. After researching how much additional it would cost for insurance, security and an appropriate display area we politely declined the donation explaining to the donors that this did not fit our mission of training church workers. It would have actually cost us money to accept the donation and fund raise for an endowment to care for the painting. Eventually they agreed.

I do not believe that VU is in immediate jeopardy of closing its doors, although it seems that a number of people on this forum are sounding the death knell. crusadermoe is asking questions about liquidation. Comments to the Tribune and Times articles wonder who would even attend this basically bankrupt university. Breaking News... this is not true. My point is that most donors with an affinity for an institution would be happy that an asset they donated had risen in value 142,000%, and for that asset to be used to further the mission of the institution. Brauer museum may be part of that mission, but it is not the most important part.

Please answer these questions, is holding on to the art more important than the financial health of the university?? How bad would it have to get before these assets can be used?? If these types of assets had been held by Concordia Selma, Bronxville or Portland they would have been sold to try and save those universities, museum associations be dammed. Have you felt the pain of these types of closures? I can assure you that closing a university is more of a fiasco than anything a museum association can dish out.

[valpopal]

I think there is a lot of doubt as to who's ethics should take president. Should the widely accepted ethical museum practices trump the widely accepted ethical nonprofit Mission Related Investing practices that would dictate that holding a nonperforming high value asset is unethical??? Would the Sloan's, who had some regard and perhaps even love for VU, hold the value of these pieces of art above VU's mission and the potential demise of the university??

It seems your argument comes down to the single premise that some vague mission related investing practice, in which I see no reference to the category of university museum art, should take precedence over very specific art deaccession policies clearly stated in numerous statements by universities, museums, and cultural associations across the country. I'd also like to see a definition of "nonperforming" that would apply to the university museum collection. In fact, if you want to seek precedents, search museum deaccessioning and discover the fiascos created in the few times when such art sales for purposes other than collection enhancement were tried. There is a good reason we don't see any other universities bartering their art collections. Additionally, your premise assumes "the potential demise of the university" if the paintings aren't sold, which is a totally false dichotomy that implies if VU didn't have these three pieces the doors of the university would be closed.   

I almost don't know why I bother. I ask a question and all you do is reword my question in a manner to fit your narrative and then throw it back in my face without nary an answer. MRI is not some vague practice, if it is I spend a lot of time at investment and financial committee meetings discussing this vague practice. I doubt if our auditors think it is a vague practice.

You are correct, I should have called the art an under performing asset, the art in question is an asset that incurs costs such as insurance, security and storage. I am sure those aren't the only costs involved with maintaining a very expensive piece of artwork. The artwork generates notoriety, acclaim, appreciates in value, and lending revenue for VU. I believe that the artwork costs VU a significant amount of money each year, which one can swallow for a time with most assets because there is generally the opportunity to sell an asset at its appreciated value. Because the art only costs the university money and presumably can not be sold, it under performs when compared to other assets the university has prudently invested.

5 years ago we had donors that wanted to give us a significant piece of art, worth approximately 20 times less than the Rust Red Hills, to be hung in our library. There is other artwork in this space, but nothing worth more than $20,000. After researching how much additional it would cost for insurance, security and an appropriate display area we politely declined the donation explaining to the donors that this did not fit our mission of training church workers. It would have actually cost us money to accept the donation and fund raise for an endowment to care for the painting. Eventually they agreed.

I do not believe that VU is in immediate jeopardy of closing its doors, although it seems that a number of people on this forum are sounding the death knell. crusadermoe is asking questions about liquidation. Comments to the Tribune and Times articles wonder who would even attend this basically bankrupt university. Breaking News... this is not true. My point is that most donors with an affinity for an institution would be happy that an asset they donated had risen in value 142,000%, and for that asset to be used to further the mission of the institution. Brauer museum may be part of that mission, but it is not the most important part.

Please answer these questions, is holding on to the art more important than the financial health of the university?? How bad would it have to get before these assets can be used?? If these types of assets had been held by Concordia Selma, Bronxville or Portland they would have been sold to try and save those universities, museum associations be dammed. Have you felt the pain of these types of closures? I can assure you that closing a university is more of a fiasco than anything a museum association can dish out.

First, I didn't suggest that MRI in general is vague. You omitted that I stated "I see no reference to the category of university museum art" in your comment about MRI, which makes your point vague for this topic, especially when the deaccession policies for university museums are clearly documented and have been previously quoted in this discussion. As for your question, "is holding on to the art more important than the financial health of the university?" That is a false equivalence that has been used as a talking point by some but has no relevance unless you really believe not selling the paintings would consequently result in the university closing down. I find that conclusion to be a logical fallacy. Before the sale proposal was raised by Padilla, was anyone going around and saying "Oh, my God, if we don't sell the museum's most prestigious works we're going to be shut down like Bronxville and it's the fault of those damn art lovers"? Even you acknowledge you "do not believe that VU is in immediate jeopardy of closing its doors." Finally, I wish every aspect of the university was so "underperforming" that it appreciated its value consistently each year to the "142,000%" increase you cite. 

[DejaVU]

If I may chime in. Again, full disclaimer, I am not competent to form an opinion on whether the art sale is warranted or not. But with regards  to that dichotomy of selling the stuff to save the university. Perhaps this can be reformulated like this:

The University needs money TODAY to prevent the risk of going under tomorrow. If there is no money (again, today) aside from selling assets then is it ethical to hold on to them and risk, if not closure, a dramatic further decline in size, value, people etc? So it is not about whether keeping the painting CAUSES the university to decline. It's just that we need money TODAY. Do we have other assets to sell that are less of a sacred cow? I don't know. Padilla should explain this.

I went to one of those meetings where Padilla was grilled over the art sale. And someone told him, literally,  "find another way to obtain money for the dorms". Wouldn't be great if someone from the anti-sale team find that other way and come up with 10 millions $ ?

I have this feeling that all this is like fighting for who gets the best first class cabin on Titanic.

[wh]

Well, I have to give pal credit for creativity. By last count, he has found 47 different ways of making the same claim - "selling donated art to help save the university is wrong." lol

[David81]

Well, I have to give pal credit for creativity. By last count, he has found 47 different ways of making the same claim - "selling donated art to help save the university is wrong." lol

If VU was so desperate that it had to sell off the art to cover operating expenses, then "help save the university" might be a more appropriate characterization. But this is about upgrading residence halls, not about keeping the lights on.

That said, I'm persuaded that dorm upgrades are an important priority, because the heightened living expectations of today's prospective VU students are a market reality. But I'm not yet persuaded of the pressing immediacy of that priority, because this also has the flavor of plundering the art museum of its most valuable pieces as an easy cash grab to cover a capital expenditure, without actually having to fundraise. (Of course, it's possible that extensive efforts to raise money for the dorm upgrades failed miserably, in which case VU stakeholders deserve to be informed that things are that bad. It makes the art sale proposal more defensible.)

Anyway, it's possible that the relative silence about the art sale proposal is due to some revisiting of whether that's the best funding mechanism, hopefully accompanied by the identification of alternate funding sources. I'm still holding on to that hope for a win-win, along with the right choice for a new basketball coach.

[wh]

None of us have a way to assess the university's financial position relative to sustainability. We either take President Padilla and the Board at their word, or we don't. Those who say they're not convinced probably don't want to be convinced. They're locked into an emotionally charged position based not on the "what," but how the what makes them feel.

[usc4valpo]

Practically speaking - revamping the dorms at Valparaiso is imperative. Students today take residential facilities seriously, and if Valpo wants to be competitive, this renovation has to be done.

In the past four years, my daughters and I went on college tours, and a significant amount of time on the tours is spent on dorm facilities. It has significant importance in influencing their decision. This is an issue that has to be addressed. I saw comments from student responses in past articles  that the dorms are adequate - that is wrong a copout to keep things status quo. Dorms needs to be upgraded, and it is high on the list.

Whether or not to sell the art, dorms renovations need to be addressed now - not 10 years from now - but starting in the summer of 2023. Tough decisions have to be made.