One's views on the proposed art sale are largely affected by one's value of art in general and one's priorities for the University. Is funding dorm renovations and possible higher student enrollment a higher need than keeping three of the most significant and valued paintings in the Brauer Museum? All can see that improving enrollment during this difficult time period is clearly needed. Is the art sale the best and or only option to fund dorm improvements? Since the Valpo administration is pursuing this approach, we would like to believe them. Many, including me and some others on this board, may not be convinced. Hence the resistance. The manner in which the administration has made the decision to sell, pursued the legal aspects, received media attention and sequestered the art has also been subject of strong criticism by many.
However, there is one single aspect of this situation that is basic to my objection for the sale. That is this. The University has clear and simple obligation to honor the conditions under which the gift of the art was given to the University. I can't see that it matters that the gift was given a "long time ago" and that conditions of the university may have dramatically changed. If this was anticipated and provided for in the trust agreement, then a sale and use of the money for non-museum purposes might not be desired but clearly allowed.
How would University supporters and donors react under the following scenario? Money was raised for a university sports/events center, the center was then built and used primarily for student purposes for many years as stipulated in the original fund raising efforts. Years down the road, the University realized that renting the sport/events center could bring in significant funds for a newly expanded academic program, say in medical training. The university administration then established that third party rentals of non-university events as a higher use than holding student sports/event functions in that space. Student functions were then relegated to other less optimal areas on campus or cancelled altogether. I'm certain that the donors would not agree with the new use unless such provisions were agreed with when the donations for the student sports/events center were first accepted.
Unfortunately, the University is apparently in some degree of financial need. I would hope that some other financial option could be found to fund the needed improvements. If the powers to be are found to be legally and ethically cleared, then they may be justified in selling. I have serious doubts about the ethical aspect of this but I admit that I (as probably most of us on this board) do not have all the facts. Let's hope and pray that the best decision making is brought to bear on this sensitive issue.
Thats exactly why schools dont build civic centers. Most power schools just build sports only facilities, and mid majors either build smaller sports-only facilities, or partner with their local area to build a multipurpose facility and split the costs and income. There are multiple examples of both options in the valley.
The Peoria Civic Center is a municipally owned property, but the Bradley Braves help with some expenses, thus, they get to use the property for MBB and other events. They also get a cut of the revenue from events the city hosts, just like the city gets a cut of the revenue from events hosted by Bradley on property. The Ford Center is another example of this as well however the city just allowed the team to play there and never helped fund the venue to my knowledge.
@sfnmman, the difference is that the university is not selling any of the art that was gifted to the university, so it is not a case of "which the gift of the art was given to the University."
As far as I know, the University is keeping all of the Junius Sloan paintings. Those paintings, plus papers from Junius Sloan and some endowment funds were given to the University in 1953 by Percy Sloan (son of Junius Sloan). Over time, those endowment funds (plus other financial donations to what became the Brauer Museum of Art) were used to purchase nearly 4,500 pieces of art to include the O'Keeffe acquisition which was made in 1962. It is not a case that the O'Keeffe was donated to VU, nor that any funds were given to specifically support the purchase of that particular piece which has dramatically increased in value. (There are two other pieces are under consideration for sale.)
The question now is if VU can sell the very valuable O'Keeffe painting and use the proceeds for the University rather than being required to put all of the proceeds back into acquiring more art.
In an ideal world, the University would be flush with cash, and there would be no reason to consider selling a valuable painting. I much would rather see the painting kept. Yet we do not live in an ideal world.
Which is better? To keep the painting, cut the hours that the Brauer musuem is open, cut faculty, staff and students even more, or sell the painting, and put the university on stronger financial footing? These are tough choices, yet one could imagine a scenario where wealthy donor acquires the O'Keeffe to donate it to the Chicago Institute of Art where it can be enjoyed by tens of thousands, and VU gets fifteen million dollars to help it through a financial shortfall. Which of these would honor the donor and fit the financial realities facing VU?
@sfnmman, the difference is that the university is not selling any of the art that was gifted to the university, so it is not a case of "which the gift of the art was given to the University."
As far as I know, the University is keeping all of the Junius Sloan paintings. Those paintings, plus papers from Junius Sloan and some endowment funds were given to the University in 1953 by Percy Sloan (son of Junius Sloan). Over time, those endowment funds (plus other financial donations to what became the Brauer Museum of Art) were used to purchase nearly 4,500 pieces of art to include the O'Keeffe acquisition which was made in 1962. It is not a case that the O'Keeffe was donated to VU, nor that any funds were given to specifically support the purchase of that particular piece which has dramatically increased in value. (There are two other pieces are under consideration for sale.)
I have read the original trust documents. The trust conditions cover both the Junius Sloan paintings and those subsequently purchased through the endowment or its economic growth, such as the O'Keeffe painting. The trust specifically states the following: "This trust is to be irrevocable, the right of revocation by either party, their heirs or assigns, being hereby expressly waived." Valparaiso University was represented by University Board President Paul Brandt, who signed the agreement on behalf of the Valparaiso University Association.
Valparaiso University agreed to never "revoke" the agreement. Turning the artwork into funds for other campus projects is forbidden by the trust agreement Valparaiso signed, and VU accepted all conditions. Valparaiso University is legally bound to the provisions. This is why the administration cannot sell the paintings now and must go to court in an attempt to overturn the agreement.
The documents specifically state income from the collection can "only" be used to "care for the collection" or "in the acquisition of paintings." The trust further instructs Valparaiso "to expend the income only of said funds for the purpose and in the manner specified in said will, trust agreement, and in this agreement." As the NWI Times reports: "Under the current terms of the Percy H. Sloan Trust, which provided the artwork in the Brauer Museum of Art or funding for them, the paintings can only be sold if the proceeds are reinvested into the museum’s collection."
@valpopal, I have not read the trust documents. However, even your reply has many questions. The first two paragraphs seem to be standard language around an irrevocable trust.
The third paragraph points out that "income from the collection" has specified uses - is that a typo? Did you mean income from the endowment funds rather than the collection? (Or, did it mean VU could sell part of the collection to care for other parts of the collection, or to acquire more art?)
Did someone ever violate the trust by acquiring any art other than paintings, like a sculpture or a tapestry? If so, would that be a violation of the trust? Were any other funds (like a donation from any source other than the Sloan Trust) used in the acquisition of any other painting in the collection at any point? Did VU ever sell any piece of art ever before? Finally, the quote from the NWI Times is helpful, yet if that came from someone opposed to the sale of the O'Keeffe it is just an opinion rather than a quotation from the trust documents, and now the attorneys and courts need to get involved.
I'm not trying to be difficult, and as I said I would rather find another way for VU to thrive. Yet I want to make it clear that the dispute is not about selling artwork that was given to the University as part of the trust, it is about artwork purchased in the following decades that has had a remarkable increase in value at a time when the university is in great need.
@valpopal, I have not read the trust documents. However, even your reply has many questions. The first two paragraphs seem to be standard language around an irrevocable trust.
The third paragraph points out that "income from the collection" has specified uses - is that a typo? Did you mean income from the endowment funds rather than the collection? (Or, did it mean VU could sell part of the collection to care for other parts of the collection, or to acquire more art?)
Did someone ever violate the trust by acquiring any art other than paintings, like a sculpture or a tapestry? If so, would that be a violation of the trust? Were any other funds (like a donation from any source other than the Sloan Trust) used in the acquisition of any other painting in the collection at any point? Did VU ever sell any piece of art ever before? Finally, the quote from the NWI Times is helpful, yet if that came from someone opposed to the sale of the O'Keeffe it is just an opinion rather than a quotation from the trust documents, and now the attorneys and courts need to get involved.
I'm not trying to be difficult, and as I said I would rather find another way for VU to thrive. Yet I want to make it clear that the dispute is not about selling artwork that was given to the University as part of the trust, it is about artwork purchased in the following decades that has had a remarkable increase in value at a time when the university is in great need.
Yes, the language is standard for an irrevocable trust, which means there is nothing unusual about such an agreement. The agreement is expansive in its coverage, since it refers to "funds, paintings, and art objects to be held in trust." Therefore, purchasing "a sculpture or a tapestry" would not be a violation.
The trust covers works donated by Sloan or purchased through funds received from the trust. For example, since its purchase in 1962 the O'Keeffe painting has always been listed by the university as a "Sloan Fund Purchase." The two other paintings the administration wants to sell are also listed by the university as 1) "Sloan Fund Purchase" and 2) "Gift of Percy H. Sloan." The trust does not cover other paintings in the collection that were donated by various individuals or as "A Gift of the Friends of Art." They have separate agreements.
The phrase "income from the collection" is not a typo. The agreement allows for loan or sale of paintings only to care for the collection or to acquire more art, which is where the language from the newspaper is objectively drawn, not from a quote of "someone opposed to the sale."
@david81 THere was a windfall, but I think it went to the buy-outs of the senior admin and faculty. It was a weird 'feast or famine' time. They laid off a bunch of the tenure-track faculty and discontinued departments, and then imposed a 5% paycut on everybody remaining to teach. Then they offered buyouts of several-years full-salary to the most senior people to leave and not work anymore, and those $$$ payouts lasted all the way from 2021-24. I remember some of the younger faculty asking where all the money for the multi-year salary buy-outs was coming from, if things were so bad that continuing faculty must go from, say, $53K down to $50K and take on even higher teaching loads? But somebody mentioned that the stock market was doing really well, so they had the endowment gains to give so much money to departing admins and senior faculty. I think that's where the windfall went? Six-figure buyouts and probably also debt servicing? They said at a townhall meeting that the university's debt interest from previous eras of construction was very expensive. Honestly, I do not think the buy-outs were very smart. Valpo has a weird generational problem where there are all these retired people who got thirty years employment during the 'golden' era, sitting in their paid-off houses in the nicest sections of downtown Valpo, *still* pulling paychecks from Valpo even in retirement; it is a lot of these retired/buyout folks have too much time on their hands and have been most vociferous about the art sale. Meanwhile, you have the new faculty/staff trying to juggle the higher workloads and pay 2024 rent on 1980's salaries, wishing the uni would just sell the art and maybe pay them enough to afford rent and daycare. So I think the 'windfall' of that huge stock market boom just got kind of wasted. This is the sort of ridiculousness that makes me think Valpo probably is in a death spiral and anybody who actually wants a viable career and life should leave.
VUIndiana, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. Although VU's buyout policies were pretty consistent with those of other schools during this time of painful belt-tightening, the context you developed explains how the on-the-ground impact on remaining, newer faculty has been significant. I can't imagine any younger full-time faculty in the Arts & Sciences, especially, seeing VU as a stable, dependable long-time career option right now.
While I'm not there with the death spiral theme, I do acknowledge that the situation is precarious. How else to explain raiding the art museum of its most prominent works to raise funds for dorm upgrades? The imagery alone -- of basically auctioning off your most valuable loose assets because you don't have the cash to maintain a physical plant sufficiently attractive to lure applicants focused heavily on creature comforts -- speaks volumes about VU's financial capacity and the current generation of students.
If selling off the paintings is VU's savior from that death spiral, then I guess we can say -- however painfully -- that it was worth it. But the bad feelings will linger, and the place will be diminished because of that move.
I just cam across an article posted in The Torch on May 6, covering proposed changes to the campus going forward.
A couple of things popped up that I found interesting and apropos to our discussion concerning housing as well at the Nursing College.
To wit, Some have suggested that there be a joint venture of sorts to solve the housing issue--e.g. partnering with a development company to build or renovate the dorms.
In the article, Mark Volpatti, Sr. VP for Finance, states "we'll be looking at new housing options with maybe a collaboration with a construction agency to build new housing."
As for the location of the new Nursing College building, he said "Or as we look at buildings, you know, the nursing building, where's that located? And so that's going to be located where current buildings have been mothballed. That will be part of the construction project,” said Volpatti."
So the mothballed buildings are Scheele, Lankenau, Meyer and OP's old house. Valpo Pal had indicated that the current thinking was to locate it near Highway 30, so who knows. Putting it in the Meyer spot would have it right next to the Center for the Sciences building, which makes a lot of sense.
Stop talking and start doing, Valpo!
To the final part of VUIndiana's comments: from a strategic perspective, the dorms are not meeting parity. You cannot have prospective students and their parents walk in and say "not here" or "this is so much worse than when we visited _________". It is not a hot dog, it is a competitive necessity. Remember, Valpo is trying to differentiate and you cannot do so when a key aspect of living is far below parity.
To the comments on partnering with a development company, this is worth looking at but a university has to look VERY closely at the business model and the terms. Whether we like it or not, there is a fair amount of margin in a university business model that comes from housing and a partner is going to want a lot of that margin. Additionally, a partner is going to look to meet the terms of the contract - not satisfy and delight the students.
@whvalpo - totally agree, anyone with sense knows they need to upgrade and move forward. I want to see Valpo still alive and strong
Valpo is not the only university that is facing uncertainty. Some may be aware that Concordia Ann Arbor is going through some significant challenges. CUAA was struggling with enrollment for some time, and about ten years ago was merged into Concordia Wisconsin - they now have one President, one board and share some administrative services, computer systems, etc.
My quick summary is that although enrollment at CUAA has increased, CUAA is still losing money. The report (link below) shows that CUAA has been operating under a structural cash deficit of $3.5M per year for ten years, in addition to $1.3M of annual depreciation. (Recent year revenues were $22.5M, expenses of $27.8M including depreciation of $1.8M). There also appear to be some immediate deferred maintenance needs. CUAA has a small endowment. The report (as of May 31, 2024) investigates the possibility of CUAA being spun off of the combined University, yet notes the structural deficit plus significant expense increase, and the accreditation issues make it difficult for this to happen. CUW also is looking to either sell or lease the AA property back to CUAA if it were split; the property is valued at $25M.
It looks to me like although enrollment substantially increased at AA, the per-student expenses also increased. At least some of the enrollment was due to AA sponsoring many more athletic teams, so the revenue from the student athletes did not pay for the increased costs of running the sport. The other thing that was interesting to me is the report shows that the student body was 18% Lutheran (13% LCMS) which raised questions about the Lutheran identity as noted in the report. All of this means there are some significant headwinds and uncertainty for CUAA - it will be open next year, yet over the long term, the structure may look different.
https://www.cuaa.edu/about/future/_assets/report.pdf
Seems to me that VU Should NOT have bought the Strongbow property. Why not use those millions for the supposedly much needed dorms?? I never cared much about the housing- only the curriculum and hands on in my major as a freshman. Selling these pieces is a HUGE mistake. VU is certainly not the same and I do not approve of many decisions from the past few years And the tuition is ridiculous. $$$$ Very disappointed. ☹️ ☹️ ☹️ 😭 😭 😭
