I’m wondering how in the world Valpo and its “ Barney Fife” police department could have kept art thief’s after 20 million in value from cleaning house? I have no doubt that when the values were disclosed that Padilla immediately ordered them held in a secure place.
I have no doubt that when the values were disclosed that Padilla immediately ordered them held in a secure place.
That would be wrong. The university was aware of the three artworks' value at approximately $20.5 million since appraisals done in 2008, 2009, and 2016. Padilla didn't remove the three paintings until September 2023, leaving many other valuable paintings in the museum. When the artworks were removed from the gallery, Padilla said: “The University remains committed to our campus art museum as a vital and vibrant destination for students and the local community, and will continue to exhibit selections from the museum’s American art collection, as well as host special exhibitions and event series.” Obviously, with the shutdown of the museum, an untrue statement.
@vuindiana - regarding the buyout, if Valpo really wants to be at least semi serious about men's basketball success, they had to sack Lottich as that program was obviously diminishing. it was a $600K delta decision which is crumbs compared to the big picture.
As for the real estate decision, maybe it sounded good at the time.
Valpo still has art - 4997 pieces and the museum will open again. Give respect to the rest of the art.
Everyone on this board is a responsible adult with a good head on their shoulders. I think we all know these cost reduction/cash generating measures are necessary, or they wouldn’t be taking place.
Undoubtedly, mistakes have been made over the past decade that have contributed to the current situation. That said, no one could have anticipated the devastating impact COVID would have on enrollment or how it would accelerate the popularity of on-line learning. Add in unanticipated increasing costs due to inflation and a projected smaller potential student market going forward, and we have the perfect storm.
Valpo needs more students it doesn’t have in order to pay its bills, meet payroll, and pay down debt. It needs capital and access to capital it doesn’t have. It desperately needs to improve facilities. As someone who has dealt with more than one crisis situation in my career, I am confident that President Padilla and the Board are doing everything possible to address this crisis. If there is a way forward, they will find it, IMHO.
There is a big difference between art and real estate. The three paintings are worth perhaps $20M, but if they are never sold they have no inherent financial value; they have priceless intrinsic value and perhaps could indirectly elevate the stature of the museum and university, yet would not directly bring in financial value. As someone else pointed out, if the university had $20M in cash free and clear, it is extremely unlikely they would use that to purchase art. (I'm not getting into the donor wishes or trust intent here, just trying to put it in financial terms.)
The university purchased the Strongbow property in 2023 and it was valued at $2.2M; this is a fraction of the value of the three paintings. However, because of access to US30 and the other property already owned by the university, it it probably elevates the value of the entire parcel, including the land already owns. For example, maybe a developer purchases the Strongbow site and some of the adjacent property for $6-7M. Or, the university enters into a ground lease with a developer for some of the site - this could bring in perhaps $1.50 per square foot of land per year under a lease. If it is a three or four acre site (I'm guessing), the university could bring in $200,000 or $250,000 per year on a $2.2M investment (typically, these are long term leases with yearly increases). Of course, no one knows if the site will be purchased or leased, and my numbers are just illustrative. Yet in financial terms it shows why the Strongbow site could be a solid, income-producing investment.
There is a big difference between art and real estate. The three paintings are worth perhaps $20M, but if they are never sold they have no inherent financial value; they have priceless intrinsic value and perhaps could indirectly elevate the stature of the museum and university, yet would not directly bring in financial value. As someone else pointed out, if the university had $20M in cash free and clear, it is extremely unlikely they would use that to purchase art. (I'm not getting into the donor wishes or trust intent here, just trying to put it in financial terms.)
The university purchased the Strongbow property in 2023 and it was valued at $2.2M; this is a fraction of the value of the three paintings. However, because of access to US30 and the other property already owned by the university, it it probably elevates the value of the entire parcel, including the land already owns. For example, maybe a developer purchases the Strongbow site and some of the adjacent property for $6-7M. Or, the university enters into a ground lease with a developer for some of the site - this could bring in perhaps $1.50 per square foot of land per year under a lease. If it is a three or four acre site (I'm guessing), the university could bring in $200,000 or $250,000 per year on a $2.2M investment (typically, these are long term leases with yearly increases). Of course, no one knows if the site will be purchased or leased, and my numbers are just illustrative. Yet in financial terms it shows why the Strongbow site could be a solid, income-producing investment.
All good points, but how likely are these lands to sell, I understand a buyer for the Lincolnway plot has been found, but with the current efforts to develop the western part of town and areas such as crown point, I wonder if there was a consensus not to bank on a buyer for the property. The paintings had value here and now, with buyers willing it seems. The real estate doesn't seem to have that same luxury.
I've had to catch up with several weeks worth of comments here, and the biggest takeaway I have from them is confirmation of how the handling of the art sale feels heavy-handed, disrespectful, and disingenuous. Bad process can result in just as much collateral damage as a divisive decision, and that appears to be the case here.
I would ask those who chide posters who object to the art sale to look at it from the standpoint of someone who values art and sees the museum as part of a university's commitment to the liberal arts and humanities, especially those who are more closely affected by the decision. And to those who repeat the mantra that it's "only three pieces" among thousands, how would you feel if your favorite Major League Baseball team suddenly gives away its 3 best players in a fire sale to shore up the team balance sheet and pay for repairs to the stadium seats, while the GM points out there are plenty of journeyman minor leaguers waiting to fill the empty roster spots?
That said, as an alumnus who is committed to making steady, modest contributions and leaving a bequest gift, if the sale ultimately does occur, I'll get over it. But it will be a very sad day for the University if and when it happens.
David - I generally agree with you in wanting to maintain some principles in how the university uses resources rather than just reactively buying/selling whatever some MBA consultant with no long-range perspective tells the Board to do, which is what I fear happens most the time. The baseball analogy is a good one.
But what I don't get is the part about 'see[ing] the museum as part of a university' commitment to the liberal arts and humanities." This notion of 'commitment' seems awfully murky, and I am not yet sure that I see a consistent narrative about what would constitute demonstrable 'commitment' to liberal arts and sciences. Indeed, what I don't get is how so many of the most ardent art museum defenders are senior and/or retired Law/Humanities professors who are making a huge stink about 'commitment' to the liberal arts over O'Keefe, but honestly seem to have done very little to hold up the quality of their own (liberal arts and humanities) programs. The Law profs *lost accreditation* for heaven's sake, while they pulled their 150K or $250K salaries for years and the law school was a huge drain on the university budget; the expensive buyouts and teach-outs of the law profs played no small part in having to discontinue and lay off so many $50-60K range A&S faculty during COVID - but now these former Law profs are heros for going to bat for an O'Keeffe painting? So too, some of the retired English folk who've been at the forefront of defending the Brauer seem to have basically just sat by for decades. The uni drove their junior colleagues into the ground with terribly unfair position and salary cuts and closures, but they made no stink about that undermining of the liberal arts and humanities, and just sort of shook their heads sadly and said 'it must be done.. oops, we lost our tenure-track pipeline and the Writing Center will have to shutter for a while; tough times, very sad, too bad.' Though maybe there were insider conversation I'm unaware of, these supposed defenders of the liberal arts and sciences showed little spine during the 2010s or early 2020s.
So though I am in agreement that the uni ought to have some kind of real commitment to the liberal arts and sciences, it is not clear to me that the refusal to sell the art is the noble 'stand for the liberal arts' that people want to make it out to be. To me, it feels like a nostalgic move on the part of senior/retired employees who got to enjoy the luxurious glory days of the 90s to early 2000's and still have some ego investment in maintaining they were part of an 'elite' institution that holds sophisticated art. Yet if people really cared about the liberal arts and humanities, then they would put their energies into fixing faculty and student retention; they would go pound on the President's office to demand a $60K full-time salary floor for the sciences and humanities departments, and perhaps a 3-3 teaching load max to improve student experience in more tangible ways; if they really cared, they would have fought.
The Museum definitely may enhance the liberal arts and humanities, but what are we enhancing if there is no "commitment" to fix the bread and butter of the natural sciences and liberal arts? For all it's problems and disconcerting trends, the College of Arts and Sciences is still the largest of the colleges, and I am not confident that we can let that core division of the 'comprehensive university' model go to pot without also eventually causing enrollment in the professional schools to tank, too. What is Valpo going to be.... a nursing tech credentialing program, where we enhance their learning by asking the nurses go to visit O'Keefe in between their hospital internship shifts? I guess we could... but let's not pretend that's an academic commitment to the liberal arts and sciences.
VUIndiana, on your narrower point, I'll simply respond that maintaining an art museum is not unusual for many universities, and it's hardly a stretch to call doing so an expression of an institution's overall commitment to the humanities.
On your broader point, I guess we need to define what constitutes a "commitment" to the liberal arts and sciences. At VU, faculty have been savagely underpaid going back to my undergraduate days of the late 70s/early 80s. I think that VU's commitment to the arts and sciences, as institutionally practiced, has long been built on a model of imposing crushing teaching loads on modestly paid full-time A&S faculty, while assuming that a good number will remain for the lion's share of their careers. Be assured that I am not defending that practice, which appears to be standard operating procedure at many private, regional comprehensive universities.
As to your points about VU Law and its faculty, on several occasions on the old Forum site I readily observed that VU Law was in a very precarious financial position when it closed. Unlike many university-affiliated law schools that serve as ATMs for the rest of the university (including my own), VU Law had long been trying to keep a step ahead of the accreditors concerning its financial footing. (In fact, the Board had seriously considered shuttering the Law School during the late 1970s, in response to a very negative re-accreditation report.) That said, the buyouts of tenured VU law faculty in an effort to save a ship quickly taking on water represented standard practices in academe. As a law professor myself and a long-time observer of legal academe, I could launch into a dissertation about how VU Law met its very sad -- for some, truly heartbreaking -- end, but suffice it to say that a confluence of powerful external conditions, some questionable decisions within the Law School, and perhaps too much decision-making deference from the Central Administration and Board led to that result. (Although on the latter point, there was little that the Central Administration and Board could have done to save VU Law without heavily taxing other units of the university for at least several years, if not longer.)
Now that we’re into July, doesn't someone usually report out a fall enrollment projection by now? Given that the university continues to eliminate programs and positions with reckless abandon, I am concerned that it is in anticipation of missed enrollment targets yet again. This cannot continue.
whvalpo - I agree that no news on something like this is usually not good news, but this is a unique year. Many students did not get their approved aid via FAFSA for months after they were supposed to get it (and some may still not have it).Yeah, the Dept of Education screwed up big time. Most universities (including Valpo) chose not to provide an estimate that they would honor, so decisions for prospective Valpo students may still be onging.
I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, but I have mentioned in the past (at least on the old forum) that along with being a VU alum, I'm a current Bradley parent.
Since VU and Bradley are often rightly IMO compared as peer institutions and both are subject to the same pressures on enrollment, I can't help but feel this bit of news about Bradley's incoming freshman class does not portend well for VU's numbers.
removed link
but let's not pretend that's a serious academic commitment to the liberal arts and sciences.
This post was modified 2 weeks ago 3 times by VUIndiana
There may not be but apparently Valpo thinks enough about creative wring to put this add in Facebook!:
New partnership with the City Colleges of Chicago!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/valparaiso-university-provides-admission-pathway-132704013.html
