Capital campaign in a quiet phase with public launch expected by end of year. $160 million goal. I would love to know what the priorities will be. Certainly the big money will need more than what the current Fairfield 2020 vision offers.
you would not fire him this year if you were his boss
I absolutely would fire him. I'd rather be too early than too late. We don't project well next year. That, combined with this year, is the basis for my position. For a highly paid/highly visible job, we can't tolerate this level of mediocrity. His boss (Doris) and his boss's boss (Reed) would also be on notice due to the extension/financial position it's put us in. Under Doris' tenure - 20plus years, we have one NCAA appearance in the most visible sport at FU - regardless of what happens to SJ, his tenure needs to be reviewed also.
I like Coach DeSantis, but he is not/was not the answer. I actually spoke to him about it - maybe he'd consider an assistant's job somewhere (such as when we had John Carey) but he has no desire for the time and travel commitment of a full time position.
I think we would have seen the public phase of our capital campaign much earlier if it wasn't for Stanford poaching Stephanie Frost. Now we are searching for a new VP of advancement.
"Currently, Fairfield is in the quiet phase of a capital campaign, intended to conclude when Fairfield celebrates its 75th anniversary in 2017. The working goal of the campaign is $160 million. More information aboutFairfield University may be found at its website:www.fairfield.edu.
Fairfield University seeks a high profile advancement professional to be responsible for guiding and leading the strategic and tactical efforts of the Division of University Advancement."
Everything on that list is important - some of that should have been done all along. When you see peeling paint at Alumni Hall, though, it's legitimate to question those in charge of the facilities. IMO, neglect to Alumni is just the tip of the iceberg.
I wont respond to to all of that. Sounds like you are very bitter about FU for many reasons, but if you try hard enough you can find lots of fault in any large institution over the long term. That is your choice. I am sure they have made many mistakes, and I agree that academic types are often not good managers, a challenge for many colleges. The administration has brought in many impressive business types in the past year to address some of these issues.
There are many passionate people who give extensively of their time (and money) to make FU the best it can. I am sure that many mistakes have been made and we could all do better.
Jack Welsh graduated from UMASS. That is the connection.
How do the other schools do it? They borrow the money. They also skimp on academics with part time teachers, etc. That is one way to go, and lets see how that plays out over the next 10 years. Some will make it work, many won't. Quinnipiac will be interesting to watch in this regard. The landscape for higher ed has changed since the recession and will never be the same.
You have to look at endowment minus debt to figure it out. FU has been conservative, rightly or wrongly.
SHU, Monmouth and Siena are NOT in our league in anything but gyms and hoops, Compare academics, faculty, quality of student, job placement, financial aid, etc, etc. NOT close.
Look at the Forbes list of best colleges. Its good because, unlike the other rankings, it list all schools in one category. Siena, SHU and Monmouth are three of the lowest rated schools in the country. That is not our vision. They are not our peers. Its a struggle, but FU is bringing in really good classes. Those schools are not getting the same kids.
FU will have a public phase and raise 4-5 times what Siena is talking about. Our endowment is 300 and will be much larger in the next few years and we will have many of the facilities that we need to continue to compete with our actual peers. It will not be easy.
We did have a really bad hoop season. Not the end of the world. I believe most of us on this board would have hired Syd if we were AD and that we would give him another year if we had to make that decision.
Congrats to the lacrosse team, we beat Michigan yesterday. See you at the Ohio State game.
I hold no bitterness toward Fairfield. I was there today as my son applied and it was admitted student day. I would love for him to attend, but it looks like he's going to UMass with Jack Welch . You didn't address my points about waste because these actions can't be defended. There has been tremendous waste at Fairfield for 30 years and we both know it true and frustrating to watch. I loved Fr. Kelley but my view is that he did not actively manage the university and waste was rampant. There was great concern with fundraising but little concern with managing cost, and implementing a long term plan. And when there was a move toward developing a long term plan, the plan itself lacked an understanding of the market. I have not seen much change in the VA era. While the post you made about where Fairfield stands compared to other institutions is true, in my mind that's not the question. What matters is not just where the university stands today, but where was it 10 years ago and where will it be 10 years from now. Is Fairfield lower on the list than 10 years ago or higher? Most of us associated with the institution want to see Fairfield move higher. Some of us can see that Fairfield's positioning in the market is weakening and the standing of other institutions is rising because of strong leadership. I acknowledge Fairfield is financially conservative and rightly so. But some risk is required in some areas. The decision to divest the property they had acquired was a very bad decision. The opportunity to secure land next to the university campus will never arise again and will forever limit the growth potential of the institution. Your failure to comment on this point or the others is a silent acknowledgement of the folly of that decision. Stagmania - Do you feel Fairfield should have retained that land even if it meant borrowing the funds in order to do it?
I wouldn't bet against you. I am sure we surpass the $200 mil mark after it's all said and done. The bar is always set low and they likely already raised half the money by now.
Again, I would like one poster to tell me what's "visionary" about refurbishing the RECPLEX without refurbishing Alumni Hall? For all intents and purposes, it has been made into one facility and its reconstruction should be dealt with as one project. Does ANYONE disagree?
I agree sobro. I wish they would just tear down both and build a Bucknell or Monmouth quality facility. They are just refurbishing antiquated facilities that will not fully meet the needs of the students and the women's (and Prep) athletic programs that use Alumni Hall. Damn shame they are taking a short term view here!
Alumni Hall was past it's prime when I graduated in 1991 ( legit- not a Masiello situation). Replacing or upgrading has been put off way too long. It's almost "blight" at this point.
I agree with sobro and ghostman. However, Alumni Hall is not just a "basketball facility". It is the largest capacity building at the heart of the campus. The outdated, antiquated and neglected condition of AH ("not up to Division 1 standards", peeling paint, window AC units, 55 year old wooden bleachers, grammar school concession area, band-aid repairs...) is a negative for the University and it should be a priority. In 1999 AH was part of the last capital campaign because of the need to renovate it and now 15 years later the need is still there. Renovating and expanding the Rec Plex without incorporating a renovated AH into the plan is short sighted at the very least and IMO would be an example of a lack of vision and not a "judgment call". The renovated Rec Plex would be an even more impressive facility to potential students, current students and the University community itself if AH was further integrated into it with a unified facade of the 1999 design plan as they are now basically one unit. I understand being fiscally conservative but the need to renovate AH is still there. A $160 million capital campaign is already in the works that most likely will eventually exceed that amount so the funds can be made available.