Valpo Strategic Plan

[usc4valpo]

22 - I think there appears to be a buyout agreement between Valpo and Lottich where the result was not as bad as it appears. I think this is why the firing took an extended period after the season was over. I will still contest it is crumbs compared to the big picture, particularly if the basketball program hired the right coach, commits to the program and has expectations that a win over Chicago State is a no brainer.

I'll say it again, in today's Division 1 basketball, to stay competitive, this move had to be made. If the buyout was not made, Valpo should not compete in D1 basketball. If the university does not consider a successful basketball program to be important, then get out of D1. It's a matter of priorities.

[vu72]

But I'm not yet persuaded of the pressing immediacy of that priority

The alternative is a fund raising drive for dorm improvements.  How long might that take?  Years, in all likelihood, particularly given the recently completed drive for endowment funds, which I'm sure all here can agree was a very high priority need.  Given our relatively small alumni base, could it reasonably be assumed that $10 million could be raised quickly when most certainly donors are being hit up for a new nursing school as well as a new basketball arena. 

So we choose the fund raising drive and it takes three years to complete. So now it is 2026 and we start the renovations.  Only one problem--that is the year colleges hit the pending enrollment cliff brought on by the 2008 banking/financial crisis.  Valpo then is in a declings enrollment spiral, to put it politely or, more bluntly, we are circling the bowl.

[crusader05]

I think part of the issue is that day to day functions, including salary, are extremely tuition dependent which means enrollment and retention dependent. However, long-term investment and endowment money decisions are generally not.  Your ultimate goal is that you have a strong endowment that takes more and more of the tuition dependent stuff and moves it to being endowed but Valpo is not there yet (but will be in a better situation eventually).  Therefore you see this seemingly two sides of the mouth argument. We need to cut budgets or close programs but we also need to invest in dorms so we don't have to cut more programs. There are really no good options here: you either cut until you hit a size that's manageable for your current enrollment but that's gonna be   for morale. Or you work to increase enrollment and move money around to make investments that you think will do that. BUT that looks like you have plenty of money that you're refusing to use on salaries OR it leaves you at the whims of whatever the next class is coming in.

The other piece is that salary are always going to be the most expensive thing to fund because they are an annual cost that can grow exponentially vs a fixed one time cost that is easily budgeted for. You can say oh look  we have "x for this but not for that" but the question is does, say 10 million in salaries go far? or if that's a one time, non-renewable fee, do you see a far greater ROI that doesn't set you up for cuts?

I think that the board also made some stupid decisions during COVID(but then a lot of people did) that created a sense of bad blood. Those 5% cuts, the seemingly arbitrary way they cut faculty vs offering an ERIP first all did a lot of damage to morale. It also is unfortunate that there's a sense of distrust because as it trickles down to the students you are going to see a tendency to see the worst or see things normal universities do as proof there's something wrong with Valpo. That sort of Malaise is hard to shake BUT it could also be temporary as new students come in and if changes bare fruit newer staff may begin to have a more positive view.  I do think that once enrollment stabilizes a bit salary needs to be the place where all extra money goes as soon and as much as possible.

[wh]

Gift Acceptance Guidelines
Santa Clara University

"Tangible Personal Property. Tangible personal property is acceptable, provided that the University, at its discretion determines (1) it may practically use the property in carrying out its mission or sell the marketable property to generate revenue; (2) any restrictions on the use, display, or sale of the property; (3) the gift will not entail substantial storage, insurance, or transportation costs; (4) any carrying costs or potential liabilities associated with the ownership of the property; and (5) for gifts with an estimated value of $ 5,000 or more, the donor signs a statement of ownership and assignment, discloses any liens on the property and provides a qualified, independent third-party appraisal of the property. Gifts of this type may include art, furniture, coins, stamps, and vehicles."

IMO this makes perfect sense. To suggest that a university should have to track down the former owner and ask their permission to liquidate their tangible gift is a ridiculous thought.

Question: Would the Valpo faculty members who acted appalled over the university's decision to sell valuable art pieces find it acceptable if Valpo had a clause similar to Santa Clara's?

[valpopal]

Gift Acceptance Guidelines
Santa Clara University

"Tangible Personal Property. Tangible personal property is acceptable, provided that the University, at its discretion determines (1) it may practically use the property in carrying out its mission or sell the marketable property to generate revenue; (2) any restrictions on the use, display, or sale of the property; (3) the gift will not entail substantial storage, insurance, or transportation costs; (4) any carrying costs or potential liabilities associated with the ownership of the property; and (5) for gifts with an estimated value of $ 5,000 or more, the donor signs a statement of ownership and assignment, discloses any liens on the property and provides a qualified, independent third-party appraisal of the property. Gifts of this type may include art, furniture, coins, stamps, and vehicles."

IMO this makes perfect sense. To suggest that a university should have to track down the former owner and ask their permission to liquidate their tangible gift is a ridiculous thought.

Question: Would the Valpo faculty members who acted appalled over the university's decision to sell valuable art pieces find it acceptable if Valpo had a clause similar to Santa Clara's?

Hi, wh. You knew I'd respond, right? The policy you quote applies only to general gifts to the university, which is separate from gifts offered to the Santa Clara University Art Museum. Valparaiso already has similar policies, delineating between gifts to the university and gifts to the museum that have further restrictions for acceptance and limitations on later sales that could be made only to enhance the collection, not to be used as a common university asset, known as the Collection Management Policy. Museum acquisition and sales are managed at Valparaiso University by a museum collections committee. Indeed, here is a quote from the Santa Clara University Art Museum on acquisitions: "All potential gifts to the collection are reviewed and voted upon by the museum's Collections Committee. The Committee meets 2-3 times annually to consider potential gifts within the context of the museum's Collections Management Policy." So, in response to your question, we already have similar policies.

[wh]

SC's official Acquisition Process makes no reference to a process for selling donated art, only acquiring art. As university employees they would have no authority over the sale of university-owned assets. Moreover, SC's general rule on art donations makes no distinction about museum donations.

Thus, this whole issue remains a tempest in a teapot, complete with grossly exaggerated claims and misleading information that cannot be supported.

[valpopal]

SC's official Acquisition Process makes no reference to a process for selling donated art, only acquiring art. As university employees they would have no authority over the sale of university-owned assets. Moreover, SC's general rule on art donations makes no distinction about museum donations.

Thus, this whole issue remains a tempest in a teapot, complete with grossly exaggerated claims and misleading information that cannot be supported.

You are correct, wh, about general donations of artwork to the university, which merely have to meet the guidelines you quoted, and the university can sell any of those pieces whenever and however they wish. For instance, if you donate a painting of Christ College, the dean might want it on a wall in her office or in a hallway for students to see. Nevertheless, if a new dean wants to redecorate, that painting is subject to removal and sale. However, if you wish to donate an artwork to the university museum, it is only accepted if its quality and style fits the collections' aims or needs as specified in the Collections Management Policy. Likewise, for an artwork in the museum to be sold, that action must meet the deaccession stipulations in the Collections Management Policy. Both Santa Clara and Valparaiso have museum collections committees for oversight and to make those decisions. I say this from knowledge as someone who has donated work to the university.


Also, as someone who has served on almost every committee at the university over the years, I can tell you that other areas on campus also have oversight bodies supervising them as well. An example from years ago, when I served on what was then called the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee and men's basketball wanted to participate in an activity requiring travel that slightly infringed on the period set aside for final exams, they had to obtain our approval, which we could have denied.   


Information about Collections Management Policy: https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/developing-a-cmp-final.pdf

[crusadermoe]

So we are discussing the terms under which we can accept or sell the first-class cabins on the Titanic?   The board acted to authorize the sale of the art.  Turn the page.

[David81]

valpopal has consistently and articulately opposed the art sale, and it's in a spirit of honest dialogue that others can take a different view. But on a board where some folks still take a swipe at the name change at every opportunity, I think it's a little ironic to be telling valpopal (or anyone else, for that matter), in essence, to "get over it," when the sale itself has yet to take place. This remains a live decision, and the arguments both for and against are credible and heartfelt.

Personally, I'm still hoping that an alternative funding source emerges that allows VU to pull back on the art sale and still upgrade the residence halls. If that happens, then the Padilla Administration comes out of this with a win-win here and a lot of happy people about the new men's basketball team. That would be a great way to finish up the academic year.

[crusadermoe]

Ok. I thought the board acted to allow the art sale.  But yes, if it has still not been sold it's a live topic. 

[vu84v2]

An alternative funding source would need to be immediate - not something that takes 2-3 years. Delay is unacceptable. Further, it would not be acceptable that an alternative funding source (donor) would be sold on donating money to the dorms instead of planned donations to one or several other critical needs (nursing building, business building).

I realize that valpopal and others are very passionate about the art. Further, I respect many of the points valpopal has raised (though I don't agree with most of them). Maybe "get over it" is not the right phrase, but it is very frustrating that many of the people against selling the art seem determined to seriously harm the university as much as possible if they do not get their way.

[wh]

I'm glad David brought "hypocrisy" into the discussion, as this art sale kerfuffle is oozing with it. Imagine if President Padilla had announced that the university was selling art pieces to award significant pay and benefit increases and improved working conditions for the lifeblood of our very existence, the straw that stirs the drink, our silent heroes - our amazing faculty.

I can just picture these protectors of great art saying thanks kindly sir, but what you are doing, kind sir, is highly unethical. We cannot accept this money. And, kind sir, we feel so strongly about it that if you continue to go forward with this, we will be left with no choice but to stir up the students and turn this into a national story that will severely damage this university's reputation. Nothing personal, kind sir.

[VULB#62]

Actually, that is a good great  approach, WH.  Use the art sale to improve faculty salaries and attract great minds. Find another way (possibly real estate sales) to renovate dorms.  Across the spectrum of thoughts about a Valpo experience it should be a fabulous FACULTY. They are its greatest asset. Make them the center piece of our applicant recruitment effort. Right now that is the theme if you read the strategic plan string, but it is a lie. Put money into faculty, make Valpo a place where academics want to work, and reduce admin costs.  There is so much promise in the setting that is Valpo, but underpaying the heart of what makes a Valpo education so valuable is counterproductive.

[usc4valpo]

Happy Easter to everyone!

[David81]

I'm glad David brought "hypocrisy" into the discussion, as this art sale kerfuffle is oozing with it. Imagine if President Padilla had announced that the university was selling art pieces to award significant pay and benefit increases and improved working conditions for the lifeblood of our very existence, the straw that stirs the drink, our silent heroes - our amazing faculty.

I can just picture these protectors of great art saying thanks kindly sir, but what you are doing, kind sir, is highly unethical. We cannot accept this money. And, kind sir, we feel so strongly about it that if you continue to go forward with this, we will be left with no choice but to stir up the students and turn this into a national story that will severely damage this university's reputation. Nothing personal, kind sir.

wh, yikes, are you so enraged at faculty who oppose the art sale that you're now mocking them for assumed responses to a hypothetical event?

Furthermore, is this story (the real one about selling art for dorm upgrades) severely damaging VU's reputation? I think it's more accurate to say that it's putting us in the national conversation about financial challenges and hard choices facing private universities outside of the charmed circle of wealthy schools.

And if the alumni base is reading about the controversy and cares about the institution overall, then we'll see an uptick in donations -- such as during the upcoming Giving Day. Maybe not enough to cover the dorm upgrades, but at least a tangible response to support the University.

[vu84v2]

David81 - Maybe the steps taken by the people against the art sale harm the university and maybe they do not. But it is clear to me that the actions taken by these people - calling the media, engaging the art museum institutions - are intended to harm the university if the university does not take the actions that they desire (i.e., not selling the art). It is really hard to buy into an argument that the people against the art sale are trying to bring light to a larger argument regarding financial challenges for private universities. I also don't think that a majority of donating alumni are going to be thrilled by the controversy and will, thus, be donating more money. Most alumni who donate money understand and want to help (within their limits) regarding financial challenges. But, (1) many alumni will not like instability happening from within and (2) some alumni will wonder why they should donate money when the university is choosing not to leverage highly valuable assets that are not core to the university's mission. On the latter point, it essentially can be perceived as "if I donate more money, then I am effectively donating money to preserve the art."

[VULB#62]

I liken myself to Valpo.  We have modest assets — e.g., both of our well maintained vehicles are over 10 years old and have over 120k miles on them; we don't own a motorhome, vacation home on a lake or a boat (but we do have two kayaks!).   I have a comparably modest retirement portfolio (analogous to an endowment) that's getting clobbered lately  . Our house and property (facilities) are adequate, right-sized, but also modest. We reasonably invest in upkeep annually to maintain their value (our next project is for me to repaint our solarium which hasn't seen a coat of paint in much too long). We have to follow a budget in order to ensure we meet expenses.  A big part of our financial strategy is to limit debt and debt service. And we constantly are faced with choices regarding money management.  These choices almost always come down to "Must Haves" vs. "Nice to Haves."  Essential to our family lifestyle (analogous to campus culture) is travel. That, within some flexibility and fiscal restraint, is a "Must Have" — it is who we are. We occasionally give up, and in some cases have sold, "Nice to Haves" to enable us to travel.

I would suggest that Valpo also has " Must Haves" and "Nice to Haves."  And the museum of art is without question part of Valpo's "Must  Have" list, because it helps to complete what Valpo is. Without the Brauer, there would be a hole in the overall campus culture.

HOWEVER, I would also suggest that, with hundreds of works of art in its portfolio, each individual piece is a "Nice too Have." So, if the greater good can be reinforced or improved to the benefit of the University as a whole, the sale of a "Nice to Have" asset enables the University to maintain what it is.

[historyman]

I liken myself to Valpo.  We have modest assets — e.g., both of our vehicles are over 10 years old and have over 120k miles on them; we don't  own a vacation home on a lake or a boat (but we do have two kayaks).   I have a comparably modest retirement portfolio (analogous to an endowment) that's getting clobbered lately  . Our house and property (facilities) are adequate, right-sized, but also modest. We reasonably invest in upkeep annually to maintain their value (our next project is for me to repaint our solarium which hasn't seen a coat of paint in too long). We have to follow a budget in order to ensure we meet expenses.  A big part of our financial strategy is to limit debt and debt service. And we constantly are faced with choices regarding money management.  These choices almost always come down to "Must Haves" vs. "Nice to Haves."  Essential to our family lifestyle (analogous to campus culture) is travel. That, within some flexibility, is a "Must Have" — it is who we are. We occasionally give up and in some cases have sold "Nice to Haves" to enable us to travel.

I would suggest that Valpo also has " Must Haves" and "Nice to Haves."  And a museum of art is without question part of Valpo's "Must  Have" list, because it helps to complete what Valpo is. Without the Brauer, there would be a hole in the overall campus culture. HOWEVER, I would also suggest that, with hundreds of works of art in its portfolio, each individual piece is a "Nice too Have." So, if the greater good can be reinforced or improved to the benefit of the University as a whole, the sale of a " Nice to Have" asset enables the University to maintain what is.

Using your analogy I would say my own situation is very likened to Camp Wakahoma in Wakahoma, Washington. Extremely modest entity of excelled learning that can't exist without help from devine intervention on many more than a few occasions.

[David81]

David81 - Maybe the steps taken by the people against the art sale harm the university and maybe they do not. But it is clear to me that the actions taken by these people - calling the media, engaging the art museum institutions - are intended to harm the university if the university does not take the actions that they desire (i.e., not selling the art). It is really hard to buy into an argument that the people against the art sale are trying to bring light to a larger argument regarding financial challenges for private universities. I also don't think that a majority of donating alumni are going to be thrilled by the controversy and will, thus, be donating more money. Most alumni who donate money understand and want to help (within their limits) regarding financial challenges. But, (1) many alumni will not like instability happening from within and (2) some alumni will wonder why they should donate money when the university is choosing not to leverage highly valuable assets that are not core to the university's mission. On the latter point, it essentially can be perceived as "if I donate more money, then I am effectively donating money to preserve the art."

vu84v2, we may simply have a difference of opinion about intent to "harm the university." I think going public with this is within the realm of academic freedom and fair advocacy. And if it wasn't newsworthy, then it wouldn't be attracting so much interest.

Indeed, rather than making VU look like a bunch of fools or rubes, the national media attention makes the school more of a big league university, with a story meriting coverage and commentary. It places the school in the heart of debates over defining mission (what is the place of the fine arts in an age of vocational prioritization)and modernizing facilities (how can a cash-modest private university fund needed capital improvements) at a fraught time for higher education.

The stronger feelings may be just talk, borne of anger and a deep sense of betrayal -- all valid reactions if your life's work and devotion to an institution are being treated like just another disposable asset. I dearly hope that it doesn't get any worse than that. But if the art is sold, the price paid will be one of morale and loyalty.

[valpo95]

David81, clearly going public is permissible within the limits of academic freedom, and within the limits of advocacy for the benefit of the Brauer museum. However, I cannot see any likely circumstance where the the public airing of these grievances is helpful to the reputation or status of the university. If a prospective student is choosing between Valpo and another location, does the public controversy make it more likely the student chooses Valpo? Similarly, if a prospective faculty member has an offer from Valpo and other peer affiliate, does the controversy make it more likely the faculty member takes the offer from Valpo? No, and No.

It is possible that a few students who are especially interested in art would be more likely pick Valpo if the paintings are in the collection, yet the vast majority of high schoolers might know more about George O'Connor rather than Georgia O'Keeffe. At least in the next 3-5 years, a new dorm would be more important than keeping the painting, especially if it means another 25 students per year pick Valpo. If it is 25 more per year, that aligns with an enrollment increase of 100 students or so in the long run.

That said, this is the first major strategic blunder I have seen from President Padilla. He had to have known that selling the art would be controversial at best, and damaging at worst; the damage seems to be in the goodwill of key stakeholders and in attracting students/faculty. The only possible benefits could be that this might raise the urgency in order to make meaningful reforms that put VU on a more sustainable financial footing. Or, perhaps a donor(s) step up to fund important priorities. Yet for now, it does not help the reputation or financial footing of the University. 

[wh]

David81 - Maybe the steps taken by the people against the art sale harm the university and maybe they do not. But it is clear to me that the actions taken by these people - calling the media, engaging the art museum institutions - are intended to harm the university if the university does not take the actions that they desire (i.e., not selling the art). It is really hard to buy into an argument that the people against the art sale are trying to bring light to a larger argument regarding financial challenges for private universities. I also don't think that a majority of donating alumni are going to be thrilled by the controversy and will, thus, be donating more money. Most alumni who donate money understand and want to help (within their limits) regarding financial challenges. But, (1) many alumni will not like instability happening from within and (2) some alumni will wonder why they should donate money when the university is choosing not to leverage highly valuable assets that are not core to the university's mission. On the latter point, it essentially can be perceived as "if I donate more money, then I am effectively donating money to preserve the art."

vu84v2, we may simply have a difference of opinion about intent to "harm the university." I think going public with this is within the realm of academic freedom and fair advocacy. And if it wasn't newsworthy, then it wouldn't be attracting so much interest.

Indeed, rather than making VU look like a bunch of fools or rubes, the national media attention makes the school more of a big league university, with a story meriting coverage and commentary. It places the school in the heart of debates over defining mission (what is the place of the fine arts in an age of vocational prioritization)and modernizing facilities (how can a cash-modest private university fund needed capital improvements) at a fraught time for higher education.

The stronger feelings may be just talk, borne of anger and a deep sense of betrayal -- all valid reactions if your life's work and devotion to an institution are being treated like just another disposable asset. I dearly hope that it doesn't get any worse than that. But if the art is sold, the price paid will be one of morale and loyalty.

So, positive news is good news, and negative news is good news? Or, in short, all news is good news? Is that how it works?

It has become abundantly clear that the collective 'we' are living in 2 parallel universes of thought - 'inward' or 'employee' focused and 'outward' or 'customer' focused - with no ability to traverse from one dimension to the other.

Words from the Pink Floyd classic 'Comfortably Numb' never seemed more appropriate:

You are only coming through in waves
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying

[crusadermoe]

That's a fair summation WH. When you boil it all away, it is an internal perspective vs. an external customer one. 

I agree with VU84v2 on one set of customers.  The alumni and donors, no longer affected by the actual campus internal forces, will act like investors, who are customers.  As he says, giving will probably decrease due to the perceived VU instability rather than increase.

Only the Red Cross and other Aid Groups see increases when disasters hit. Padilla is aiming at the investor mindset in proving he has a turnaround plan even if there are valid opinions on both sides of the internal vs. external clash. The big money donors will want a plan.

[usc4valpo]

regarding job as professors in the liberal arts - is it an employees or employers market? If the first, why haven't the faculty fought for higher pay?

Also - if there are a few students majoring in something, does it makes sense  to sustain that major? Is it economically feasible with a decreasing enrollment?

[crusadermoe]

I like the metaphor.  a family restaurant competing on the amenities, but more importantly on word-of-mouth compliments on the service.  Indeed STUDENTS are the key both to the health of that atmosphere and to the revenue they bring.

Great post!

[VULB#62]

I second the metaphor. In my town there are a lot of corner bars and a couple of family restaurants. They all pretty much succeed if success is defined as staying in business. Of course, the majority of my town's population also thinks that a drive to the big city (Manitowoc) to get more than a butter burger is a big deal. 

But there are some who value well prepared, healthy meals and more drink options than five types of draft beer, two which end in Lite.  We're not talking Michelin 5* here, just a cut or two above basic. That is what private educational institutions provide. The extra cost is justified by an extra special educational experience.

Back to the metaphor, the chefs are trained beyond short order cooks, the ambiance is devoid of electronic poker machines, and you can hear yourself think. But such restaurants cost money to build out, open and survive. And the menu is more expensive as a result. That's where Valpo is, but evidently seatings for dinner seem to be declining. Time to juice up the menu, put a fresh coat of paint on the walls, perhaps refresh your social media, and replace those older steel chairs with some nice wood chairs.  Oh, and replace that stained carpet that's been on the floor for a few too many years.