Quote from: valpopal on February 27, 2023, 10:13:02 AMQuote from: crusader05 on February 27, 2023, 09:12:10 AMThat is exactly what was done. Look at the specs on the Frederic Church painting for example. It clearly states that the painting was bought and donated to Valparaiso University by Percy Sloan. The other two paintings were bought through donations to the Sloan Fund for purchase of art to be displayed at the university. This is why there is so much anger. I have never seen members of the university community—faculty (current and emeritus), students, community members—so unified on a topic as they are about opposition to Padilla in this instance. Those who could not agree with one another on past issues have come together on this one. Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings. The letter to Padilla by nearly 100 present and past faculty is a who's who synonymous with Valpo. Even the new director of the museum, hired by Padilla but deceptively and unethically kept in the dark about this plan during the whole process, has now come out in opposition. The destruction done to trust and morale is more extensive than most can imagine, and Padilla's reputation has been permanently damaged.
if you think the art work is so valuable offer to buy it and then donate it.
As I have stated before, I would prefer that the art not be sold, but I am more concerned about what is in the best financial interest of the university. First of all, most "gifts", which is what a donation actually is, to a non-profit are irrevocable. I do not know if restrictions were legally placed on these monetary and physical "gifts" by the donors and I don't think most of the opposition know the facts either. Did anyone in the "60's" actually think that these painting would increase in value a thousand+ fold? Second, you state "Every prominent figure one might associate with the university as among the most revered and most loyal has publicly voiced opposition through letters, petition signatures, or statements at meetings". This statement is incorrect, because past and present members of the LUA are the most loyal and most prominent of all people associated with VU. Names like Duesenberg, Helge and Hansen are in that group. If those names aren't revered by the oppostion they should be. I know for a fact that many of the past and present LUA members were repsonsible, either directly with their own donations or by soliciting other high major donors, for at least 62.5 million dollars in the last campaign. That the opposition can so easily discount and not find the tiniest bit of merit in the recommendation of that extremely loyal, dedicated, and highly successful group is alarming to me.