What further action could the faculty take to apply pressure on the board?
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
Thanks, Paul. I would nominate you as an ideal person to serve as mediator.
I did not mean "secret mission" literally. It was a figure of speech. I meant that when objectively you see a death spiral all around you and the message from the administration is "we know what we are doing, shut up and put up" you begin to wonder. Is it too much to ask that, three years in a job, to show a clear path for remediation? I don't expect 4000 students and profit overnight but at least a sign of turning to the right direction.
Speaking about the "no confidence" vote as an unforced error. I am actually worried about that. I don't think myself that the best thing right now is to change the president. Ideally, he and the Board will actually be more open with their plans and/or prove that their plans actually have a chance to work with the urgency these times demand.
But what about the unforced errors the administration did?
1. Art selling. I was actually OK with that if that is the price to pay for improving rapidly the student living conditions. So why not sell the damn thing quietly and rapidly? It's not like they grew a conscience toward transparency. Instead, what do we get? Legal dispute, bad NATIONAL press, selling delay, and no dorms.
2. Program discontinuance. Once again, I get that if an elimination of a program causes an elimination of a chunk of courses which in turn causes no need for a number of professors then cutting that program saves money cause you eliminate those positions. But many programs were cut despite the fact that those courses STILL have full enrollment, the affected professors still have to teach those classes to non-majors. When pressed and asked: how do you save money in that case? The answer was some vague, less clerical work of some sort. OK, HOW MUCH, for God's sake? Will a secretary in Kretzmann work an hour less because there is one less form to click on the computer? Just give me something credible? Nothing except, we have to cut, we can do it and we will do it. Meanwhile? Bad press. Big articles with programs cut.
I could go on. It is pretty scary to see people in leading position acting like they don't give it a second thought before jumping to drastic measures. How about plan a little before swinging that axe. And if they have a good plan, do a better job explaining it.
According to another article in the Chicago Tribune, in addition to the Faculty Senate resolution declaring a lack of confidence in Pres. Padilla, the Board of Directors also received this weekend a separate letter from Richard Brauer, which included the following criticism of Padilla:
"As I write this letter, I do not know the whereabouts or the condition of the three most valuable paintings that belong to the museum that bears my name. I do not know if they are safe, if they are presently for sale, or if they have been sold. The President in his successful petition to the probate court maligned me, the committee upon which I served, and the committee’s trustee, in alleging that I acted in bad faith in acquiring two of those paintings. This I can forgive, as an unnecessary and desperate action by a desperate man. But I refuse to have my name and reputation further sullied by the sale of artworks acquired through the generosity of a donor whose wishes I honored faithfully throughout my career as director of the Valparaiso University Museum. I hope members of the Urschel family who originally requested that the museum bear my name understand how grateful I am that they honored me that way, as I hope they understand why I am compelled to ask that my name be removed should the President succeed in selling any of the works in question."
Another thing about the art selling. Full disclaimer: I have zero expertise and have no idea on the merits of both sides in the legal dispute. I just want to share my 2 cents. Again, from where I stand, I worry whether this University will still be open 10 years from now (more or less). Do we want a University without a museum or a museum without a university? I am sorry, but I just can't see the art for sale as the worst thing happening right now.
On this, as I said in the earlier post, I fault the administration for not dealing with this quickly without the fanfare. Did they have to share their intent to sell? They can do so many things behind the closed doors. Why was this not one of them?
On this, as I said in the earlier post, I fault the administration for not dealing with this quickly without the fanfare. Did they have to share their intent to sell? They can do so many things behind the closed doors. Why was this not one of them?
It was illegal to sell the art without a court order allowing amendment to the original trust agreement, which prohibited such a sale.
From what I understand the Art Sale was designed to be kept in house and quick, but someone got wind of this and tipped off the tribune, who then arrived on campus under the false pretense of a puff piece. The art sale from my knowledge was done in order to fund dorm renovations and not have to dip into more debt. Which is the exact reason I supported the campaign in the first place. Its as DejaVU mentioned. Would you rather sell 3 pieces of art now in an attempt to preserve the school from collapse, or sell the entire museum in a Fire Sale when the school goes under. I assume most of the opposition would prefer the former to the latter. I do not like the handling of the sale post press release nopr do I think that the school should have shipped the paintings off in the night much like how the Colts left Baltimore, but I understand why the University would to to such lengths to make a move. The school is not in a great place financially and dorms is an essential factor that modern students consider when looking at schools. Especially schools in VUs price range. I do not know if these details were outlined to Brauer himself or those who opposed the sale, but once again, this is an example of something in which people should have been given a full debriefing on. Much of the damage could have been mitigated with a simple, "We hate to do this, but this is a large sum of money within the school and we don't want to go into more debt. We have aspirations of further facility improvements(The CONHP) and we feel as if selling the art would be the best way to improve campus life in addition to allocating more funds to come to our educational facilities." In which case you go more into the details of the loans needed and how they could possibly further the debt. Pal is on good terms with Brauer so it is more a question to him as to if Brauer would have accepted these terms. Another major blunder is how the wording of the initial email came about for the Uplift Valpo plan. Rather than saying that they are looking at options not related to the core education plan. Simply put out a presser outlining the above statement. To imply that something is expendable breeds resentment which is exactly what happened
As for why the school seems to be closed off from the faculty, I blame the teams hired to find the cost preserving measures. These businesses are likely feeding the board information that the staff "don't understand what is going on" and that they "Would never understand the difficult decisions being made". However untrue these claims may vbe, the advisors are just seeking a paycheck. The best way to keep that bankroll is to distance the board from the people who would know the inner workings of the education platform the best. The professors and faculty.
Padilla is not a bad man, nor do I think the board are bad people hellbent on turning the school into a non-Lutheran place. Rather they have good intentions, but lack a viable PR team to assist in damage control and outlining their goals. For as many "Ls" that Padilla and the board have taken there are just as many "Ws" as well. For example, the athletic department has experienced a marketing boom, and is actively engaging with the NWI area to a higher degree. There is also some access college material that acts as an outlet for students of a high caliber a path to access VU (CCC and Ivy Partnership) and the partnership with UIC in Crown Point for healthcare. Looking at sites such as Reddit, people have quite good opinions of VU and their religions affiliations. They claim that VU is Lutheran, but isn't interested in scanning your ID to make sure you attended services or aligning themselves with a particular sect of Lutheranism, but rather taking Lutheran Values and applying them to broader aspects of higher ed. To me it sounds like a PR department is a desperate need, and a mediator should be found between the board and the faculty. The faculty should not be locked out of the room on decisions that directly affect their work environment.
No one here wants the school to go under, or become GCU Midwest Branch. There is a path for survival, but the door for thriving in these times is closing.
For those in the know, is it normal for universities/colleges to involve their faculty in key university decisions that are being spoken about in this forum? In the corporate world, you may have different employee committees with different focuses, but in the end, it only matters what senior/C-level executives decide, as they are tasked with the company's bottom line. It's more of general employee surveys and information, versus any formal seat at the table in decision-making. You have your senior leaders for that part.
SHARED GOVERNANCE IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES
...Can a tradition of shared governance between administrators and faculty members survive in such a constant river of near-existential crises? Not only do we believe it can, but we also see it as essential.
Decisions made on such thorny issues without adequate faculty member buy-in can unnecessarily fuel distrust between administrators and the faculty—and that distrust, building at many institutions and erupting at others, can ultimately do substantial harm. Participatory shared governance, no matter how challenging the issue, is an essential ingredient for both making thoughtful decisions and creating a thriving academic community of faculty, staff and students.
Tensions arise when senior administrators perceive shared governance as slow-walking or derailing what they believe to be urgent items. In these fast-moving times, they question the ability of a deliberative body of the faculty to make timely decisions about complex matters. Faculty members, for their part, are frustrated when administrators present them with directives that sidestep shared governance....
From what I understand the Art Sale was designed to be kept in house and quick, but someone got wind of this and tipped off the tribune, who then arrived on campus under the false pretense of a puff piece.
That's not exactly how it went down. The education reporter from the Post received a tip and reached out to Brauer. She then had an interview with Brauer and Ruff and got their side of the story. She then reached out to the President's office seeking comment. She was told she'd get a comment in the next 24 hours. Within the next 24 hours, the President's office released the statement to the Valpo community about the sale. There was nothing about a puff piece or false pretenses. The education reporter has since spoken to several of my journalism classes about the construction of this story. I'd say the reporting of this story was so good they should put it in the Louvre, but that's probably too on the nose for this instance.
@thevictorybell yeah I figured that those claims were exaggerated, but that is just what I hears from family friends close to the university. Nonetheless I stand by the rest of the monolauge
Also props to you for turning bad press into great educational material
According to another article in the Chicago Tribune, in addition to the Faculty Senate resolution declaring a lack of confidence in Pres. Padilla, the Board of Directors also received this weekend a separate letter from Richard Brauer, which included the following criticism of Padilla:
"As I write this letter, I do not know the whereabouts or the condition of the three most valuable paintings that belong to the museum that bears my name. I do not know if they are safe, if they are presently for sale, or if they have been sold. The President in his successful petition to the probate court maligned me, the committee upon which I served, and the committee’s trustee, in alleging that I acted in bad faith in acquiring two of those paintings. This I can forgive, as an unnecessary and desperate action by a desperate man. But I refuse to have my name and reputation further sullied by the sale of artworks acquired through the generosity of a donor whose wishes I honored faithfully throughout my career as director of the Valparaiso University Museum. I hope members of the Urschel family who originally requested that the museum bear my name understand how grateful I am that they honored me that way, as I hope they understand why I am compelled to ask that my name be removed should the President succeed in selling any of the works in question."
OK, this is now sour grapes.
Whether you agree with the art sale or not, it was intended for the benefit of Valparaiso University, and by extension the long-term future of the art museum. As far as I can tell, Mr. Brauer LOST his case in court, and the paintings are allowed to be sold. I am sure Mr. Brauer regrets that he lost the case, and that VU's lawyers said bad things about him in order to win. Perhaps, he should have considered this possibility in pursuing the court case to being with?
Although it is technically true that Mr. Brauer does not know the specific location of the paintings, there is no evidence whatsoever that they are not safely secured. More than that, there is no benefit to releasing a statement to the Chicago Tribune attacking the President or the university - as far as I know, the Board of Directors authorized the sale of the paintings. Probably, the annual insurance premium on the O'Keeffe painting alone would pay the salary of a tenure-track professor in A&S.
Was it necessary that the paintings be sold? That is up for some debate, as the University faces a very difficult financial circumstance. What is not up for debate is that President Padilla is trying to address that issue head on, and saw a possible art sale as one mechanism to help secure the future of the university.
For those in the know, is it normal for universities/colleges to involve their faculty in key university decisions that are being spoken about in this forum?
In my view, shared governance used to work but is no longer working at many institutions (VU being a pretty combustive example) because administrators and faculty are now two really different kinds of people who have little respect for each other.
Thirty years ago, most college presidents and top administrators were themselves educators who began as faculty in whatever discipline (history, chemistry, law, nursing, theology, etc.) and then - hopefully because they had some kind of clear talent for the larger strategic questions of vision/fundraising - went into administration. Although many faculty do not have administrative/financial talent, those who went into administration and did have the leadership chops to succeed were generally highly respected by the faculty. My own undergrad institution had a fantastic and highly respected chemist as chancellor; and looking back, I see how although he certainly knew how to play the games of higher ed (fundraising, community relations, even navigating the rise of the USNWR/rankings paradigm), nonetheless faculty really did respect him as an intellectual and an educator. My sense, from Valpo lore, is that O.P. Kretzman was perhaps similarly highly respected in having both some leadership skills (charismatic ability to cast a vision, to inspire the campus community, maybe some savvy PR sensibility, etc.) as well as considered a substantive historical and theological thinker. For their part, these intellectuals-turned-administrators generally had respect for the faculty as subject-experts and trusted their shared commitment to the school... especially since most administrators and faculty were in it for the long haul together, often serving for 15+ years or even whole lifetime careers together.
Unfortunately, today college presidents and admis are more often MBAs or sometimes Ed technocrats (with technocratic degrees in 'higher ed administration' but no actual academic discipline with its own history or methodological discipline) or sometimes a JD. The Boards, who are also now rarely scholars/public intellectuals but mostly business people, hire these campus administrators in hopes that their business connections, efficiency models, or legal liability chops will help the institution. In some cases, they really do manage to find the sort of corporate/legal mind that can put their experience and wisdom in service of the curricular mission and lived community of the university. But in a lot of cases, these people are not really that nuanced, trying to apply all kinds of business values and models that end up being counter-productive when your 'product' is actually a kind of experience (the undergrad having the sorts of transformative intellectual and social encounters that leave them both better equipped for a job in the world and appreciative for the care they knew in the learning community). In that case, it can be a problem if the new modern corporate presidents and admins have zero experience or respect for academics as such, and really ultimately disdain the faculty en masse. It does not help that a lot of career administrators (dean/VP/Pres types) are not actually committed to the institution long term but just churn through jobs to get to higher and higher paid gigs around U.S. higher ed. In turn, the faculty do not take these types of leaders seriously, and (even unfairly) may resist all upper admin efforts to strategically handle the finances as a threat to the educational mission.
Higher ed isn't the only place where these shifts are happening... I know in the hospital world, doctors and nurses also complain a great deal about the corporatization of medicine, where MBA hospital administrators are now very disconnected from the actual medical care. Or think of the complaints around places like Boeing, where (as I understand it) the upper management is no longer taken from or connected to the engineers, and so there's a worrying suspicion within and beyond the industry that the business's strategy and marketing could get unhinged from the actual engineering innovation and product quality that made the industry/business so great to begin with.
While these Admin/Faculty tensions are not inevitable, I think they are particularly caustic at VU primarily because we are SO heavy laden on the administrator side with faculty notably underpaid. The public IPEDS data shows that (compared to VU's own chosen peer institutions, we are pretty skewed compared to the averages of Bellarmine U, Lipscomb, Misericordia, Quinnipiac, U Detroit Mercy, etc). With admin/faculty relations always a little sensitive and difficult, it becomes nearly impossible to maintain respectful relations when faculty know that the admins are making high six-figure salaries while they are (compared to peers) overworked and underpaid:
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/dfr/2023/ReportHTML.aspx?unitId=152600
Wow, I am blown away. These numbers are pathetic and if I assume there is no bias in this survey. Faculty is 22% below the medium, and there are a significantly more management positions compared to the medium. Also, and correct me if I am wrong, cost of living in Valparaiso isn’t low. If you were a professor, you must have to truly love the university to work there. Valpo should be embarrassed and ashamed with their compensation to faculty.
@vuindiana - another recent corporation example of disjoint loyalty and collaboration between leadership and employees is John Deere.
