On the no confidence vote, this seems ill advised. I'm sure the faculty are upset, yet what good will come out of it? The real problems are long-term, and as far as I can see from the outside, President Padilla is trying to do the right things to put the university on a sustainable financial path. The previous administration placated the faculty with vague happy talk and spending money that was not available - that is why there is a perpetual $21M draw on the line of credit, and another $100M in debt on loans for prior construction projects that mostly occurred under the previous administration. The president is right that the dorms need to be updated to attract students. The president is also right that some low-enrollment majors need to be closed or consolidated because they are financially unsustainable. Three questions:
1) Where was the faculty in the past? Where was the faculty (or faculty senate) when President Heckler was spending money the university did not have? Where was the faculty (or faculty senate) when the Law school was ran into the ground? (I get that there were secular market forces working against the law school, yet that tuition revenue helped support the university). Where was the faculty (or faculty senate) in questioning President Heckler's "plan" to grow the university to 6,000 students when facing an imminently visible demographic decline?
2) Would a new president help the university? Could a new president fix its problems? Or, would a presidential search further delay some of the needed though unpopular changes? Remember, a new president would need to raise $21M in cash just to pay off the existing line of credit. How much of the enrollment decline is the fault of President Padilla (who took office in February 2021), and how much is it due to the fact that he took office when the first of the "COVID Class" were freshmen?
3) Other than a new president, what specific solutions would the faculty (or faculty senate) recommend?
The bottom line is that is easy to be critical, yet much harder to come up with solutions.
So I actually agree with you, v95, that oftentimes Faculty/Faculty Senate have gotten upset about the wrong stuff and at the wrong times.
But I would like to point out that faculty AREN'T made aware of or brought in on these kinds of financial decisions, at least not at at time where they could weigh in against it in a positive and constructive manner. When the Administration decides to embark on massive construction projects, buy property, take on debt, contract with this or that online learning platform, do you think they're telling faculty about it, laying out the numbers, and taking actual decision-making input from them? No. If you're lucky, the Admins announce it from the stage in some semesterly meeting or townhall as something that's happened/happening; and if faculty then feel some concern about these larger financial decisions, they can raise a problem about it. But the fact is faculty are NOT ever shown the actual books or given financial information while decisions are actually in the works, so if they are concerned, their only option is to agitate about it after the fact and look quarrelsome. The C-Suite expects Faculty to stay in their curricular lane and not be involved in financial issues, so they never say 'here's our detailed budget and where money is going' but leave faculty only to guess at what is actually happening financially. But of course Faculty are supposed to appreciate the financial issues and challenges when then the axe is coming down and their programs are getting cut!
As for growing enrollment to 6,000 - yes, I do think Faculty Senate had some vote involved in that since it was an educational/curricular issue as well so the Admins did have to involve faculty in the conversation - and I do know there was a pretty significant minority opposition, led by Gil Meilander and others at the time, who thought it was a really risky endeavor, and felt that in times of stress the university should be looking to trim and double down more on excellence -- rather than trying to expand and possibly risk lowering standards. I don't know the ins-and-outs of why the university (and faculty senate?) at the time went with Heckler's vision.
I would hope your second paragraph is changed in the future. You should be involving faculty directly with decisions that ultimately affect their jobs. As for the vote, this smells a lot like retaliation for cuts and art sales.
I did not attend the meeting, but my understanding is that the senate vote was 15-2 in favor of the resolution, which will be presented as a reflection of faculty sentiment to the Board of Directors, who meet today and tomorrow.
i would love to be a fly on the wall for that discussion!I did not attend the meeting, but my understanding is that the senate vote was 15-2 in favor of the resolution, which will be presented as a reflection of faculty sentiment to the Board of Directors, who meet today and tomorrow.
As for the vote, this smells a lot like retaliation for cuts and art sales.
That's interesting, because when I read the articles online, I fully expected the vote to be about cutting programs or closing the Brauer. Neither is enumerated in the faculty senate resolutions. Instead, these seem like very specific grievances about the obligations of a university president -- fundraising and enrollment (both of which this board has identified as current weaknesses at Valpo).
The president has not raised money; the president has not grown the school. He has hired and lost vice presidents, athletic directors, admissions directors.
These resolutions beg the question -- what has the president accomplished in four years? Spelled out like this, the board has questions to answer.
Agreed. I think there are some substantive issues raised in the resolution.
In his defense, it is possible Padilla didn't really know what he was getting into or have a clear sense of what it is to run a university. He had worked FOR universities before, but only in legal counsel type of roles which (in my general impression) are pretty siloed from the operations of the university as a whole and definitely from the academic side of the house. I don't really understand what they do, but aren't General Counsels just basically defending the legal interests and facilitating the deals and agreements of whatever business they work for (and whether it's a media company, airline, sports franchise, non-profit ,etc. t is somewhat secondary?) So it seems possible maybe he never did actually have to deal with the 'school' side of the house at DePaul or Colorado before, so may not have realized he actually doesn't like dealing with the issues related to educational delivery? But a President is more of an umbrella role where the person does have to reckon with all aspects of the 'business' they're running (in this case a school), so it does seem potentially like a problem if he just really doesn't like dealing with faculty/students. Perhaps it would be like if you worked as a lawyer for a large hospital network on its property and insurance deals, and then became a CEO of a hospital where suddenly you're dealing with patients and families and doctors/nurses who have strong opinions about what makes for good healthcare... only to realize you don't actually like dealing with sick-people issues and find them annoying?
@vuindiana - if Padilla was not ready or not have that universal experience, then why did Valparaiso University hire him? In reality, in this role it should be assumed he can take on all expected responsibilities.
I think the board is pissed about the art sale, cutting majors and below norm salaries but I give them credit writing this with objectivity rather than emotion.
USCs words are what I was attempting to get at. It is no coincidence that these transgressions have come about after the art sale is to be completed and after the statement given by Padilla at the most recent town hall.
A full university faculty vote now has been taken, which supports the Faculty Senate "no-confidence" resolution. Below is the Board's response to the faculty. Unfortunately, the divisions at the university and toxicity between parties have never been greater.
IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT PADILLA AND HIS ACTIONS AS PRESIDENT
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.
Dated: October 26, 2024
My understanding is the full-faculty vote was 77% for 'No Confidence.' (171 votes cast, with 131 ballots in favor of the motion, 26 against it, and 14 abstentions.) So, lower than the Faculty Senate vote but pretty strongly negative.
Just curious, do any more senior/experienced faculty know why the it's a vote of No Confidence in the President instead of the Board? Is it even possible for a uni to vote No Confidence in its Board? I'm not advocating for this (not sure whether it would be warranted or wiser or more effective than a vote of no confidence in the pres). But I'm just curious since a couple of years ago when there was faculty talk of a no-confidence vote before, and so now too, it is framed as a question of no-confidence in the president in a way that seems to give the Board a pass.... But here on this e-board we've often commented that that Padilla inherited such a mess when he arrived, with a lot of the financial/enrollment disaster already laid into place. This was not just long-term issues like the indebtedness, but even some of the really particular decisions like the hastiness of the 2020 layoffs right before he was hired, which he has commented upon as having been a real mess. I am not on Faculty Senate, but heard from some of those folk that it was the Board pushing the decisions to come down so fast insisting it be done within literal weeks of the pandemic starting. In general, it does seem like a lot of the really big financial decisions both before, during, and after Padilla's arrival were made under the Board of Directors' ultimate direction. So if people don't like him... well, he is the Board's man then and now. Is it just not possible for an organization to vote no confidence in its Board? Just seems kind of puzzling to me to focus SO much on the pres when clearly he is only a part of the power, serving at the pleasure of the Board to execute the directions of the Board.
I am a senior faculty and not in the Senate. But up until this response letter from the Board (which, let's face it, sounds more like a F.U.) I think some faculty had this impression that if only the Board would be made aware of faculty concerns and problems then maybe they would do something, including maybe asking Padilla to address those concerns. Instead, from what I understand, the Board took offence that the Senate even dared to take such action (according to them, without obtaining proper input from the faculty at large) and, as you can see from their response, it is really "take it or leave it"
So the President and the Board are the same entity for all practical purposes and clearly they are convinced that ALL they do is just what needs to be done and it is just a matter of the "plebes" not getting it. In my opinion, a vote of no confidence against the board is useless. It is clear to me that this is like a company. You don't own stock, you don't get to make decisions.
To me actually these past days cleared up a lot of idealistic B.S. faculty are prone to have. The beating shall continue until morale improves.
And mark my word: no matter the outcome in 10 years, they will call it success. Even if they end up closing the place. They will say it took courage of leadership and the Beacons still shine in our hearts forever.
On a more serious note: I am aware these are very difficult times and tough measures have to be made. The problem is, this administration failed to show that they can at least begin to steer the ship away from the iceberg. I actually don't know what the endgame is really...I have a feeling that the Board is on a secret mission.
So the President and the Board are the same entity for all practical purposes and clearly they are convinced that ALL they do is just what needs to be done and it is just a matter of the "plebes" not getting it. In my opinion, a vote of no confidence against the board is useless. It is clear to me that this is like a company. You don't own stock, you don't get to make decisions.
To me actually these past days cleared up a lot of idealistic B.S. faculty are prone to have. The beating shall continue until morale improves.
Thanks, @dejavu. Yeah, I agree. I guess the rank-and-file Kodak and Enron employees could have voted 'no confidence' along the descent down, but what power would have that had?
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.
