If VU claims Brauer knew about “conservative” restriction of art purchases, whatever that is, does that make it a personal insult? Was it a big deal that he did that? Was Brauer perfect in all dealings with with Valpo? I have no idea.
I do know Valpo needs drastic upgrades to stay afloat compared to keeping 3 art pieces. Also, there are 4997 pieces to appreciate, and they are not exactly Peter Max.
@sfnmman - perhaps the administration is not as wise as we may think. I usually find them to make overly reactive, conservative decisions. Regarding athletics, are you concerned they are overspending, maybe considering moving to D3? As a D1 member, athletic spending at VU is at the bottom of the MVC. For the flagship sport of men’s basketball, they had to can Lottich as the program would continue to be in a funk.
will keeping the artwork enable Valparaiso University to sustain and flourish in the near and long term?
I have mentioned this before, yet it bears repeating. Yes, VU has a reasonable endowment, yet it also has significant debt that must be serviced.
According to the most recent audit that I have available (June 30, 2022), the total endowment is $338M, of which $327M is in investments and about $11M is in pledges receivable or split-interest agreements which I'm guessing are charitable remainder trusts or something similar. However, as of the same date, VU has $105M in notes and bonds payable, plus $21M borrowed against two lines of credit which are likely secured by the buildings and endowment. The notes and bonds payable were for construction projects from 2011 through 2021 and have interest rates from 3% to 5%. In total, VU incurred $4.3M in annual interest costs, including the long-term debt (about $3.9M in interest cost) and lines of credit (about $430K in interest costs) as far as I can tell.
Importantly, the rate on the lines of credit has gone from 2.05% to probably 6.2% or so. If the line of credit balance stayed at $21M, this probably increased the annual interest costs on the line of credit from $430K per year to $1.3M, or an increase of $870K per year.
The other thing of note is that the net student fees generated for tuition was $48.5M, room $12.4M, board $5.5M (all as of 2022). So yes, the room fees brought in $12.4M per year, yet it would be hard to fund major renovations to dorms out of $12.4M of annual revenue - this would likely need to be done with additional borrowing. The university does not have much spare capacity to borrow more money to fund new buildings (academic buildings, dorms, etc.). The only reason to have such a large draw on a line of credit is that the university has regularly been using the line of credit to balance the operating budget. (Note that the total functional expenses for VU was $121M in 2022). With interests rates where they are, this leaves little room for other priorities.
If some students choose to go elsewhere because the dorms need to be renovated, the university loses out on net tuition/fees, room and board. Some of those have fixed costs that just get spread out to fewer students. So, if there are $10-20M in artwork assets that could be sold, it is one place the administration could turn for cash to fund needed repairs and improvements. The other place is if someone steps up with a $10M gift to renovate a dorm.
If VU claims Brauer knew about “conservative” restriction of art purchases, whatever that is, does that make it a personal insult? Was it a big deal that he did that?
As I noted previously, the same university for half a century had one administration after another praise, honor, and boast about Brauer and his art purchases, especially of the O'Keeffe, one of America's most important and iconic artists—promoting them as parts of what "elucidate our distinctive character, our unique traditions, and the remarkable people who have and continue to shape our ethos." They even named the museum after him. Now, this administration publicly accuses Brauer of potentially illegal activity. That "is a personal insult" and "a big deal," especially since Brauer is beloved at the university and in the surrounding community.
At a minimum, this further harms the university's already tenuous public relations and alienates important constituents, especially locally. But also important, following past examples of deceit in secretly trying to sell the artwork and the subsequent middle of the night seizure of the paintings, it confirms to many on campus their beliefs that this administration will sink to any low for expedience.
Sometimes desperate times require desperate measures @valpopal , which likely trump agreements long ago. This is certainly one of these cases. There will be resistance to fix this, and Padilla painfully needed to move forward.
Curious to know what the current generation of students thinks of art museums, if anyone has some viewpoints or data. While I respect the work of the museum and respective art donations over the last 60-70 years, it is a much different time now than what most of us experienced from the 1960s to early 2000s. Do students nowadays think that an art museum is a benefit to have on campus, outside of art students?
While I do sympathize with those who respect the artwork and would like it to stay, I view it to be just as childish as the university is being with handling the sale for you to say you will be withholding further generosity to the school. Over 3 paintings...
Looking at today's article from TVB, there is no room to ask for more funds from donors. Donors are already going to be slammed in the coming years as the CONHP is on schedule, and Victory Village is going to be announced in April at the earliest.( Given the school finds a new AD). These massive projects, coupled with continued emphasis on NIL donations, is a massive toll.
Curious to know what the current generation of students thinks of art museums, if anyone has some viewpoints or data. While I respect the work of the museum and respective art donations over the last 60-70 years, it is a much different time now than what most of us experienced from the 1960s to early 2000s. Do students nowadays think that an art museum is a benefit to have on campus, outside of art students?
Most of us don't care. I think what really puts a bad taste in our mouths is the constant videos online of "modern art". When you see 50 videos of someone slicing butter with a garrote wire and calling it art, it really makes you think all art is a joke. The only modern art piece I will ever have genuine respect for is "Cant Help Myself"
@rezynezy in all fairness, donors can donate their money in anyway they want to. If someone is pissed about Valpo over something and will not donate because of that, that is their perogative.
As for art, it is important in society and will continue for many generations. I love going to art museums, and the Art Institute of Chicago is truly world class. As for its importance at Valpo, it likely is and they have 4997 pieces to show for it. There is still plenty of great art at Valpo, and as long as the university stays afloat, so will the ability to show it on campus.
It also jeopardizes the basic sustainability of the museum.
Not sure how selling three pieces, albeit famous ones, would jeopardize the museum. The larger point is, what will happen to those pieces in the sustainability of the entire University is at risk?
You and I were on campus during the same period. In 1969, when you started at Valpo, Wehrenberg Hall was 10 years old. Brandt was 7 years old and Alumni? It was 3 years old. Sounded and looked pretty good for a new freshman. Now however, Wehrenberg is 65 years old!
If you were a basketball fan or football fan, you certainly remember the heated rivalry between Valpo and St. Joes, a college founded in 1889. It closed normal operations in 2017. There are many beautiful buildings remaining on what was their campus. If Valpo closes because we couldn't attract students because of deteriorating dorms, how will you feel about your contributions then?
I’m gonna stretch your mention of existing facilities, 72, to include all real estate assets and then ask a question. But before that I will say that I tend to agree with art sale proponents given the fact that the Brauer holds ~5,000 curated works of art and, while the three in question are very notable, any use of any asset in the furtherance of university stability and growth should be pursued.
Now, my question. It is my understanding that the university owns real estate properties outside of the core campus footprint, so why hasn’t more energy and emphasis been placed on liquidating some of those assets in favor of core campus development? In the past we’ve discussed various properties and applauded the Strongbow purchase as a logical, contiguous addition to the core campus. We’ve also discussed the sale of more remote assets, but these don’t seem to be intense efforts.
Well, there is one very large property that I have often wondered about: East Gate. It is the home of baseball and Em Bauer Field has undergone some nice enhancements lately. But the property is kinda remote and the majority of the property is underused or maybe even unused now that soccer’s home is Brown Field. Selling that asset and using that money to invest in capital improvement projects (including the cost of moving the baseball facility to a portion of the Porter Hospital property adjacent to Brown Field and the new arena) would bring baseball into the core campus and also consolidate Victory Village. IMO, there is nothing wrong with campus consolidation and concentration, if done with forethought, that results in optimization of all of the university’s assets. 
62, It's been a while but do you remember previous discussions on the possible sale of unused land owned by Valpo? "Vitalize Valpo" is the name of this enterprise. Here is an overview of the property in question. This version doesn't include the Strongbow acquisition:
https://vitalizevalpo.com/property-overview/
The 12 acres near Lincoln Way (5 acres on Lincoln Way) must be worth a pretty penny. I looked at various real estate sites and found a asking price for commercial property in area at prices all over the place, primarily based on zoning. My guess is those two pieces could bring in a couple of million. The Eastgate property is a much bigger deal and I would again guess that Valpo is looking to co-develop that into perhaps senior living.
This was a couple months ago, but someone I know in the university claimed that the Eastgate property was also looking to be sold off to pay for the arena. The Lincoln way property was going to be sold off to pay for the CONHP to my knowledge. As for consolidating victory Village. I have stated a few times on here I thought that the city and the school should have looked into building a municipal baseballs stadium much like kokomo has. Shared property between the city (Kokomo High) and IUK.
A couple of years ago, university endowments in general experienced a huge, unprecedented percentage increase in their value. Did VU experience a sizable increase in the amount of unrestricted funds in its endowment as part of that big wave?
Unless VU somehow missed out on that largesse (I cannot recall), I wonder why there has been no discussion of taking some of that windfall and applying it to the dorm renovations. Normally I would observe the rule of thumb that you shouldn't raid your endowment (it's like raiding one's 401k), but that was a massive windfall year.
I am new to this Board so please excuse any errors of protocol on my part. I have personally known VU Presidents since O.P. (I also represented him and the University for many years), Al Huegli, Robert Schnabel, Allan Harre and Mark Heckler. All had human flaws as we all do, but all worked to the best of their ability to advance the mission and future of Valpo. I do not know the current President but I do know several people who work closely with him and who think he is a person of high moral character. I do know that many hold opposing views on the sale of some of the art to provide funds for campus improvement. What I also recognize is that Valpo is not alone in facing a critical future brought on by declining enrollment and increasing costs. I have grown weary of the all too common current approach to disagreement that advances their position by ascribing evil motives and using the most pejorative language available to characterize the persons on the opposite side of the argument. I presume we all wish the best for Valpo. Let us then work to think of positive actions to bring about the long-term vitality of this institution rather than dengrate the people who are working toward that end as well.
