Valpo Strategic Plan

[David81]

I've been through a period of major leadership controversies at my own university 7-8 years ago that became very public, including regular coverage in major Boston news media. We had a very problematic board of trustees (which included alleged conflicts of interest, awarding contracts to "friends," etc.), a revolving door of University presidents....something like 6 in 7 years (or was it 5 in 6 years?), and a major attempt by one short-lived administration to undermine tenure, employment contract rights, and academic freedom.

Meanwhile, the place kept going. It was chaotic and stressful to be an employee there, and those of us who were taking part in faculty governance activities were especially wary and concerned. Some of us responded to media inquiries, others chose not to.

But student recruitment and the student experience weren't nearly as affected (if at all within the Law School, where I teach), and to most applicants and students it was just a lot of noise outside of their earshot. This despite the news coverage being much more negative about the institution and its integrity than the news coverage of VU's art sale controversy.

It was a lesson learned about how perceptions of a university are formed or not formed by controversies in the news. Sometimes even the stuff that makes you wince as an insider is a nothingburger to many others.

All of which is to say: If the art sale controversy is a deal breaker for some applicants and their college choices, well then, I wonder how capable they are of making wise decisions about where to go to school. Others will emphasize what they can learn here, how much financial aid they can get, etc. Same goes for prospective faculty. It's the $50k starting salary, the teaching load, etc., not the art sale (yes or no), that will be the difference maker.

Some folks are posting as if the whole world is watching VU and its art sale controversy, as a referendum on the quality of the University. Now, some people are paying attention, but mostly because of what the controversy represents, not because they think poorly of VU. (By contrast, the long NYT profile on VU Law in 2016 did put the school in a very bad light, although by then much of the damage -- some of it sadly self-inflicted -- had already been done, and the school was entering its last gasps.)

[usc4valpo]

22 - excellent and insightful reply, I completely agree that the middle management jobs, and yes some of them tend to be cushy,  need to be reduced as enrolled and faculty are reduced.

[vu84v2]

Let me add a few comments to valpo22's excellent insights:

In regards to why faculty do not "fight" for higher pay...unionization efforts and unions at universities are problematic because you have wildly different market salaries across disciplines. Many unionization efforts that I have seen have called for a pay scale in which everyone with similar experience and accomplishments receives the same pay. This clearly does not work because the market rate for an engineering professor is going to be higher than the market rate for a liberal arts professor. The university cannot agree to pay the liberal arts professor what it pays an engineering professor and an engineering professor is not going to agree to have his or her pay stifled. You can't even do this by college, since (for example) in business the market rate for a finance or accounting professor is different than it is for a marketing or management professor. I know one public university that does this and all they end up doing is having infinite exceptions (which makes the union fairly moot).

The method that faculty have historically used to fight for greater pay is to get a legitimate better offer at another university and then ask the university to match the offer. This is difficult for Valpo professors for several reasons. First, universities are not hiring like they have previously - thus few, if any, offers are made. Second, the most common way to gain interest from another university is to have strong research or other scholarly work (teaching is great and important, but it is much harder to distinguish excellent teachers from the overall population of professors). As Valpo is more of a teaching school, faculty members spend less time doing research and scholarly work - thus they do not have the productivity to sell themselves to other universities. Beyond that, I also think Valpo would probably consider it easier to hire a replacement than they have previously.

In regards to overhead and administration...I agree that this can get very bloated, but keep in mind that you need some people in these areas.

[crusadermoe]

I think Valpo has some "faculty chairs," whatever those are. 

Are those attractive to star faculty or a good retention tool?   How is a "chair" different than a regular faculty job?

[vu84v2]

I think Valpo has some "faculty chairs," whatever those are. 

Are those attractive to star faculty or a good retention tool?   How is a "chair" different than a regular faculty job?

Chairs are usually fully or (more often) partially funded by an endowed gift. The donor will decide that they highly value a specific field - say chemistry - and will setup an endowment that provides money each year to fund a top faculty member in that discipline. Additionally, sometimes a company who benefits from a discipline may fund a chair in that field - for instance, an accounting firm may hire accounting graduates from the college and will fund a chair for a leading accounting professor. For some chairs, there is also an expectation of research or other scholarly work in that discipline.

So yes, that can be a very good retention tool.

[David81]

Folks, just a legal point/clarification on faculty unionization at private universities, including VU: Tenured and tenure-track faculty at private universities are not permitted to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that governs unionization and collective bargaining, via a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision, National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University. The Court observed that the NLRA excludes from its protections those deemed managerial employees, and then held that tenured and tenure-track faculty are too managerial in function to escape that exclusion.

Thus, at VU, it's possible that non-tenure track full-time and part-time faculty could unionize. However, unlike many institutions, the lion's share of the VU faculty remains tenured or tenure-track. So....it's not passivity or weakness that prevents the heart of the faculty from talking about unionization, but rather established Supreme Court precedent.

Those who strongly oppose the concepts and practices of shared governance between faculty and administration and of academic freedom that safeguards faculty ability to participate in internal governance should keep in mind that without them, the "managerial" functions of tenured and tenure-track faculty would be sufficiently diminished to justify a judicial revisiting of that legal ruling.

[vu84v2]

David81 - I did not know that, thank you for posting that. As I think about it, I have only known unions for faculty at public universities.

[usc4valpo]

Stand up and be proud gang, and don't take crap from the administration!

[wh]

There are 3 essential elements to effective communication - the right message, delivered by the right messenger, at the right time.

I would encourage you to ponder that for a moment.

[valpo95]

The landscape for private universities (especially in the Midwest) is challenging. In recent days, we have seen announcements of recent closures of campuses or programs at other small universities.

Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL) closing residential and in-person undergraduate programs, moving to fully remote/online instruction for those programs. (MDiv and Seminary stay.) https://www.tiu.edu/reimagining-the-future/
Finlandia University (Hancock, MI) closing. https://www.finlandia.edu/about/teachout/

Neither of these programs are direct competitors of VU, yet they are religiously-affiliated private universities in the region. These had reasonably well-regarded academics, yet very small endowments. Finlandia is especially interesting, as it a small Lutheran University (ELCA). We also should remember that three of the Concordia (LCMS) campuses closed in recent years, including Alabama (2018), New York (2021) and Portland (2022).

OK, here is another closure. Cardinal Stritch University, a Catholic University in Milwaukee, announced it is closing at the end of the semester. It had a modest endowment (about $28M) and had seen enrollment substantially decline in recent years. https://www.wisn.com/article/cardinal-stritch-university-closing-in-may-milwaukee-wisconsin/43557980

[David81]

thanks david, so how can faculty in private universities 'fight for higher pay' as usc was saying? if there are non-unionizing strategies, what are they?

That's where these somewhat fluid notions of shared governance and academic freedom come into play. Although not hardcore legal rights (such as a specific law creating a right to unionize and collectively bargain), they have some implied contractual protection.

Accordingly, if VU tenured and tenure-track faculty wanted to use internal governance processes (e.g., faculty senate, other internal committees) to advocate for better pay, they presumably could do so. They could also organize outside of governance structures and agree to address pay issues as a group. This is a little chancier, but also very likely seen as within the boundaries of academic freedom. It's possible that variations of these two options have occurred already, though rounds of layoffs can put a stop on those efforts rather quickly.

In my observation, cultures of faculty engagement on such issues tend to vary widely among private universities. At more elite institutions, you may encounter more raw entitlement and outspokenness at times, especially when it comes to advocating for one's own interests. You're more likely to encounter diva-like behaviors at such institutions, though I hasten to add that you can find individual instances at just about any school.

At other institutions, faculty passivity on these issues is not unusual, with a lot of grousing and resentment shared privately, and perhaps with a smaller group willing to stick their necks out to call for changes. Fears over being targeted for layoffs can understandably influence this dynamic as well. I've frequently quipped that one reason why tenure survives as an employment status at schools like mine is that most tenured faculty have the good sense not to test the academic freedom that it provides. 

[FWalum]

I think Valpo has some "faculty chairs," whatever those are. 

Are those attractive to star faculty or a good retention tool?   How is a "chair" different than a regular faculty job?

Chairs are usually fully or (more often) partially funded by an endowed gift. The donor will decide that they highly value a specific field - say chemistry - and will setup an endowment that provides money each year to fund a top faculty member in that discipline. Additionally, sometimes a company who benefits from a discipline may fund a chair in that field - for instance, an accounting firm may hire accounting graduates from the college and will fund a chair for a leading accounting professor. For some chairs, there is also an expectation of research or other scholarly work in that discipline.

So yes, that can be a very good retention tool.

Right now, at our institution, a full faculty chair requires an endowment of $2.5 Million dollars. I would expect that at Valpo a chair would require at least $3 Million.

[vu84v2]

I think Valpo has some "faculty chairs," whatever those are. 

Are those attractive to star faculty or a good retention tool?   How is a "chair" different than a regular faculty job?

Chairs are usually fully or (more often) partially funded by an endowed gift. The donor will decide that they highly value a specific field - say chemistry - and will setup an endowment that provides money each year to fund a top faculty member in that discipline. Additionally, sometimes a company who benefits from a discipline may fund a chair in that field - for instance, an accounting firm may hire accounting graduates from the college and will fund a chair for a leading accounting professor. For some chairs, there is also an expectation of research or other scholarly work in that discipline.

So yes, that can be a very good retention tool.

Right now, at our institution, a full faculty chair requires an endowment of $2.5 Million dollars. I would expect that at Valpo a chair would require at least $3 Million.

But a chair can be partially funded. The balance is paid as normal salary.

[FWalum]

I think Valpo has some "faculty chairs," whatever those are. 

Are those attractive to star faculty or a good retention tool?   How is a "chair" different than a regular faculty job?

Chairs are usually fully or (more often) partially funded by an endowed gift. The donor will decide that they highly value a specific field - say chemistry - and will setup an endowment that provides money each year to fund a top faculty member in that discipline. Additionally, sometimes a company who benefits from a discipline may fund a chair in that field - for instance, an accounting firm may hire accounting graduates from the college and will fund a chair for a leading accounting professor. For some chairs, there is also an expectation of research or other scholarly work in that discipline.

So yes, that can be a very good retention tool.

Right now, at our institution, a full faculty chair requires an endowment of $2.5 Million dollars. I would expect that at Valpo a chair would require at least $3 Million.

But a chair can be partially funded. The balance is paid as normal salary.

That is true, but for a number of reasons, I won't go into here, we prefer to not to partially fund chairs. Typically if they are partially funded the tend to remain that way.

[crusader05]

Based on the Forever Valpo website a Dean is funded at 5 million, a chair at 3 and a standard faculty at 1.

https://www.valpo.edu/forevervalpo/funding-priorities/

[wh]

There are 3 essential elements to effective communication - the right message, delivered by the right messenger, at the right time. I would encourage you to ponder that for a moment.

not sure exactly what you have in mind in terms of better timing, but this seems as crucial a time as any. i was initially pissed about the bball coaching change and expense because of the privileging of sports over academics, but powell is a good choice and maybe the academic side of the house just need to take a pg out of the sports book. on the basketball side, stakeholders basically said, 'our team sucks, do something about it NOW if you want the university to survive' and VU ponied up the money somehow. so the only way you get university leadership to invest in core operations like academics or sports, rather than getting distracted with other shiny things, is probably to just insist on it. that probably becomes even more essential when budgets are tight. i was utterly shocked they agreed to the coach buyout, but there is a pragmatism that some groups seem to understand well; ie Social Work, Valpo Basketball, AVRO, etc. As they say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." sometimes it is actually healthy and necessary for an institution that some wheels squeak so the drivers know to tune up the alignment. i bet if meteorology really raised some rabble over broken equipment, the admin could pull up some lottich-type money to get the job done

You've had a lot of great posts. This may not be one of them.

[wh]

sorry to disappoint, wh. i guess i can still muster some outrage about the coach buyout if you like.

Touché '22 lol. Don't let me slow you down. I love your passion! My best, wh

[78crusader]

I attended a meeting last fall at Homecoming. President Padilla shared his vision of a new basketball arena and a new nursing building - perhaps located side by side on the old Porter Memorial Hospital site.

He estimated the cost of each structure would be $50M (he also mentioned that a new nursing building could be located off campus, which IMO would be a mistake).

Unpopular opinion time - but I think a new nursing/health sciences facility should top the list rather than a new arena. Nursing/health sciences is one or our strongest programs and LeBien, which in now over 50 years old, does not measure up to the nursing facilities of many community colleges, let alone four-year schools.

The applicant pool crunch is coming in a couple years. A new academic facility - on campus - would be a big selling point for admissions. We haven't turned the first shovel of dirt on a new academic building since 2015 (I believe this is longest period without a new facility of any kind since the '80s; maybe longer). President Padilla and the BOD obviously share a sense of urgency - witness the art sale.

Raising the funds to build one new facility in the next 3-4 years will be tough. Raising the money for two such facilities in that timeframe seems out of our reach.

Paul

[crusadermoe]

All things being equal I would highly agree with that priority.  But big donors' interests are not always the most strategic ones.

[crusadermoe]

.......agree with nursing building over an arena as suggested by 78.

[crusader05]

I would agree the Nursing Building would be priority and I believe the Strategic plan had it so that both that building and the Arena would have proposals ready to go in a short amount of time (maybe by the end of this academic year) but funding and collaboration will dictate what comes first.

Padilla seems to be a very large proponent of shaking the money tree of state and federal funds and community partnerships. If there are grants/corporate sponsorships to be had for nursing than it will happen first. If it's for Athletics, that will happen first. You go where the money is.
I also think that the idea that buildings like the welcome center or arts and science don't do much for connect is not really true. As someone who had to do meetings with professors in Huegli hall where they were shoved in basements etc, it was never welcoming their professors. Having nice places to work/sit in between classes, or a building that is comfortable to study in or have meetings in helps with community and increases the likelihood that different types of students will find a "place" that they can carve out as home as well.

[vu72]

I think a lot of the funds needed will come from the land sales.  In total, there are 122 acres under control and available.  I'm far from a real estate expert let alone one with knowledge of the Valpo market. But...the planned us layout available here:

https://vitalizevalpo.com/property-overview/

would indicate a "mixed use" property/properties available for development.  So I found a few "mixed use" properties for sale in the Valpo market as follows:

https://www.landsearch.com/properties/1000-vale-parks-rd-valparaiso-in-46383/2145895     (1.7 acres for $659,000)  So that is $387,647 per acre.

The land in question is in highly desireable locations.  What's it worth?  Well beyond my pay grade--but--my guess is that it is worth in the area of $25 million.

[crusader05]

One potential benefit of both of those buildings is the opportunity for maybe getting more funds from companies vs just alums. You can start to chip away at costs if you maybe have the "luries pediatric lab" for the nursing school that they fund or the "XX steel mill Basketball Suite" in the arena. That can also help you move the quality of the building up without increasing costs and create more community stakeholders in your programs.

[crusadermoe]

I would guess that Padilla, as a high level, is more business savvy in terms of those partnerships and businesses at a high level than some prior presidents.  And yet you probably need $25-30 million in personal charity to rack up the bucks that he and all of you will want to spend on an arena. 

[wh]

I attended a meeting last fall at Homecoming. President Padilla shared his vision of a new basketball arena and a new nursing building - perhaps located side by side on the old Porter Memorial Hospital site.

He estimated the cost of each structure would be $50M (he also mentioned that a new nursing building could be located off campus, which IMO would be a mistake).

Unpopular opinion time - but I think a new nursing/health sciences facility should top the list rather than a new arena. Nursing/health sciences is one or our strongest programs and LeBien, which in now over 50 years old, does not measure up to the nursing facilities of many community colleges, let alone four-year schools.

The applicant pool crunch is coming in a couple years. A new academic facility - on campus - would be a big selling point for admissions. We haven't turned the first shovel of dirt on a new academic building since 2015 (I believe this is longest period without a new facility of any kind since the '80s; maybe longer). President Padilla and the BOD obviously share a sense of urgency - witness the art sale.

Raising the funds to build one new facility in the next 3-4 years will be tough. Raising the money for two such facilities in that timeframe seems out of our reach.

Paul

My heart is with a new arena first, but I agree wholeheartedly that nursing should come first. One reason nursing is so popular at Valpo is because the healthcare vertical continues to show strong growth., nurses, PA's, NP's, techs, etc. are in great demand nationwide, potential 6-figure incomes, etc. make it easier for parents to justify private schools over less expensive options. It's Valpo's most successful target market. It should have every bell and whistle.