Sigh, another small Midwestern religiously-affiliated college singing a swan song:
SNC recently bumped their endowment up to $188million in 2024 after a fund drive. They are still running a $7million deficit though ☹️. SNC has slightly under 2,000 UGs and is a long-time fixture in the Green Bay area, so this is distressing.
Sigh, another small Midwestern religiously-affiliated college singing a swan song:
SNC recently bumped their endowment up to $188million in 2024 after a fund drive. They are still running a $7million deficit though ☹️. SNC has slightly under 2,000 UGs and is a long-time fixture in the Green Bay area, so this is distressing.
Keep in mind that a normal 4 percent on a $188m endowment is just under $7.6m.
The budget deficits may well reflect the FAFSA debacle coming on the heels of several "COVID classes" that are finally cycling through.
Normal distribution, governed by UPMIFA, of funds, is between 4 and 5 %. What many people fail to comprehend is that most endowments are highly restricted to financial aid. This means that the distribution amount available for use in general operations is much less in your example. Another issue is that as enrollment decreases the pass-through of funds from the endowment monies restricted to student aid decreases and there is less money going to general operations.
Normal distribution, governed by UPMIFA, of funds, is between 4 and 5 %. What many people fail to comprehend is that most endowments are highly restricted to financial aid. This means that the distribution amount available for use in general operations is much less in your example. Another issue is that as enrollment decreases the pass-through of funds from the endowment monies restricted to student aid decreases and there is less money going to general operations.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the distribution is available for general operations, because I know well that many endowment gifts are for designated purposes. My point was that the typical annual yield on even a beefed up endowment is rather modest.
In fact, in St. Norbert's case, that budget deficit very likely already includes income from endowment gifts.
Historically speaking, the somewhat late start that many of these smaller/medium sized private colleges and universities got on building professional fundraising operations is now rearing its ugly head. VU finally started to build its modern development capacities under the Schnabel administration. Harre and Heckler continued that improvement with successful major fundraising campaigns.
Awaiting the kind of major fundraising campaign that Padilla intends to launch.
Awaiting the kind of major fundraising campaign that Padilla intends to launch.
How long is the president’s contract? He is coming up on four years in office.
Awaiting the kind of major fundraising campaign that Padilla intends to launch.
How long is the president’s contract? He is coming up on four years in office.
I don't know but I hear colleagues saying (hoping) that he will not be renewed and that the Board's statement that they support him (in response to the non-confidence vote) was just about saving face for now. I'm not good at these guesses but, my feeling, as I said before, is that he will probably remain. It's clear to me that we have all eggs in the basket of this administration and, as I said before, the narrative is "cooked" already: either save the University and take credit or run it to the ground and blame it on faculty for not being fully on board.
But here's another question that came up from a recent discussion. Padilla keeps saying (in his defense) that his fiduciary duty is to the Board and as long as they approve of his actions then all is good and the rest can take it or leave it. Fine, but someone says that, legally speaking, the Board is not entirely unconstrained despite the fact that they are basically the University and supreme authority. Rather, legally they have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the University itself. Meaning that, if one can prove that their action (or inaction for that matter) harms the University and its future then they can, at least in theory, be legally responsible
Again I am not expert, but again, I wonder if years go by and the president does not deliver doesn't the Board have a fiduciary duty to itself to act and replace him? That does not guarantee positive outcome but it shows that they actually care about the success of this place.
I guess my question about the president's contract was more about how long we can expect his tenure to be, and thus when we might expect a campaign to begin. Mark Heckler had 12 years, Alan Harre had 20, and Robert Schnabel had 10.
I don't want to relitigate the vote of no confidence, but the faculty's chief complaints were, in order, 1) stagnant fundraising, and 2) plummeting enrollment. The departure of the head of enrollment might be movement on #2 if Valpo finds a great replacement, but it might also intimate that #2 is an unsolvable Gordian knot. (Incidentally, #4 on the faculty list was "the ability to recruit and effectively lead senior administrators, as evidenced by, among other issues, significant turnover in key leadership positions." Given the departure of Jill Schur, how many prognosticators do we have on our faculty?)
I don't think VU has more than 5-7 years if it does not stop and turn the downward slope in 2 years max. There is a point of no return (or self fulfilling prophecy). I don't know what that point is. But I worry that the administration thinks that at some point enrollment will stabilize to meet the new demand and, in their mind, they may think that we just have to shrink enough (cut enough programs and faculty) until we meet the current market and then we grow from there. The way I see it is that if current losses happen for another 2 years then there will be a "vote of no confidence" from the prospective students and no amount of publicity, renovated dorms and grand strategic plans will stop the running to the hills.
The urgency NOW is to stop the slide and show a modicum of increase. I view this much more important at the moment than waiting for results from long term planning. There is no long term in 2 years and unfortunately there is enough delusion around to not realize this.
they may think that we just have to shrink enough (cut enough programs and faculty) until we meet the current market and then we grow from there.
Yes, from what I can tell, this is their logic, and I've heard senior folk say as much.
This is why I have commented that the Board/CFOs don't really understand that they're running a school, much less how to navigate the human reputational & enrollment landscape in the online era.
The administration thinks along a factory production model, really believing that if you just pay for fewer laborers and source fewer screws and sell enough material assets out of the basement, that you can scale down production costs and make fewer widgets and go into hibernation to protect the stakeholder's investments for some future recovery. I fear they may drive enrollment all the way down to zero and then -- still proud of how many programs/production lines they cut -- tell the workers that if only we'd accepted lower pay and had a better spirit, then maybe the factory would still be making stuff. The small detail left out is that universities don't actually make material things like widgets at all. Universities deal in human students & families who are trying to 'buy' an intellectual & social experience and it turns out they have various perceptions and agency to use of their own in choosing whether to come or not.
While I agree with those who point out that a university president isn't like a basketball coach, one of the big similarities is that the 3-4 year mark is often a pretty good juncture to assess whether it was a good hire. The assessment of President Padilla is mixed at best.
No confidence votes occur so frequently now that they have lost some of their impact. However, while presidents can survive NC votes in terms of keeping their job, few, if any, presidencies have thrived in that aftermath. Again, like a basketball program, if the coach has lost the locker room, at best the program is simply jogging in place. The VU board needs to understand that.
VU has genuine, distinctive core strengths. But it does need the right leader who can galvanize those strengths and the university community. The longer things linger, the more unlikely the odds of an institutional turnaround.
Deja VU nailed it in today's "Valpo News" thread. He says Valpo has just 2 years to show an upward year in freshman enrollment even if a 5-7 year "strategic plan" looks wise. The cost to borrow goes up when the bond ratings drop and Moody's has spoken. Otherwise the downward spiral risks being fatal.
Sincerely,
Captain Obvious
No confidence votes occur so frequently now that they have lost some of their impact.
That may be true in the world of higher ed writ large, but I believe it was the first time Valpo faculty had ever taken such an action.
No confidence votes occur so frequently now that they have lost some of their impact.
That may be true in the world of higher ed writ large, but I believe it was the first time Valpo faculty had ever taken such an action.
Even for first-time NC votes at an institution, the impact these days tends to be more drawn out, for example:
1. The faculty votes NC;
2. The board, defensively feeling like the faculty is getting too uppity, issues a statement of support for the president;
3. The president becomes, in essence, a lame duck for a period of time, eventually stepping down "to pursue other opportunities" or "to spend more time with my family."
The exceptions tend to be some type of egregious conduct (whereas Pres. Padilla appears to be a decent fellow) or a really, really bad f-up that gets even board members riled (again, not Pres. Padilla), or the president gets another job (in which case, the exit can be a fast one).
That said, just about any strong vote of NC does tend to direct a president toward the eventual departure lounge. It just may not be instantaneous.
And then there are the NC votes directed at both the president and the board leadership, which adds a few twists to the drama.
No confidence votes occur so frequently now that they have lost some of their impact.
That may be true in the world of higher ed writ large, but I believe it was the first time Valpo faculty had ever taken such an action.
Even for first-time NC votes at an institution, the impact these days tends to be more drawn out, for example:
1. The faculty votes NC;
2. The board, defensively feeling like the faculty is getting too uppity, issues a statement of support for the president;
3. The president becomes, in essence, a lame duck for a period of time, eventually stepping down "to pursue other opportunities" or "to spend more time with my family."
The exceptions tend to be some type of egregious conduct (whereas Pres. Padilla appears to be a decent fellow) or a really, really bad f-up that gets even board members riled (again, not Pres. Padilla), or the president gets another job (in which case, the exit can be a fast one).
That said, just about any strong vote of NC does tend to direct a president toward the eventual departure lounge. However, it likely won't be instantaneous.
And then there are the NC votes directed at both the president and the board leadership, which adds a few twists to the drama.
Ok, so you have this drawn out drama and tension between the board and faculty - how will this resolve the problem requiring prompt resolution? What a bunch of stubborn clowns - talk to each other, collaborate and make Valpo shine! Quit pointing fingers!
