Valpo Strategic Plan

[vu84v2]

Agree fully that a new nursing building should be priority #1. And while I know this won't be popular here, the second priority should be a new business building rather than a new basketball arena. That is another building that is 40+ years old for programs that can clearly attract more students (based on market demand).

I said this many years ago, but I will say it again. The "Welcome Center" should not have been a priority. Facilities for students (and in many ways, for those who directly work with students) should always be the priority versus administrative offices.

[VULB#62]

Am I right on this?

Somewhere I saw where health/medical sciences would have a separate campus closer to Chicago and interact with Chicago medical centers. From a learning perspective, that is a positive game changer that can have significant leverage with prospective students wishing to pursue that career path if promoted correctly.   From a Valpo campus perspective, not so much. But an enrollee, regardless of where they are located is an enrollee. The other benefit is that it spreads Valpo's geographical footprint and that also can be a good thing.

[vu84v2]

Am I right on this?

Somewhere I saw where health/medical sciences would have a separate campus closer to Chicago and interact with Chicago medical centers. From a learning perspective, that is a positive game changer that can have significant leverage with prospective students wishing to pursue that career path if promoted correctly.   From a Valpo campus perspective, not so much. But an enrollee, regardless of where they are located is an enrollee. The other benefit is that it spreads Valpo's geographical footprint and that also can be a good thing.

Not sure if I saw this for Valpo, but this is a common practice for many universities with nursing and other medical programs. Have a main facility for the program(s) on campus and then have one or a few satellite facilities that are closer to potential students and/or partner hospitals. However, finding faculty to teach nursing is really challenging right now and it becomes even harder to find part-time faculty for these facilities (they never have as many students) or find full-time faculty at the main facility who agree to commute to other facilities. Keep in mind, the overall labor market for faculty might be weak (resulting in lower salaries and more difficulty finding jobs), but it is almost the opposite for nursing.

[vu72]

I said this many years ago, but I will say it again. The "Welcome Center" should not have been a priority.

Have to disagree on this. Before, students and their parents had to wind their way around until they finally found admission people in, I believe, Kretzman Hall.  The welcome Center is kinda like a hotel lobby. You can't expect fancy room prices with a dingy lobby! Also, the funds were donated in full.

[crusadermoe]

I think the $15 million addition to the chapel was a pretty lame priority (worse than the welcome center) since it holds almost entirely administrators and some larger spaces of dubious need after building the union across the street and the library a few hundred feet away.  Hindsight, but painful hindsight.

[vu84v2]

To me, the Welcome Center is 25% "welcome center" and 75% administrative offices for the university's senior administration. No problem with the 25% and I can see a donor wanting to donate for that, but I think it is unlikely that a donor said, "I really want to donate so that administrators have really nice offices and meeting spaces". This, of course, is water under the bridge (since it is already built) - but lots of universities prioritize building fancy administrative offices (mine did) and it just seems to not be in line with the university's mission.

In regards to buildings and programs, Valpo22 makes some really good points. I would add that you also need people with specific expertise and connections to run those programs...so you also need funding for that. However, most programs require physical space and equipment - obviously engineering and nursing programs, but this is also true in less obvious for programs in areas like business. To me, a good fundraising strategy would be to promote a new building that will house both existing and new programs...with the facility, equipment and people for the new programs specifically included in the plan (not just the building).

[vu72]

I think the $15 million addition to the chapel was a pretty lame priority (worse than the welcome center) since it holds almost entirely administrators and some larger spaces of dubious need after building the union across the street and the library a few hundred feet away.  Hindsight, but painful hindsight.

Not to the two Lutheran pastors who met there and were married there and who paid for it.  It IS, the center piece of the university.  The windows were single pane and falling out, the heating system was shot and the pastors officed in the basement.  In any event, it was donor financed in its entirety.  It was their money, their desire and their result.  It doesn't detract from the university in any way so why was it "lame"?

[vu84v2]

I think the $15 million addition to the chapel was a pretty lame priority (worse than the welcome center) since it holds almost entirely administrators and some larger spaces of dubious need after building the union across the street and the library a few hundred feet away.  Hindsight, but painful hindsight.

Not to the two Lutheran pastors who met there and were married there and who paid for it.  It IS, the center piece of the university.  The windows were single pane and falling out, the heating system was shot and the pastors officed in the basement.  In any event, it was donor financed in its entirety.  It was their money, their desire and their result.  It doesn't detract from the university in any way so why was it "lame"?

In a "macro sense", I do agree that the chapel is central to Valpo's mission and the renovation made sense. Admittedly, I am a bit dubious that two pastors would have $15M to donate for anything...but who knows.

[valpopal]

Would be nice if VU could get into a partnership with Urschel for future development as well. However, since Urschel has been a big supporter of art at Valpo and paid for the art museum with the stipulation it be named after Dick Brauer, there might be a need for some mending of fences first.

[tweet]1646883897139945472[/tweet]

[vu72]

Admittedly, I am a bit dubious that two pastors would have $15M to donate for anything...but who knows.

We should have gone to the Seminary!  It is true, they also were lead donors on the Union.  They didn't make their money from being part of the Clergy. Mark Helge inherited the money from his aunt.  They both are classmates of mine, though I didn't know them.

https://www.rrstar.com/story/special/2019/12/04/rockford-couple-donates-1-million/2156656007/

[VULB#62]

We recently had the opportunity to host a dinner get-together with some of our friends who, previously, did not know each other. One was a Brown grad and Harvard PhD with 41 years of university teaching under his belt. One was a former dean at UW-Oshkosh with a CV that included faculty and admin positions at three other large universities.  The third held an MA in communications, worked in a small, private college development office, and lived through the recent closing of this Wisconsin LA institution, because it had next to nothing in the way of an endowment cushion.

I brought up the current higher ed environment and mentioned a little of what Valpo was experiencing (yes, including the art sale kerfluffle). Quite the conversation ensued. I was surprised at some of the thoughts that were voiced.  Without any comment, here are a couple of pearls agreed upon by our guests:

>> Faculty, as a whole, typically have their heads in the sand (or someplace else  ) and are generally myopic when it comes to the business of running a university.

>> Deans generally are in a no-win situation (except they get paid more). Consensus was that curriculum-focused deans usually don't have the business acumen to lead a "profitable" organization and therefore incur the wrath of the administration. Business-focused deans have believability problems trying to lead curriculum change - and therefore generate faculty displeasure. It is unusual to see a dean who excels at both (but even they are still disliked by someone).

>> Working in a university environment is intensely political.

>> Given my description of the art sale controversy (I tried my best to explain both sides objectively), all three guests expressed sadness that the sale of three works of art became a flash point, but all concurred that, in the grander scheme of things, the ongoing viability of an institution and its ability to be agile in meeting accelerating change trumps holding onto such assets.

It was a fun, energy-filled evening. In vino veritas.

[David81]

We recently had the opportunity to host a dinner get-together with some of our friends who, previously, did not know each other. One was a Brown grad and Harvard PhD with 41 years of university teaching under his belt. One was a former dean at UW-Oshkosh with a CV that included faculty and admin positions at three other large universities.  The third held an MA in communications, worked in a small, private college development office, and lived through the recent closing of this Wisconsin LA institution, because it had next to nothing in the way of an endowment cushion.

I brought up the current higher ed environment and mentioned a little of what Valpo was experiencing (yes, including the art sale kerfluffle). Quite the conversation ensued. I was surprised at some of the thoughts that were voiced.  Without any comment, here are a couple of pearls agreed upon by our guests:

>> Faculty, as a whole, typically have their heads in the sand (or someplace else  ) and are generally myopic when it comes to the business of running a university.

>> Deans generally are in a no-win situation (except they get paid more). Consensus was that curriculum-focused deans usually don't have the business acumen to lead a "profitable" organization and therefore incur the wrath of the administration. Business-focused deans have believability problems trying to lead curriculum change - and therefore generate faculty displeasure. It is unusual to see a dean who excels at both (but even they are still disliked by someone).

>> Working in a university environment is intensely political.

>> Given my description of the art sale controversy (I tried my best to explain both sides objectively), all three guests expressed sadness that the sale of three works of art became a flash point, but all concurred that, in the grander scheme of things, the ongoing viability of an institution and its ability to be agile in meeting accelerating change trumps holding onto such assets.

It was a fun, energy-filled evening. In vino veritas.

VULB#62, my friend, you heard only one side of the story. Thus, a necessary clarification: If you get a group of faculty members together to talk frankly, then you will likely hear about administrators, who "as a whole, typically have their heads in the sand (or someplace else  ) and are generally myopic when it comes to the business of running a university."

This includes, among other things:

(1) admins cozy with the board arranging to get huge raises, even when the university is in a pay and hiring freeze mode for faculty and staff;

(2) admins hiring more and more mid-level administrators, especially those who help other admins, which often results in more and more bureaucracy and meetings;

(3) even while getting raises and hiring more admins, admins reducing staff by contracting out everyday admin functions (budget, online training, travel booking, etc.) to pricey 3rd party vendors who bring their clumsy online management platforms that drain precious hours of staff, faculty, and lower-level admins figuring out how to use them.

This gathering, however, is more likely to be potluck, with cheaper wine, or maybe at a nearby pub.

FWIW, neither admins nor faculty (nor boards nor staff, for that matter) corner the market on wisdom or foolishness in academe. Distributions of said qualities vary widely among institutions.

🤓😊😜

[valpopal]

Another very interesting and lengthy article about VU appeared in the Chicago Tribune this weekend. New Brauer Director Jonathan Canning has instituted an exhibition now on display in the Education Gallery of the museum that focuses on the ethics of museum art sales. It includes Padilla's letter to the campus community alongside other documents, such as deaccessioning practices, as well as artworks in the museum that are deemed appropriate for sale, such as two Salvador Dali works and an 18th-century German print that doesn't fit the museum's mission. It also quotes the deaccessioning policy articulated "when Padilla was the university's general counsel, that calls for any proceeds from jettisoned works 'to be placed in the Art Endowment Fund and used for future purchases.'"


The article closes with a quote by the president of the Association of Academic Museums and Galleries, of which Canning is a member: "Deaccessioning is conducted transparently, and for academic museums, often involves an advisory committee composed of campus and/or community stakeholders. The process requires a rigorous re-evaluation of an organization's collection with the goal of improving it by removing works of art or cultural objects that fall outside of the collecting scope and mission of the institution."


I like to think Padilla and Canning could reach a compromise, including input from the museum collections committee, by establishing a list of artworks eligible for deaccessioning that could be sold according to deaccession rules. The proceeds ethically could go to specific museum support needs, perhaps freeing some funds the university otherwise would contribute to the museum for other purposes, like an initial downpayment for dorm renovation while additional funding is sought elsewhere as well. Like David81, I believe a compromise could be a win for all involved.


[tweet]1647578108482945025[/tweet]

[vu84v2]

I see it very unlikely that there can be any compromise if Canning has developed an exhibit that essentially is "giving the finger" to Padilla. And as I have stated perviously, any of these Associations has no authority to tell Valpo what it can do with its assets that are not related to its core mission.

My guess is that the compromise you suggest would raise "a few tens of thousands" for the dorms....far from anything significant, thus not any sort of meaningful compromise.

[vu72]

It would seem that Mr. Canning wants to be a martyr after being fired.

[vu84v2]

It would seem that Mr. Canning wants to be a martyr after being fired.

He is building his capital with the "Associations" and those who fully embrace those associations having power, so that he is in line for his next job. To my knowledge, he is not protected under any tenure policy - thus my guess is that this action will hasten his dismissal or resignation.

[VULB#62]

We recently had the opportunity to host a dinner get-together with some of our friends who, previously, did not know each other. One was a Brown grad and Harvard PhD with 41 years of university teaching under his belt. One was a former dean at UW-Oshkosh with a CV that included faculty and admin positions at three other large universities.  The third held an MA in communications, worked in a small, private college development office, and lived through the recent closing of this Wisconsin LA institution, because it had next to nothing in the way of an endowment cushion.

I brought up the current higher ed environment and mentioned a little of what Valpo was experiencing (yes, including the art sale kerfluffle). Quite the conversation ensued. I was surprised at some of the thoughts that were voiced.  Without any comment, here are a couple of pearls agreed upon by our guests:

>> Faculty, as a whole, typically have their heads in the sand (or someplace else  ) and are generally myopic when it comes to the business of running a university.

>> Deans generally are in a no-win situation (except they get paid more). Consensus was that curriculum-focused deans usually don't have the business acumen to lead a "profitable" organization and therefore incur the wrath of the administration. Business-focused deans have believability problems trying to lead curriculum change - and therefore generate faculty displeasure. It is unusual to see a dean who excels at both (but even they are still disliked by someone).

>> Working in a university environment is intensely political.

>> Given my description of the art sale controversy (I tried my best to explain both sides objectively), all three guests expressed sadness that the sale of three works of art became a flash point, but all concurred that, in the grander scheme of things, the ongoing viability of an institution and its ability to be agile in meeting accelerating change trumps holding onto such assets.

It was a fun, energy-filled evening. In vino veritas.

VULB#62, my friend, you heard only one side of the story. Thus, a necessary clarification: If you get a group of faculty members together to talk frankly, then you will likely hear about administrators, who "as a whole, typically have their heads in the sand (or someplace else  ) and are generally myopic when it comes to the business of running a university."

This includes, among other things:

(1) admins cozy with the board arranging to get huge raises, even when the university is in a pay and hiring freeze mode for faculty and staff;

(2) admins hiring more and more mid-level administrators, especially those who help other admins, which often results in more and more bureaucracy and meetings;

(3) even while getting raises and hiring more admins, admins reducing staff by contracting out everyday admin functions (budget, online training, travel booking, etc.) to pricey 3rd party vendors who bring their clumsy online management platforms that drain precious hours of staff, faculty, and lower-level admins figuring out how to use them.

This gathering, however, is more likely to be potluck, with cheaper wine, or maybe at a nearby pub.

FWIW, neither admins nor faculty (nor boards nor staff, for that matter) corner the market on wisdom or foolishness in academe. Distributions of said qualities vary widely among institutions.

🤓😊😜

Um.... All I did was sit back and then relate to our forum a conversation between our friends.  But I think you missed my point, David.  Both professors were tenured faculty, now retired (with one winding up at the end of his career as a dean before retiring), who  made the "myopic" comment in general about their fellow faculty colleagues, not career, non-academic admins. Ergo, my surprise at their comments. But, as you point out, in addition I'm sure both factions view the other with some measure of suspicion. 

But thank you for going off on the dark side of professional non-academic administrators which we didn't get to in our conversation.

[David81]

We recently had the opportunity to host a dinner get-together with some of our friends who, previously, did not know each other. One was a Brown grad and Harvard PhD with 41 years of university teaching under his belt. One was a former dean at UW-Oshkosh with a CV that included faculty and admin positions at three other large universities.  The third held an MA in communications, worked in a small, private college development office, and lived through the recent closing of this Wisconsin LA institution, because it had next to nothing in the way of an endowment cushion.

I brought up the current higher ed environment and mentioned a little of what Valpo was experiencing (yes, including the art sale kerfluffle). Quite the conversation ensued. I was surprised at some of the thoughts that were voiced.  Without any comment, here are a couple of pearls agreed upon by our guests:

>> Faculty, as a whole, typically have their heads in the sand (or someplace else  ) and are generally myopic when it comes to the business of running a university.

>> Deans generally are in a no-win situation (except they get paid more). Consensus was that curriculum-focused deans usually don't have the business acumen to lead a "profitable" organization and therefore incur the wrath of the administration. Business-focused deans have believability problems trying to lead curriculum change - and therefore generate faculty displeasure. It is unusual to see a dean who excels at both (but even they are still disliked by someone).

>> Working in a university environment is intensely political.

>> Given my description of the art sale controversy (I tried my best to explain both sides objectively), all three guests expressed sadness that the sale of three works of art became a flash point, but all concurred that, in the grander scheme of things, the ongoing viability of an institution and its ability to be agile in meeting accelerating change trumps holding onto such assets.

It was a fun, energy-filled evening. In vino veritas.

VULB#62, my friend, you heard only one side of the story. Thus, a necessary clarification: If you get a group of faculty members together to talk frankly, then you will likely hear about administrators, who "as a whole, typically have their heads in the sand (or someplace else  ) and are generally myopic when it comes to the business of running a university."

This includes, among other things:

(1) admins cozy with the board arranging to get huge raises, even when the university is in a pay and hiring freeze mode for faculty and staff;

(2) admins hiring more and more mid-level administrators, especially those who help other admins, which often results in more and more bureaucracy and meetings;

(3) even while getting raises and hiring more admins, admins reducing staff by contracting out everyday admin functions (budget, online training, travel booking, etc.) to pricey 3rd party vendors who bring their clumsy online management platforms that drain precious hours of staff, faculty, and lower-level admins figuring out how to use them.

This gathering, however, is more likely to be potluck, with cheaper wine, or maybe at a nearby pub.

FWIW, neither admins nor faculty (nor boards nor staff, for that matter) corner the market on wisdom or foolishness in academe. Distributions of said qualities vary widely among institutions.

🤓😊😜

Um.... All I did was sit back and then relate to our forum a conversation between our friends.  But I think you missed my point, David.  Both professors were tenured faculty, now retired (with one winding up at the end of his career as a dean before retiring), who  made the "myopic" comment in general about their fellow faculty colleagues, not career, non-academic admins. Ergo, my surprise at their comments. But, as you point out, in addition I'm sure both factions view the other with some measure of suspicion. 

But thank you for going off on the dark side of professional non-academic administrators which we didn't get to in our conversation.

Thank you for that clarification! Given that many academic admins are drawn from the faculty, with some becoming "career" admins and others "returning" to the faculty, I think we're often drawing both faculty and admins from the same gene pool, so to speak. My observation is that many are good at what they were trained to do, which usually means immersing themselves in a disciplinary subject matter and then teaching and writing about it.

I also find that real-world common sense and leadership ability in academe comes by accident, not by design. Some have it, others don't. It cuts across faculty, lead admins, and boards. When you think about it, it's pretty amazing that universities are among the most resilient of institutions, cutting across decades and even centuries.

[wh]

It would seem that Mr. Canning wants to be a martyr after being fired.

Someone needs to lift up the hood on Canning's brain and check for a control system. There is no human explanation for this. The cost of "stupid" is becoming overwhelming. It's time for President Padilla to put this armed camp of resistance out of its misery.

[vu72]

It would seem that Mr. Canning wants to be a martyr after being fired.

Someone needs to lift up the hood on Canning's brain and check for a control system. There is no human explanation for this. The cost of "stupid" is becoming overwhelming. It's time for President Padilla to put this armed camp of resistance out of its misery.

[David81]

It would seem that Mr. Canning wants to be a martyr after being fired.

He is building his capital with the "Associations" and those who fully embrace those associations having power, so that he is in line for his next job. To my knowledge, he is not protected under any tenure policy - thus my guess is that this action will hasten his dismissal or resignation.

I have to say that I got a chuckle out of this news about the exhibit. Yes, I know the art sale proposal is a serious matter, but this response could only happen in a university. 🤣 And really, it's not going to hurt VU's reputation, so no one should be grinding their teeth about it.

While it may help him to get his next job (though not with a university! LOL.), it feels like a decision to go out with a bang more than anything else.

[crusader05]

The art exhibit is fine to me. Universities have academic freedom for a reason and people invested in the art museum and the arts have a right to be mad about this and to pushback.

I think many of the people wanting to sell the art don't feel great about it (I sure don't even though I come down on the side that it's the right decision). A tendency to thumb their nose at Goliath on a college campus is a good thing for faculty and staff to have generally.

Of the ways the anti-sale arguments have been made these are not the types that I find counter-productive.

I would love a compromise but I don't thin one exists that will involve not selling unless a donor or grant of some kind falls in the universities lap. I'd imagine some sort of compromise would have to maybe involve some sort of decision to more firmly finance/protect art work from this is in the future or some of the money going towards some sort of investment in the arts, maybe even withn the renovation themselves.

[valpo95]

I suggested some time ago that President Padilla reach out to the Director and (former Director) with a compromise - If the paintings could be sold for $20M, endow the position of Director with $1M of the permanent endowment, plus an additional $100K for 10 years going to funds to purchase new pieces for the collection. That would assure the future viability of the museum, and make it more attractive to whoever would be the next director. President Padilla would get to spend almost $19M right now on the needed renovations, some of the existing expenses associated with the director's salary are offset by the $1M endowment, and future committed expenses are capped with a ten year payout. Obviously this could be pro-rated if the sales were more or less than $20M, yet it would give the Director and all of the vocal supporters of the Brauer an incentive to see that the sales were made at the maximum possible amount. 

[usc4valpo]

95 - no way that a compromise would happen with these stubborn dudes. Canning is acting like a clown making his feelings known before the inevitable - I have seen this scenario many times in industry for a long time. At least the creative writing major will get a warm fuzzy seeing this.

[valpopal]

I cannot believe the animosity by some here toward fellow members of our Valparaiso community, calling for the firing of Director Canning for standing on the principles of his profession, the very criteria for which he was admired in his hiring. Labelling a highly respected scholar with twenty years experience as "stupid" and "wanting to be a martyr" or "acting like a clown" for defending those principles, which is the Director of the Museum's duty. Referencing those who support the arts or major in certain fields and believe in following prescribed professional ethics, including a majority of the VU faculty and reflected in the Faculty Senate resolution, as "stubborn dudes" and suggesting they should "be put out of their misery" for their "resistance." Please cite the class at Valparaiso University that taught the use of such non sequitur and ad hominem in productive discussion.