Regardless of what you may believe it is rude, Snobby, and entitled to claim that devoted art fans need to view this museum to be called devoted art fans.
Okay, let me accept for a moment your premise that a VU student tells me he or she is "a devoted art fan." Then, during the four or more years at the university, that student chooses not to visit the Brauer Museum, even though there are numerous exhibitions every semester displaying some of the greatest works in the world, whether from the permanent collection or loans from other prestigious national or international museums—great French Impressionists, extraordinary Modernists, celebrated Abstract Expressionists, Pop Art icons like Warhol, the Hudson River School masters, even Goyas. I am not even including personal appearances and talks by notable contemporary artists.
All this is free and in a place the student passes every day on the way to classes or meals or elsewhere. Yet, that student doesn't attend any of the showings by spending a few minutes walking through a gallery. What am I supposed to conclude? Clearly, the claim of being "a devoted art fan" has little credibility and cannot be taken serious. This is a case of the student "snubbing" the opportunity to experience great art rather than my being "snobby" by stating the reality.
I believe vok22 hit the nail on the head with the following statements:
"Lost in all of this is that they are trading an appreciating asset (5k to now 15 MILLION) for paint and drywall that might attract a handful more students AT ABSOLUTE MOST per year. Does that sound like a sound investment? What other asset does the university have that has that sort of on paper-ROI?
Not to mention the fact that it violates a very clear agreement with the original trust and they are openly flaunting the lack of respect for it and attempt at finding a loophole. What kind of message does that send to future donors to the university? It certainly isn't a trust-builder."
These statements certainly capture my sentiments that I also expressed earlier on this situation. Amen!!
I find the characterization of the future of Valpo as "dying" and in a "death spiral extremely troubling. Is this true? If so, where's the urgent appeal from the administration for an emergency fund raising campaign? The more commenters yell "the ship is sinking" perhaps the more the media will believe it is true. I can say with certainty that this entire situation has raised doubts in my mind about extending future support (estate commitments and/or art donations) to Valpo. I'm sure that I'm not the only person with these feelings.
Let me offer some comments:
1. vok22 and others have made the point of "why would you sell an asset that is appreciating for paint and drywall?" Well. those additional students that would be attracted - and remember this is meeting parity on housing versus other universities considered by prospective students and their parents, not your view - bring revenue from attending and become potential donors in the future. You cannot validly say the return on the sale is inconsequential. Indeed, I would hope most would welcome a financial analysis that weighs only the financial value of the art versus the financial return (incremental tuition, housing, long term donations) from building the dorms (or other capital improvements). But such analyses should not include intangible/sentimental value (my view from some prior posts is that some feel that value of the art is infinite - which it is not).
2. How selling the art would impact donors' thoughts and behavior. There is another significant perspective not being considered in the prior comments. Why would a donor go out of their way to donate significant funds to Valpo when the university is sitting on highly valuable assets that are not associated with the mission of the university? If the university goes to a donor and says, "we are not selling the art, but we want you to donate significant funds to the university for ______ capital projects", isn't the university effectively saying that the donor should contribute to keeping the art? Most donors to any type of organization consider whether the organization is appropriately using its assets.
3. (restated from prior posts on the old board) I graduated in the early 80s and have spoken in the Brauer Center. I knew the museum existed. I have been engaged more than many alumni in areas tied to the university's academic mission. I never knew this highly valuable art existed until this issue came up. My wife graduated in the early 80s and we have friends who are alumni from a variety of disciplines...and they never knew the art existed until this issue came up. My point is that it is not part of the university's mission when many never even knew it existed - let alone never saw value from it towards the university's mission.
4. The university is not "dying" (because enrollment has not dipped further and the endowment is large for the size of the university), but the financial model is not sustainable for 10, 20, 30+ years. Enrollment needs to increase, student retention needs to be good and, first and foremost, those measures are driven by quality of the education and quality of life for the students. That needs to be the priority in all decisions - thus, retaining good faculty in areas prospective students want to study is critical, capital improvements to improve student quality of life is critical - but retaining art is not. (by the way, years ago on this board I said that the Welcome Center was a poor capital investment and I stand by that argument - students and the people who directly bring quality education to those students should always be the priority - not fancy office space for administrative staff)
5. I have asked this question previously, but those against the art sale have never answered the question. Assume the university has $10M in cash sitting in an account. Would you spend it on faculty and capital improvements associated with the mission of the university or would you buy art?
I have asked this question previously, but those against the art sale have never answered the question. Assume the university has $10M in cash sitting in an account. Would you spend it on faculty and capital improvements associated with the mission of the university or would you buy art?
If the funds were received for a general fund, I would say the university should spend it on whatever they want. If the money was received from a donor with a stipulation that it be used for a new athletics center, I would insist the donor's wish be followed and not diverted to other projects. Likewise, if the funds carry a trust requirement that they be devoted to enhancement of the art collection, I insist that restriction be observed as well.
When you have old buildings, at some point, you will be forced to spent a lot of money on them. Whether it's just to keep them running or to actually upgrade them and make them useful and in line for foreseeable future needs is a question that I think Valpo has often not answered correctly so you end up with buildings that are falling apart and irredeamable in the long term. I think it's also important to note that the plan is not just for some more drywall. It's to basically restructure the first year living experience on campus by connecting Berg and Brandt and adding in resources including study spaces, community areas and potentially dining and advisors.
That may not change your mind about whether the art should be sold for it but I also wanted to clarify what the plan for renovation was
@valpopal With all due respect valpopal, you answered a question (and I agree that it is a salient question) - but did not answer my question which hypothetically assumes you have the cash and not the art.
The point of my question is that many donors look at these questions differently. The university asks them to donate large sums - but they would now look at the overall picture and ask "why should I donate a lot of money when you (the University) don't use your own assets?" Maybe another question is, "what would those against the sale of the art do if major donors refused to donate money if the art is not sold?"
@valpopal With all due respect valpopal, you answered a question (and I agree that it is a salient question) - but did not answer my question which hypothetically assumes you have the cash and not the art.
My answer remains the same. If the cash is from general funds, do whatever you want. If the cash is from a donor who offered it to the university with a restriction that it be used to buy art, you honor the donor's wish. How many on this board would be pleased if the university were presented with millions of dollars stipulated as funds to build a new arena but the administration decided to spend it on dorm renovation instead?
@valpopal With all due respect valpopal, you answered a question (and I agree that it is a salient question) - but did not answer my question which hypothetically assumes you have the cash and not the art.
My answer remains the same. If the cash is from general funds, do whatever you want. If the cash is from a donor who offered it to the university with a restriction that it be used to buy art, you honor the donor's wish. How many on this board would be pleased if the university were presented with millions of dollars stipulated as funds to build a new arena but the administration decided to spend it on dorm renovation instead?
Valpopal - I see the potential validity in your point (though I have never read the agreement), but does a contingency on a donation exist in perpetuity? Don Fites was the principal donor for the extension of the Engineering building...does Valpo need his (or his heirs') approval if they decide to repurpose that space in 25 years? I donated for that building (to a much lesser degree), do they need my approval if that space is repurposed?
This argument just reiterates why lots of universities do not like significantly restricted endowed funds. I believe there was a larger endowment fund for the law school that was ended when it no longer exists. I understand it is the donors right to put their strings on the money but I do wish there was some sort of time limit or loophole to allow a repurposing of funds if there were extenuating circumstances.
Valpopal - I see the potential validity in your point (though I have never read the agreement), but does a contingency on a donation exist in perpetuity? Don Fites was the principal donor for the extension of the Engineering building...does Valpo need his (or his heirs') approval if they decide to repurpose that space in 25 years? I donated for that building (to a much lesser degree), do they need my approval if that space is repurposed?
I have read the Trust documents and the university's petition to the courts looking for a loophole. The Trust is an "irrevocable" agreement. That is why the university cannot now sell the artworks for dorm renovation. Currently, those objecting to the sale are legally and ethically correct. However, the petition is a fishing expedition looking for loopholes and requests that the court amend the Trust to allow repurposing of proceeds from an art sale.
One of the loopholes deviously claims Brauer, the university's Trust committee, and the Sloan family's sole executor/trustee violated the law a half century ago when buying two of the three artworks considered for sale. In suggesting this, the administration disavows all the praise for the purchases by previous university presidents. Another of the loopholes, which unfortunately I have always believed will be successful, cites legal precedent where courts amended irrevocable agreements if an institution's economic situation becomes dire. The university has attempted to make that case by citing low enrollment numbers, declining annual income, and the extent of last year's deficit.
Valpopal - I see the potential validity in your point (though I have never read the agreement), but does a contingency on a donation exist in perpetuity? Don Fites was the principal donor for the extension of the Engineering building...does Valpo need his (or his heirs') approval if they decide to repurpose that space in 25 years? I donated for that building (to a much lesser degree), do they need my approval if that space is repurposed?
I have read the Trust documents and the university's petition to the courts looking for a loophole. The Trust is an "irrevocable" agreement. That is why the university cannot now sell the artworks for dorm renovation. Currently, those objecting to the sale are legally and ethically correct. However, the petition is a fishing expedition looking for loopholes and requests that the court amend the Trust to allow repurposing of proceeds from an art sale.
One of the loopholes deviously claims Brauer, the university's Trust committee, and the Sloan family's sole executor/trustee violated the law a half century ago when buying two of the three artworks considered for sale. In suggesting this, the administration disavows all the praise for the purchases by previous university presidents. Another of the loopholes, which unfortunately I have always believed will be successful, cites legal precedent where courts amended irrevocable agreements if an institution's economic situation becomes dire. The university has attempted to make that case by citing low enrollment numbers, declining annual income, and the extent of last year's deficit.
I would like to see the comparative facts behind the legal precedent allowing such agreements to be amended if the institution's finances are dire. Given that VU just finished a successful fundraising campaign a couple of years ago, has announced ambitious plans for new buildings, and has been willing to tap into its endowment capital for non-essential expenditures (indeed, isn't that the criticism of the Strongbow purchase?), then this sudden making of the art sale as the needed, exigency-based move to save the University seems like a big stretch.
I make no claim of expertise in the law of gifts to non-profit museums and universities, but if an institution no longer wishes to use a dedicated charitable gift for its specific intended purposes, then shouldn't the gift should be returned to the original donor or their heirs? Or does this mean, say, that the Art Institute of Chicago can simply sell off a few donated Picassos or Van Goghs if its financial situation becomes very tight?
VU has now publicly stated in its petition that the paintings are "impracticable, impossible and wasteful" -- note the oddity that they're not claiming this for the entire art museum, just its most valuable works. It seems to me there's a plausible argument that the Brauer estate should be able to reclaim the paintings.
