Valpo Strategic Plan

[valpopal]

President Padilla is trying to prevent you and your faculty friends from self destructing.

He was preventing alumni from viewing the artworks and shielding them from hearing differing voices or witnessing an example of peaceful free speech at a liberal arts university whose Mission Statement declares: "Difference is a strength and reason for celebration."

[vu84v2]

As someone who is in favor of selling the art (for reasons that I have detailed in prior posts), the university (particularly President Padilla) did not handle this mini-protest well. I can see no reason to dispute the summary of events provided by the student in the letter and it seems that she handled the events in a very mature manner (probably more mature than I would have been if I felt strongly about a cause and was stifled). Not allowing her in the banquet hall is one thing, but telling her that she is not allowed to speak at any location near the event and President Padilla making an off the cuff statement to students of "are you the muscle?" is not good leadership. Taking down flyers is also wrong.

[VULB#62]

Just OMG.

[KreitzerSTL]

President Padilla making an off the cuff statement to students of "are you the muscle?"

Open mouth, insert cowboy boot.

[wh]

People hear one side of a story from a student feeling offended, allegedly because she wasn't permitted to hijack a celebratory university-wide event for her personal gratification, and grown adults on a message blindly jump to her defense. She couldn't possibly be lying, or stretching the truth, or substituting inflammatory language for what was actually said, right? It matters not that every person on the face of the earth does or says something untruthful every day of their lives, some at the drop of a hat, right? What is it exactly that you find more credible about her side of the story than President Padilla's? Oh, that's right, you have no idea what his side of the story is. Even more egregious.

[valpopal]

People hear one side of a story from a student feeling offended, allegedly because she wasn't permitted to hijack a celebratory university-wide event for her personal gratification, and grown adults on a message blindly jump to her defense. She couldn't possibly be lying, or stretching the truth, or substituting inflammatory language for what was actually said, right? It matters not that every person on the face of the earth does or says something untruthful every day of their lives, some at the drop of a hat, right? What is it exactly that you find more credible about her side of the story than President Padilla's? Oh, that's right, you have no idea what his side of the story is. Even more egregious.

The fact that Padilla made his derisive comment to a group of four students, who are named in the article as witnesses, plus she reports this incident in a university public forum to which she knows he could easily respond with a denial if she were lying, obviously adds to her credibility.

[wh]

People hear one side of a story from a student feeling offended, allegedly because she wasn't permitted to hijack a celebratory university-wide event for her personal gratification, and grown adults on a message blindly jump to her defense. She couldn't possibly be lying, or stretching the truth, or substituting inflammatory language for what was actually said, right? It matters not that every person on the face of the earth does or says something untruthful every day of their lives, some at the drop of a hat, right? What is it exactly that you find more credible about her side of the story than President Padilla's? Oh, that's right, you have no idea what his side of the story is. Even more egregious.

The fact that Padilla made his derisive comment to a group of four students, who are named in the article as witnesses, plus she reports this incident in a university public forum to which she knows he could easily respond with a denial if she were lying, obviously adds to her credibility.

A university president would never engage in a public pissing match with a student (or a disgruntled group of faculty members who use the media to carry their story of woe). See Public Relations Blunders 101, Chapter 1.

[valpopal]

What is it exactly that you find more credible about her side of the story than President Padilla's?

The fact that Padilla made his derisive comment to a group of four students, who are named in the article as witnesses, plus she reports this incident in a university public forum to which she knows he could easily respond with a denial if she were lying, obviously adds to her credibility.

A university president would never engage in a public pissing match with a student (or a disgruntled group of faculty members who use the media to carry their story of woe). See Public Relations Blunders 101, Chapter 1.

A university president should refrain from making derisive comments about students, faculty, and alumni. See the introduction to Public Relation Blunders 101.

[David81]

If you're the President of the University, having the apparent power to make a decision on a controversial matter where a vocal constituency is holding the opposite view, then it helps to take the high road, be magnanimous, and consistently stick to the merits of your position. Even if you feel stung by gadflies, you go high. Why? Because others are watching you and assessing what kind of leader you are.

I think President Padilla has unnecessarily squandered some of his high ground and increased the likelihood that if/when the art sale goes through, there will be lasting bad feelings. This is unfortunate, because in many other ways, he is having a positive impact as VU's president.

I'm less bothered about the "bad publicity." The underlying issues here are very much a part of the dialogue about the present and future of higher education, and being seen as a school serving as a battleground for some of that debate is not the worst thing.

[historyman]

Trust the process.

You were the last one who I thought would quote Coach Matt Lottich. :-)

[wh]

Trust the process.

You were the last one who I thought would quote Coach Matt Lottich. :-)

That was good! lol

[wh]

It makes far more sense that the handful of student protestors said to the police chief after he threatened to arrest them on orders from the top, "so you're the president's muscle," or something to that effect. In fact, that's exactly the way it happened.

[vu72]

At many points the Board and Pres  has made it pretty clear that they detest faculty, students, and alumni.

Because many of the Board are alumni, and further, because alumni giving is the life blood of the university, that I consider the above quote as totally out of touch with reality.  As a member of the faculty who feels mistreated by this Board and Administration, I understand your feelings, it just run counterintuitive with reality.

[vu84v2]

I did not mean my points about how President Padilla handled a few student protesters to extend into broad conclusions about him and the board. While I believe the student's account of the events (they are presented in a logical and non-emotional manner in her letter) and I believe that he should have handled it better as a leader, I also believe that (if true) it was a mistake and not some grievous hatred of students, faculty, etc. I find it quite believable that the University President and Board may have strong disagreements on some topics and that they may get frustrated with some students and faculty, but that does not mean hatred and it does not mean that many (if not all) of them are respected.

[KreitzerSTL]

A university president would never engage in a public pissing match with a student (or a disgruntled group of faculty members who use the media to carry their story of woe). See Public Relations Blunders 101, Chapter 1.

A university president should refrain from making derisive comments about students, faculty, and alumni. See the introduction to Public Relation Blunders 101.

This university president in particular has a published history of PR blunders. (See also, telling Faculty Senate that he would "not fundraise by asking old white guys for money.")

I have to imagine some of his advisors noted that "not a core resource" would be a perfect rallying cry for opposition to his plan to sell artwork.

Most recently, he introduced his new chief fundraiser - to a room full of alumni - by describing her as "a pickpocket."

[wh]

By now, President Padilla has to be telling the Mrs., "I wish to God I would have never accepted this position. Not only did I inherit a financial mess sugarcoated by the Board during the interview process, I'm stuck with a bunch of entitled, butt-hurt faculty brats whose passion in life is sabotaging my every attempt to fix the mess they helped create." No good deed goes unpunished x 1000.

My advice to President Padilla, "Formulate your exit strategy. Run as fast as your legs will carry you. Never look back."

[usc4valpo]

To say Padilla loathes students and faculty is a complete joke.  How would he get the job if that were the case? Padilla is going to make mistakes, say something he will regret saying,  and piss people off. Padilla has a tough job and has to make tough decisions. Why do you think the art is being sold? To keep Valpo competitive. It sucks to sell it but how are you going to address the facility issues?

[valpopal]

It sucks to sell it but how are you going to address the facility issues?

I have always recommended a compromise solution be tried.

Fortunately, the art world has a practice called "fractional ownership," which has been embraced not only by other university museums but also by world renowned places like the Tate in London and the Whitney in New York. Fractional status allows for the partial sale of a painting, so that two or more institutions become joint owners with stipulated rights and time periods for display. There is an especially relevant precedent with Harvard University and the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum partnering to purchase O'Keeffe materials.

For example, Valparaiso University could actually sell up to 90% ownership of the O'Keeffe painting to another museum, which would allow the Brauer to still list the artwork as an asset in the museum's collection and to mount it about five weeks each year—perhaps during the fall semester around homecoming. The exhibit could even be titled a "homecoming" for O'Keeffe. To sweeten the agreement, VU could pledge to use a portion of the proceeds from the painting's sale to set aside space in the renovated dorms as a student art gallery. 

In this compromise, the administration receives money from the sale, the museum continues to list the work in its collection catalog, the community still has an opportunity each year to view the painting, and the university maintains some respect from the outside world with its innovative solution.

[usc4valpo]

excellent idea, but don't you think they would have considered that?

[valpopal]

excellent idea, but don't you think they would have considered that?

The idea has never been discussed in faculty meetings I have attended with the president, so I am assuming not. I would hope that if the legal avenue to stop the sale does not prevail, as I expect would be the case, and the looming specter of bad public relations continues, then this would be a good fallback position for those who wish to retain the painting as an asset in the museum and those who wish to sell the painting but retain respect. Maybe it is all part of the art of the deal: neither side offers a compromise until other paths are exhausted. In any case, it appears a compromise would be a win-win solution.

[vu72]

excellent idea, but don't you think they would have considered that?

The idea has never been discussed in faculty meetings I have attended with the president, so I am assuming not. I would hope that if the legal avenue to stop the sale does not prevail, as I expect would be the case, and the looming specter of bad public relations continues, then this would be a good fallback position for those who wish to retain the painting as an asset in the museum and those who wish to sell the painting but retain respect. Maybe it is all part of the art of the deal: neither side offers a compromise until other paths are exhausted. In any case, it appears a compromise would be a win-win solution.

This may be a wild suggestion, but, have you proposed this compromise to the President and/or Board?  Just asking for a University.

[vu84v2]

I am all for considering alternatives on the art sale, but from what I can see (and I do not admit to being an expert on art or art transactions) there is a potential problem.

Let's assume that the O'Keefe is worth $8M. A museum offers a joint deal in which they get 75% ownership, Valpo gets 25% ownership, and both parties get to show the painting at their premises following the same ratio. Thus, Valpo get $6M. However, if Valpo goes to auction it would get at least $8M and (being a competitive auction) could get $10M (or more). That is $4M that Valpo is giving up and, again, owning art is not part of Valpo's main mission. Further, I suspect that museums are likely to want more friendly deals (after all, their perspective is going to be that they are doing the right thing for Valpo and the art institutions)...thus in my example they may only be willing to pay $4M for 75% usage.

This is definitely an option that should be considered, but Valpo should not be foregoing large sums of money just to appease art associations, etc. To make this decision, you need to get a strong assessment of what a buyer (museum or otherwise) would be willing to pay for an outright purchase.

[valpopal]

I am all for considering alternatives on the art sale, but from what I can see (and I do not admit to being an expert on art or art transactions) there is a potential problem.

Let's assume that the O'Keefe is worth $8M. A museum offers a joint deal in which they get 75% ownership, Valpo gets 25% ownership, and both parties get to show the painting at their premises following the same ratio. Thus, Valpo get $6M. However, if Valpo goes to auction it would get at least $8M and (being a competitive auction) could get $10M (or more). That is $4M that Valpo is giving up and, again, owning art is not part of Valpo's main mission. Further, I suspect that museums are likely to want more friendly deals (after all, their perspective is going to be that they are doing the right thing for Valpo and the art institutions)...thus in my example they may only be willing to pay $4M for 75% usage.

This is definitely an option that should be considered, but Valpo should not be foregoing large sums of money just to appease art associations, etc. To make this decision, you need to get a strong assessment of what a buyer (museum or otherwise) would be willing to pay for an outright purchase.

All good points that I have considered; however, there are additional factors in the equation that counter the proposition VU would obtain the optimum price for the artwork in an auction. First, if Valpo goes to an open auction, the possible sale price likely would be lessened by two issues: museum members of the various art associations would be prevented from or advised against participating in any competitive bidding, plus the paintings will be regarded as "tainted" and diminished in the art world by the ethical questions echoing in the press or elsewhere, which would also tarnish the reputation of any buyer. Additionally, as has been witnessed in previous cases, an open auction would be even more harmful to the university's public relations if the painting were sold to a private owner and removed from public viewing.

[KreitzerSTL]

Is there an update on the sale, or at least an accounting for its delay? I had thought the NWI judge wanted to move expeditiously, but we are going on a month now in legal limbo.

[usc4valpo]

was it sold? Can we move on?