To me this sounds a lot like a last resort option in order to get a seat at the table for decisions. (A last resort option brought about by the sale of art and the degree cuts). Decisions that faculty should have been in on from the beginning. I imagine such distain for efforts such as the art sale and degree cuts could have been softened if faculty were made aware of the various reasonings behind these issues. From what is presented here. That was largely not the case. While I do personally support recent decisions, not involving staff in the conversation is not a move the board should be making at this time. Rather than take offense to this vote, why not offer a faculty senate appointed representative in the room for conversations such as sales of property, building developments, and degree cuts.
However, putting on tinfoil hats and shouting conspiracy is not a practice best suited for these circumstances.
There was a faculty senate representative allowed at the board meetings. Don't remember if this started before or after the art sale scandal. However this person is not invited anymore in the aftermath of this no confidence vote. Again, as I said in my previous post, the Board and the President have zero interest or desire for shared governance. But, in all honesty, if they indeed save the University I will be the first one to give them credit. Heck, I would even advocate to have Padilla portrait in place of O'Keeffe in the Brauer Museum. Until then I won't hold my breath.
In fairness, if the faculty seriously wants to bold in their proclamation and walk the walk, they should provide a recorded vote. I am sure the board votes are open. Also, if faculty are protesting degree major cuts in the current financial situation, then they are delusional.
Contrary, Padilla and the board needs to be more transparent in their decisions yet be proactive in carrying out these decisions.
In fairness, if the faculty seriously wants to bold in their proclamation and walk the walk, they should provide a recorded vote. I am sure the board votes are open. Also, if faculty are protesting degree major cuts in the current financial situation, then they are delusional.
Contrary, Padilla and the board needs to be more transparent in their decisions yet be proactive in carrying out these decisions.
What do you mean "recorded vote"? You mean not anonymous?
Personally, I do not protest any cuts if they lead to cost savings. Many programs that were eliminated, will NOT lead to cost savings but they sure caused bad press NOW with the potential of further scaring prospective students away from VU. And in general, the administration did not show how and how much each of these cuts will save money. Not even an approximate dollar projection. Something like, "we do this now" and we expect that much savings now or 2-3 years later". Everybody says "cuts need to be made". That is incomplete statement. It should be "we cut this to save that much and the saving is sufficient to compensate for the "side effects".
I know that folks outside academia won't believe me now and just think that I am some disgruntled faculty that wants his pet to survive. But really from what I see around me, colleagues always converge to the same theme: in places where fat needs to be trimmed, no cuts were made (which does include some programs but also administration with plenty of folks that only increase the workload of faculty to justify their own existence) whereas in other areas cuts are made without a clear projection of savings (if at all) but with plenty downstream bad effects for the educational mission.
But again, we should stop venting and waste the time. The Board made it clear that there is no interest or room for conversation between them and the faculty. Folks can disagree on this until cows come home. The Board response could not be more clearer. Once again I am not sure what the end game is. Let's give the benefit of the doubt that they don't actually want to sink this place. But maybe their vision of success is, I don't know, some small school with 1000 students, half the buildings demolished and 1-2 programs left or something. You can define "success" however we want. I still find it comical in their response that they want to preserve the "Lutheran tradition". That's got to be some attempt to comedy
In fairness, if the faculty seriously wants to bold in their proclamation and walk the walk, they should provide a recorded vote. I am sure the board votes are open. Also, if faculty are protesting degree major cuts in the current financial situation, then they are delusional.
Huh? Board meetings are closed-door affairs, and nobody has any clue what the people in that room vote on. It's not like they publish minutes of their meetings or records of their votes for the campus community LOL.
If the university-wide all-faculty vote was not anonymous, that would have just led to more people not voting or abstaining. Already, there was a lot of fear of retaliation, especially among tenure-track or otherwise vulnerable faculty who are extremely concerned about the direction of the university but wary of doing an electronic vote in a situation where Padilla has made it clear 'my way or the highway; this is war between me and you and I am more powerful.' As it was, the faculty who were willing to stick out their necks and have a digitally recorded participation in the vote were already overwhelmingly for the resolution of 'no confidence.' I think it would have been higher if the perceived risk of retaliation weren't so high.
I entirely agree with Dejavu that program cuts DO need to be made, but the university leadership seems utterly incapable of assessing whether those cuts will yield savings even short-term, let alone whether the savings will outstrip the negative losses in enrollment on a longer several-year horizon.
I was not surprised by the Board's statement of support for Pres. Padilla. I do not believe they had another option. If they expressed agreement with the faculty, Padilla would need to resign immediately. Notably, the Board's statement was generic and did not dispute or even address any of the issues raised by the faculty. Since the faculty vote was "overwhelming," as described in news reports, with 84% of those who did not abstain (131-26) voting "no confidence," and given the ongoing contentious relationship between Padilla and the faculty, highlighted by media coverage, one might think an eventual Padilla exit is not out of the question unless conditions change dramatically in the future. In fact, the Chicago Tribune article below pointedly makes a comparison to the "no-confidence" faculty vote at Purdue Northwest in December 2022 for their Chancellor with almost identical numbers (135-20). He left about a year later.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby expresses its full confidence in President Padilla, commends him for his actions, and encourages him to continue to move the institution forward to ensure the success of Valparaiso University and preserve its Lutheran tradition.
I find it interesting the Board included the phrase “preserve its Lutheran tradition.”
I guess they’re finally acknowledging the obvious fact that Valpo is becoming less Lutheran? The question then becomes whether becoming less Lutheran has been intentional or the result of broader trends or a combination of factors.
Also, since the Board isn’t going to listen to the faculty, it will be up to the alumni to register disapproval. I’ve decided to withhold my donations to Valpo until we get different leadership.
Ok everyone. Put the Reynolds Wrap back into the pantry. Are cuts controversial? Yes. But the board is not on some secret Illuminati mission to downplay Lutherans, or has some sort of secret plan up their sleaves. These decisions likely came from the various advisor groups that were hired to do exactly what happened. Trim fat. Whether that fat trimmed actually would save costs is another story and has every right to be criticized. But implying that the school is on some secret mission just rouses a witch hunt. The university is not becoming "Less Lutheran" but rather Lutheranism, has become less prominent in society. You cant appeal to an audience that isn't there and doubling down on the Lutherans and Lutherans first ideology is just panning water into the ship rather than out. The university has found different aspects of Lutheranism to draw upon in an attempt to preserve the Lutheran tradition, not dissipate it.
As others have stated cuts needed to be made, but the cuts that were made happened behind closed doors and without any numbers given. The issue I see here is an issue of transparency between staff and admin. Which, in VUs situation, should never be happening in the first place. The faculty should be made aware of any and all decisions and ever number. graph, and bar chart must be disclosed. As DejaVU said, a member was invited to board meetings. Instead of ostracizing the senate member, maybe let them in on the details a little more so the faculty don't think the board is flying in blind.
During my many years in academia I have served on numerous committees and have been tasked with composing subtle statements similar to the Board's rather brief public announcement. Every word and its position within a phrase is carefully reviewed by the committee, discussed and debated before release. Clearly, the language here does not dispute, deny, or address the specific complaints raised in the faculty resolution. That is known as recognition by omission and signifies those issues are still under observation by the Board.
Beyond expressing current confidence in Padilla, the Board unnecessarily goes further and encourages him to "move the institution forward to ensure the success of Valparaiso University and preserve its Lutheran identity." This didn't need to be included and is basically a probationary caution that the Board is expecting to see obvious signs of success in the future. Note it doesn't say "further success," a phrase normally added to recognize already reached achievements.
Additionally, as MJ08 mentioned, the urge that Padilla "preserve its Lutheran identity" is a curious addition and perhaps another caution, especially since this issue was never mentioned in the faculty resolution and only raised by the Board. This suggests it is a consideration of the Board, whose members I know have heard from alums with concerns regarding the subject.
I used to post frequently on this board. Not anymore.
The faculty vote of "no confidence" was a dumb, futile, and selfish decision. Of all the unforced errors VU has made in the past 10 years, this one has the potential to inflict the most harm.
My questions to the faculty would be:
(!) Did you really expect that the BOD would force President Padilla out as a result of your vote? If so, how did you expect the next president to address VU's financial concerns absent elimination of programs that attract few students? What new ideas regarding our financial situation did you bring to the table?
(2) Your group listed President Padilla's failure to increase enrollment as one reason for the no confidence vote. Did you stop and think how your no confidence vote would undermine efforts by the university to enroll students in a very tough environment, made worse in the coming year by the low birthrate brought on by the 2008-2009 financial crisis? Did it occur to you that your vote would damage the very thing (enrollment) that you say you care about?
(3) Where were you guys when the previous administration was out spending money the university did not have? Where was your outcry then?
(4) The proposed new health sciences building is obviously a key element in preserving VU's future. Did you stop and think - at any time - what impact your vote would have on the ongoing fundraising efforts by President Padilla - and others - for this crucial project?
Paul
As DejaVU said, a member was invited to board meetings
As I understood it, that faculty member was un-invited this weekend. The faculty escalated this weekend, but the board had the opportunity to de-escalate. I would wager that the faculty representative is not a voting seat on the board, so locking the faculty out sends the message that either you're on the bus or you get run over by the bus.
But I do appreciate valpopal's reading of the message. It does seem deliberately crafted, and with only a year left on his contract, the president has his marching orders.
In my eyes, the mention of the Lutheran Heritage is used because some feel the university is straying away from the Lutheran Identity. Such can be seen in press releases such as these, and in what little promotional material the school puts out. There is an emphasis on the "Hey, we are still Lutheran, but we aren't going to treat you any differently if you aren't Lutheran.
I used to post frequently on this board. Not anymore.
The faculty vote of "no confidence" was a dumb, futile, and selfish decision. Of all the unforced errors VU has made in the past 10 years, this one has the potential to inflict the most harm.
Paul: I hesitate in writing this reply because of my high respect for you and the fact that I have never really been a fond supporter of the Faculty Senate, even when I was briefly a member. However, I cannot fault the senators or the whole faculty at this time.
As Rez has mentioned, this was "a last resort option to get a seat at the table for decisions." For the past three years, I have noted on this forum the toxic and deteriorating relationship between Pres. Padilla and the faculty. On numerous occasions, the Faculty Senate and faculty individuals have attempted real dialogue on various issues both with Padilla and the Board. They have usually been rebuffed or dismissed, sometimes rudely. As VUIndiana stated the situation: "Padilla has made it clear 'my way or the highway'; this is war between me and you and I am more powerful." By its actions, the Board also seems not to want to engage in private dialogue with the faculty about their concerns.
For these reasons, after years of frustration the faculty have finally gone public with their lack of confidence. Please read the following resolution statements, which reflect what I have expressed the past few years: "President José D. Padilla’s leadership, both in style and substance, has fostered discontent and a deep sense of insecurity amongst the constituents of the University; President José D. Padilla, from the earliest days of his tenure, has taken a contentious approach with the faculty, staff, and the broader community, eroding the University’s reputation and fundamental mission, including 'values of mutual respect, positive regard,…and reliance on grace.'”
I understand the frustration by some outside the campus and on this forum with the public positions of the faculty. However, I believe in this instance the faculty have displayed some restraint for the past few years, and I am told by some members they feel this current situation can be attributed to President Padilla and the Board for their lack of willingness to engage in serious and respectful dialogue despite repeated entreaties. Believe me, my experience in faculty debates over the years has been that if the Faculty Senate overwhelmingly votes 15-2 and the whole faculty body, many very thoughtful and normally cautious individuals (including "tenure-track or otherwise vulnerable faculty," to quote VUIndiana again), willingly votes 131-26 on an issue that they would agree with you has potential to inflict harm, then there is a grave problem that has simmered for years without receiving attention and finally must be addressed.
I highly respect valpopal and, as usual, he thoughtfully makes several valid points in his post. Points that I cannot dispute.
I love VU and it hurts me deeply to see the infighting that is going on.
A facilitator/mediator is needed to deescalate this situation.
These are perilous times and I wish/hope both sides recognize that.
Paul
While we may dissagree on many other topics. Here we agree. While I do not agree with all of the points made by faculty against the president. I can see the anguish that would warrant the vote. Hopefully both sides decide to be the bigger person and talk this through without more violence and resentment. The school cannot afford much more of that.
