Valpo Strategic Plan

[wh]

During the Heckler regime, a lot of people blamed the board for not being willing to invest in a new or revamped ARC, saying things like they're not interested in athletics, they have their own pet projects, etc. And yet, that same board signed on to President Padilla's strategic plan where a new bb venue is front and center. Heckler was a disgusting president on so many levels. Add this to the list.

[vu72]

During the Heckler regime, a lot of people blamed the board for not being willing to invest in a new or revamped ARC, saying things like they're not interested in athletics, they have their own pet projects, etc. And yet, that same board signed on to President Padilla's strategic plan where a new bb venue is front and center. Heckler was a disgusting president on so many levels. Add this to the list.

That a lot harsh!  During President Heckler's time on campus a lot got done.  For example, the new Chem/Bio building, the completion of the Union, the Arts and Science building, the Welcome Center, Beacon Hall, the Sorority complex, The Helge Center, the launch and large progress toward the Forever Valpo campaign, and I believe, the addition of the student fitness center as well as other stuff like the addition of new programs like physician assistant and bio engineering. As for athletics, during his tenure, Brown Field got artificial turf and lighting, the track was installed, significant upgrades to the softball complex and the upgrades to the basketball practice facility including air-conditioning.

So I guess maybe, just maybe, disgusting might be a little harsh.  It was a different time with different challenges.  A lot of facility challenges faced Heckler and the Board.

[wh]

Heckler played us, the same way he played the MVC to gain entry into the league. I recall clearly that he committed to bringing the ARC up to MVC standards, complete with projected timelines. Taking him at his word was the biggest mistake Doug Elgin could have made. The MVC has been paying the price since.

Hopefully, President Padilla keeps Heckler's word and Roger restores Valpo to the program the MVC thought it was getting 7 years ago.

[crusadermoe]

I disliked Heckler's politics and he seemed like a chameleon (was an actor by trade) in terms of his core beliefs.  But I don't blame him anymore for strategic choices in our long-term finances. If some some of the posters on this forum are correct, then Heckler gave the board a strategic fork in the road in the early 2010s so they would own that choice:     

1) Plan to grow to 6,000 students in order to continue the full program range at VU and build the new facilities required
2) Stay in a feasible domestic recruitment lane in the low 3,000s and consolidate VU's programs. 

Again if these folks are correct about him, the board chose #1 and Heckler took his marching orders. So yes Heckler built a lot of great buildings, but they were financed heavily with long-term debt. Now Moody's is calling that out and cash flow is drying up. But it seems like that board is to blame for the debt approvals. 

[crusadermoe]

The VU72 comments on Heckler need to be revised.  Yes, several buildings were built under Heckler.  But the huge union project was raised by Alan Harre!  With NO FINANCING! And Harre completed the turf, softball, turf, track, and lighting even though he gets a bad rap on athletics. He was not a great speaker, but they guy got things done.

Wonder how much money Heckler actually raised from donors for his buildings? We could find that in one of these forum threads. Put the rest on the credit card, please.    -- Mark Heckler

[vu72]

The VU72 comments on Heckler need to be revised.  Yes, several buildings were built under Heckler.  But the huge union project was raised by Alan Harre!  With NO FINANCING! And Harre completed the turf, softball, turf, track, and lighting even though he gets a bad rap on athletics. He was not a great speaker, but they guy got things done.

Wonder how much money Heckler actually raised from donors for his buildings? We could find that in one of these forum threads. Put the rest on the credit card, please.    -- Mark Heckler

What I said was Heckler FINISHED the Union.  As for the other things mentioned, I'll just quote the Athletics site as follows:

"On October 11th, 2014 — the 95th anniversary of the Brown and Gold's first victory on the gridiron — the Warren G. Hoger Track was dedicated".

"Lights were added as well in 2010".

"The facility underwent a number of substantial upgrades prior to the 2011 campaign. An aluminum grandstand structure was built, stretching behind the backstop from dugout to dugout. The middle section features chairback seating, while other sections provide bleacher seating". "A large scoreboard which was updated prior to the 2017 season to feature the program's league championships and NCAA Tournament appearances"

"Hilltop Gym underwent a two-year renovation, including the installation of air conditioning and new lighting, which was completed in 2018". 

Heckler was President from 2008-2020.

[David81]

I happen to think Heckler did a decent job. And while his record on athletics certainly showed less than fulsome enthusiasm, I think that some of the most virulent criticism is a pretext for not liking his political leanings.

For a guy whose tenure was bookended by the recovery from a global recession to start and the elevation of a global pandemic to finish, he did a pretty good job on fundraising -- at least much better than many presidents at comparable schools. Believe me on this as a professor at a comparable regional private university that would have trouble raising $300m if you spotted it $250m. I'm serious. And I know that my school is hardly alone in that distinction.

Valpo has had three successive presidents -- Schnabel, Harre, and Heckler -- who led respectable, successful capital campaigns. To those who harbor some resentment or anger towards Heckler for not prioritizing the athletics program, I'd suggest trying to let that go and recognize that under his watch, too, difficult choices had to be made.

[crusadermoe]

VU72, points taken on the athletics projects.  I was sure the turf was installed under Harre, but obviously I was mistaken on the other athletic upgrades. LaBarbera gets credit for those too.

But most importantly Harre raised the entire $70M cost of the union and that was the key presidential role in the project. The Valpo magazine misled the readers on this point when they did their tribute to Heckler.

In my other post I conceded that Heckler followed the BoD's lead on the strategic loan decisions to borrow $100m+.  We are now house poor, paying a mortage on a decreasing household income. . But it does seem to fall at the feet of Heckler's BoD.

[David81]

I disliked Heckler's politics and he seemed like a chameleon (was an actor by trade) in terms of his core beliefs.  But I don't blame him anymore for strategic choices in our long-term finances. If some some of the posters on this forum are correct, then Heckler gave the board a strategic fork in the road in the early 2010s so they would own that choice:     

1) Plan to grow to 6,000 students in order to continue the full program range at VU and build the new facilities required
2) Stay in a feasible domestic recruitment lane in the low 3,000s and consolidate VU's programs. 

Again if these folks are correct about him, the board chose #1 and Heckler took his marching orders. So yes Heckler built a lot of great buildings, but they were financed heavily with long-term debt. Now Moody's is calling that out and cash flow is drying up. But it seems like that board is to blame for the debt approvals. 

For schools like Valpo -- solid endowments but not rich, capable of doing respectable fundraising campaigns but much of it in IOU form (pledges & bequests) -- debt is the standard path towards new buildings.

Sooooo.....here's another reason why university boards need a greater diversity of board members. Load them up with business folks (1) who don't necessarily have the personal means to donate truly exceptional sums of money that result in naming gifts; and (2) who think of financing in a standard borrow-and-grow mode, and you get these results. Over the many years, universities have become among the most resilient of institutions by thinking in terms of sustainability. That can include smart plans to expand enrollment, put up new buildings, and even take on additional debt, etc., but it cannot involve magical thinking.

Perhaps President Heckler should've gone in with Plan #2 above only, saying that unless circumstances change dramatically, VU should plan on a moderate enrollment and determine how to best use its resources. But that would've been going against the grain of what many business-oriented board members think of as "success." And it was also contrary to what presidents and boards at comparable universities were saying about the necessity of growth.

Indeed, for all of the chatter about running universities "more like a business," I bet that if you compare the overall life spans and failure rates of private, for-profit businesses (including very established ones) to that of private, non-profit universities, the latter come out looking pretty good.

[wh]

I happen to think Heckler did a decent job. And while his record on athletics certainly showed less than fulsome enthusiasm, I think that some of the most virulent criticism is a pretext for not liking his political leanings.

For a guy whose tenure was bookended by the recovery from a global recession to start and the elevation of a global pandemic to finish, he did a pretty good job on fundraising -- at least much better than many presidents at comparable schools. Believe me on this as a professor at a comparable regional private university that would have trouble raising $300m if you spotted it $250m. I'm serious. And I know that my school is hardly alone in that distinction.

Valpo has had three successive presidents -- Schnabel, Harre, and Heckler -- who led respectable, successful capital campaigns. To those who harbor some resentment or anger towards Heckler for not prioritizing the athletics program, I'd suggest trying to let that go and recognize that under his watch, too, difficult choices had to be made.

A political cheap shot designed to delegitimize people who disagree with your view of the world. Where are the board rule pedants when you need them? lol

[David81]

I happen to think Heckler did a decent job. And while his record on athletics certainly showed less than fulsome enthusiasm, I think that some of the most virulent criticism is a pretext for not liking his political leanings.

For a guy whose tenure was bookended by the recovery from a global recession to start and the elevation of a global pandemic to finish, he did a pretty good job on fundraising -- at least much better than many presidents at comparable schools. Believe me on this as a professor at a comparable regional private university that would have trouble raising $300m if you spotted it $250m. I'm serious. And I know that my school is hardly alone in that distinction.

Valpo has had three successive presidents -- Schnabel, Harre, and Heckler -- who led respectable, successful capital campaigns. To those who harbor some resentment or anger towards Heckler for not prioritizing the athletics program, I'd suggest trying to let that go and recognize that under his watch, too, difficult choices had to be made.

A political cheap shot designed to delegitimize people who disagree with your view of the world. Where are the board rule pedants when you need them? lol

"A political cheap shot designed to delegitimize people who disagree with your view of the world." A bit of projection there? 

Anyway, to be more specific. Yes, I do take issue, for example, with calling Mark Heckler a "disgusting president on so many levels," and I have to speculate on what could cause such a severe, overwrought judgment on his performance. I'm certainly willing to concede that the athletics program was not among his personal priorities. But disgusting is a word I reserve for those whose words and conduct truly deserve it.

I happen to think that he was a good president with deeply held Christian beliefs, at a school for which he might not have been an ideal match. In that tension he tried to move VU in ways that made some folks uncomfortable, but I think the school is a better place in some of those dimensions because of it. I also happen to think that Jose Padilla offers a contrast and sense of direction that is very good for VU at this moment in time.

Overall, VU has benefited from stable leadership in its presidency -- especially if one looks at the revolving presidential doors of many other schools. In the post-O.P. life of VU, Huegli, Schnabel, Harre, and Heckler all had their strengths and weaknesses, but they all deserve credit for lengthy presidencies that have given a sense of stability and foundation to VU.

[wh]

That's good and all, but I'm still trying to figure out why the sudden political attack. Is it something I said in reference to the collapse of Heckler's crazy 6000-student house of cards? You remember, when he thought he caught lightning in a bottle by partnering with the world's most oppressive communist government and Islamic states half way across the globe, willing to pay full freight to open the eyes of their best and brightest young people to a way of life and religion that they despise? Never mind that once the money started to flow, CCP operatives swooped in and installed an official communist propaganda machine on campus to give students a false impression that the CCP was becoming more progressive in the human rights arena. Oh, and who can forget "hijab" day, where Islamic operatives convinced a group of naive VU Christian female students to wear Islamic garb out in the community to see how it felt to walk a mile in their shoes?

If the story ended there, with the university being played by foreign government operatives in return for some fast cash, that would be bad enough. Sadly, that's not the case. Heckler was so convinced that he held the golden key to future financial prosperity, that he fabricated an entire "strategic" plan around it, complete with projected enrollment figures that jumped off the page. Never mind that no other universities anywhere were making similar projections. They didn't have the connections he had. They didn't have the secret sauce.

So confident was President Heckler that he erected new buildings with the capacity to serve a much larger student population. Those same buildings stand there today as monuments to his ignorance. Empty classrooms, blocked off hallways, unused furniture, excessive infrastructure, millions of extra dollars in construction costs due to overbuilding, extra debt, the negative appearance of over capacity, etc., etc.

Lest I forget, for those tracking Heckler's accomplishments, you may want to add that Valpo's Law School that had stood proud and tall for generations crumbled to the ground under his watch while he was busy kowtowing to bad actors and erecting buildings elsewhere to support his fool's errand.

[vu72]

You remember, when he thought he caught lightning in a bottle by partnering with the world's most oppressive communist government

Once again our friend wh likes to overlook the fact that Valpo was far from alone in welcoming a Confucius Institute.  In fact, there were 118 in the US alone and featured at schools like the University of Chicago, Indiana University and many other Big Ten institutions.

The concept was sound, in recognizing that the world of the future wouldn't be limited to America's shores, but more likely an international conglomeration including the world's second largest economy. Yes, it BECAME controversial but it started out with sound thinking.

[vu84v2]

To the comments about by David81 regarding business people on university boards and running a university "more like a business".

While there are certainly examples of business leaders who follow an unrealistic "borrow and grow" mode, this is generally not the case. From my experience, most business leaders (certainly the successful ones) develop a business model with realistic revenue and margin forecasts and then, if necessary, take out debt that has a high probability of being serviced over time. This is even more true for leaders in firms that are established - which are likely to be the type of leaders that serve on university boards. More relevant to this discussion, business leaders on boards that I have seen at universities other than Valpo have followed this model - because that is what has created or sustained the success of their business.

I do not know Heckler and do not have information to assess whether he pushed the university to follow a build and debt strategy that was too aggressive. But a generalization that can be made about university presidents is that they tend to view their legacy by how many buildings they build. For some, it is to build their resume' for their next job - which has not been applicable to any Valpo presidents.

Thus, I think that there are three salient questions:
-Did Heckler present a business model that was excessively aggressive and unrealistic at the time when the model was presented?
-Was an options approach included in the business model that prevented being stuck with an "all-in" approach if there were shocks?
-Was the board too passive? (board passivity - not asking the hard questions and digging into the detail - has been a problem for some boards for a very long time)

[vu84v2]

And let me offer some perspective on the "hijab day" comments (I will apologize up front to valpo 04 if the comments seem to wade somewhat towards the political side - I am trying to avoid that)

First, I doubt that you (wh) have ever been associated with many muslims. I have worked with muslims, had customers who are muslim, have friends that are muslim, and have had students who are muslim. Not just a few.... a lot. They or their parents were from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan. What is a common theme for the vast majority of these people?  They have a deep dislike for their country (the exception being Jordan). They want to practice their faith as they see fit and are grateful (yes grateful) to be in the U.S. where they can do so. They are not operatives for anything or anyone. And I have never seen or heard of any of them evangelizing that someone should follow their faith.

OK, now "hjiab day". Let's suppose, wh, that you are president of Valpo and you discover that students plan to have such a day. What could you do? You could discuss this with the students and perhaps encourage them not to do so (which might work against you), but you could do little else because they are free to express themselves. Frankly, if you were president of Hillsdale or BYU, I don't think you could stop it for the same reason. You could set a policy - but you could not set it against one faith and say that expressions for other faiths (e.g., cross, crucifix, star of David) are allowed. Bottom line is that you cannot pin this on Heckler or any other university president...nor are there operatives, as they are from the group I discussed in my prior paragraph.

[David81]

To the comments about by David81 regarding business people on university boards and running a university "more like a business".

While there are certainly examples of business leaders who follow an unrealistic "borrow and grow" mode, this is generally not the case. From my experience, most business leaders (certainly the successful ones) develop a business model with realistic revenue and margin forecasts and then, if necessary, take out debt that has a high probability of being serviced over time. This is even more true for leaders in firms that are established - which are likely to be the type of leaders that serve on university boards. More relevant to this discussion, business leaders on boards that I have seen at universities other than Valpo have followed this model - because that is what has created or sustained the success of their business.

I do not know Heckler and do not have information to assess whether he pushed the university to follow a build and debt strategy that was too aggressive. But a generalization that can be made about university presidents is that they tend to view their legacy by how many buildings they build. For some, it is to build their resume' for their next job - which has not been applicable to any Valpo presidents.

Thus, I think that there are three salient questions:
-Did Heckler present a business model that was excessively aggressive and unrealistic at the time when the model was presented?
-Was an options approach included in the business model that prevented being stuck with an "all-in" approach if there were shocks?
-Was the board too passive? (board passivity - not asking the hard questions and digging into the detail - has been a problem for some boards for a very long time)

vu84v2, I'm happy to defer to you on the frequency of the borrow-and-grow model and assumptions behind it in the business world generally, but it does capture a lot of what we're seeing in the higher ed world. And that model and accompanying assumptions have hit the wall at least twice in the past 15 years, first the Great Recession, and then COVID. It's putting schools like VU -- quality, regional universities that don't have the resources generally to build without borrowing -- in a difficult position.

As I've said before, I think VU will survive these challenges without becoming a hallowed out shell of what it once was. But whether it will be among a smaller number of like universities to actually thrive in this challenging market for higher ed is still up for grabs.

[David81]

Lest I forget, for those tracking Heckler's accomplishments, you may want to add that Valpo's Law School that had stood proud and tall for generations crumbled to the ground under his watch while he was busy kowtowing to bad actors and erecting buildings elsewhere to support his fool's errand.

In the literal sense, yes, the Law School was closed under his watch. But as I've written elsewhere on this board, the painful decision to shutter VU Law was a somewhat perfect storm of very bad stuff. (I'll simply link rather than repeat what I wrote earlier this year if someone wishes to read my brief analysis: https://www.valpofanzone.com/forum/index.php?topic=4357.msg144798#msg144798.)

In horribly practical terms, trying to save VU Law may well have meant taxing more stable and higher ranked programs (e.g., engineering) to support a law school that could never break out of the bottom quartile or so of the US News law school rankings and always had to compete for students with strong law schools in Indiana and in Chicagoland. So...another way to look at it is this: By reluctantly closing the Law School, Heckler & the Board may have made a painful decision that ultimately would put the rest of the University on stronger footing going into the pandemic.

I agree with you that the Law School had a long and distinguished history, and thousands of its graduates continue to practice with distinction. But in the world of legal education, where the US News rankings strongly influence virtually all perceptions of institutional quality (most of all, applicants' choices for where to apply and where to enroll), VU Law was forever trying to exceed expectations. Believe me, I do not like these rankings for so many reasons (including those that would undermine the worthiness of VU Law), but I understand how fundamentally they influence my vocation as a legal educator.

[wh]

https://twitter.com/RogerPowellJr/status/1701363844113707390/mediaviewer

Very possibly the best good will ambassador in NWI. Genuine to the core. Will go anywhere, do anything, meet anyone. It was amazing to watch him in action - how many hands he touched, people he talked to, that beaming infectious smile, that boundless energy. The potential benefit to Valparaiso University extends far beyond the basketball court, IMO.

[crusadermoe]

Fantastic!   He had so many opportunities.  We are fortunate.

[wh]

Valparaiso University relocated artwork at center of controversial proposed sale
Adrian Martinez-De La Cruz  16 min ago

https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/education/valpo-university-moves-artwork-at-center-of-controversy/article_383775c0-5268-11ee-a2f1-9f1ebc94720e.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest

[valpopal]

Along with the rest of the campus community, yesterday afternoon I received the Padilla memo, which seemed particularly tone deaf in its communication, especially in the unilateral nature of its message. The Director of the Brauer Museum, responsible for the institution's art holdings, was conspicuously not a co-signer of the memo. In fact, he was never mentioned, not even as having been consulted, advised, or at least notified about the removal of the paintings. The impression left by the memo is that the artworks were stealthily taken against his wishes. The spirit of the memo will only serve to further burn bridges between the administration and other sectors of the campus community, as well as add to poor publicity for VU. In fact, the action of removing the paintings "for their protection" seems counterproductive and negative, creating more damaging public relations perceptions, indicating to possible donors that the University is not even confident in its own museum's security. Oddly, the disappearance of the artworks occurs exactly one week after John Ruff was quoted in the Torch: Ruff "expressed his relief that the paintings are still at the Brauer for students and the community to enjoy. 'The paintings are still on the wall. That's the best news,' Ruff said."
http://www.valpotorch.com/news/article_fe5d6be8-49cf-11ee-8817-13129daacff3.html

Already, a longer, damaging and more detailed article appears online in the Suburbs section of the Chicago Tribune. Richard Brauer is referenced: "the safest place for the paintings, Brauer said in an email, is in the secure, climate-controlled underground vaults at the museum designed for just that purpose, 'in a safe, police patrolled campus handled by experienced art handlers incurring no extra cost.'" Ruff is also mentioned: "Ruff, too, said he finds it 'regrettable' that Padilla has decided the paintings aren't secure within the confines of the museum. 'They've been secure for how many decades now in the care of professionals and they were, in my mind, never insecure until (Padilla) and his staff found out their worth,' Ruff said." Moreover, contacted by the reporter and given an opportunity to support the administration's action in removing the painting, "Jonathan Canning, the museum's curator and director, declined to comment...."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/ct-ptb-brauer-paintings-removed-st-0914-20230913-h5evbevphbcv5fhiucjsr76adm-story.html

[wh]

Mark my words. You and your fellow faculty members will never see those paintings again.

[valpopal]

Mark my words. You and your fellow faculty members will never see those paintings again.

It is peculiarly remarkable that you appear proud of your comment, as well as the various ramifications for strained university relations, internally and externally.

[wh]

Mark my words. You and your fellow faculty members will never see those paintings again.

It is peculiarly remarkable that you appear proud of your comment, as well as the various ramifications for strained university relations, internally and externally.

More accurately, I'm proud of President Padilla. I would be hard pressed to think of another white collar workforce that more deserved to be put in their place than the aforementioned group of faculty rabble rousers. They have damaged Valparaiso University and embarrassed themselves in the process.

[KreitzerSTL]

Isn't Homecoming in the next week or two? A little dispiriting that alumni aren't able to see the paintings one last time. Some might have even paid for the privilege.