Author Archive for R. Oliphant – Page 4

YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE ANNOUNCED PARTNERSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

In a press release, says it is the first and only college in the nation to collaborate with the USPTO on this eight  week  training program

On January 15, the Regional Economic Development Center (REDC) at Yavapai Community College announced a training partnership with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO. It says in a press release that it is “the first and only college in the nation” to collaborate with the USPTO on such an eight week  training program.

The partnership training program has a goal of providing  participants with comprehensive knowledge and skills essential for navigating the intellectual property world. The eight week course hopes to instill in its participants a deep understanding of the patenting process, strategies for innovation protection, and the role of patents in fostering technological advancements. It will also  offers critical insights into brand protection, trademark registration, and enforcement.

 

THIRD DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE SEEKS CLARITY ON CONFLICTS BETWEEN ARIZONA LAW AND COLLEGE POLICIES

Sends letter to Chair McCasland requesting a workshop discussion on policy misalignment—McCasland has yet to respond

Representative Toby Payne

Third District Yavapai Community College District Governing Board member Toby Payne has formally requested that Board Chair Deb McCasland convene a meeting to address potential conflicts between state law and policies adopted by the Board and the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the institution’s accrediting body. 

As of this writing, it is believed that McCasland has yet to respond to Payne’s request.

In his letter, Payne raises concerns regarding the delegation of authority to the college president and the alignment of state law with existing HLC and Board policies. Normally, state law should take precedence over any Board or HLC policies that directly conflict with it.

Payne has requested a discussion to provide clarification and education on these matters. His full letter is reproduced below.

To: Deb McCasland, YCGB Chair

From: Toby Payne, YCGB Member

Subject: Concerns Regarding Governance and Policy Alignment

I am deeply and sincerely disturbed by the current tension within the governing board and between the board and YC administration. After reviewing Policy 310, Resolution 2024-18, Arizona State Statutes, and the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC) Criteria for Accreditation, I have identified several critical areas requiring attention, conversation, and deliberation among governing board members.

Key Concerns

l . Delegation of Authority: The subject of “delegation of authority” resulted in Lynne Adams providing copies of Attorney’s opinion letters and related correspondence from 2006 and 2010. However, these documents focus on “appoint and employ” versus “appoint or employ” and contracting. They do not address broader governance implications.

Resolution 2024-18 states: “The President shall be authorized to establish all college operational policies, make all decisions, take all actions, establish all practices and develop all activities.” This language appears inconsistent with HLC Criteria Core Component 5.A.I , which reads “Shared governance at the institution engages its internal constituencies—including its governing board, administration, faculty, staff and students—through planning, policies and procedures.”

2. Policy Development and Approval of Policy 310 was presented to the board as part of a packaged consent agenda, with no prior engagement or shared governance process. As such, it cannot be considered a “board policy” but rather one imposed on the board.

Policy 310 references Policy 401, stating: “ The board acknowledges the difference between governance and administration of the college.” This raises questions about clarity and boundaries between governance and administration. Additionally, the statement that “the board’s primary function is to establish the policies by which the college shall be administered” conflicts with instances where the college appears to develop policies that administer the board.

3. Alignment with HLC Criteria and State Statutes HLC Core Component 2.C underscores the autonomy of the governing board to make decisions and highlights the importance of compliance with its subpoints, particularly l, 3, and 5.

Arizona Revised Statutes 15-1444(A) explicitly state that each district board shall “visit each community college under its jurisdiction and examine carefully into its management, conditions, and needs.” This duty cannot be restricted by the administration and contradicts the Resolution’s assertion that “the Board’s sole official connection to the operational organization, its achievement, and conduct is through the College President.”

Lynne Adams made the point clear in her opinion letter dated March 10, 2006 page 3, that “except as otherwise provided” expressly recognizes that the legislature may make exceptions to the general grants of power found in that statute, as a modifier of the powers of the Board.

Proposed Actions

l . Education on Delegation of Authority: I propose a discussion and education session led by our attorney to distinguish between delegating authority and relinquishing or waiving authority. This will clarify the board’s role as the legally constituted and final authority for the operation of Yavapai County Community College District.

2. Work Session on Governance and Policy Alignment: I request that you, as Chair, schedule an agenda item and a work study session to address the following:

        • Ensuring alignment between state statutes, HLC criteria, and board policies.
        • Clarifying governance boundaries and roles.
        • Establishing a shared governance process for policy development
        •  

3. Preparation for HLC Assurance Review: With the next HLC Assurance Review in two years, now is the time to ensure compliance and alignment at all levels. Addressing these concerns proactively will foster good communication, clear boundaries, and shared understanding between the board and administration.

Conclusion

Chair McCasland, I urge you to prioritize these issues and engage the full board in discussions before adopting any further policies or resolutions. Open communication and collaborative efforts are essential to resolving current tensions and ensuring effective governance that benefits Yavapai College and its stakeholders. I expect that you, Dr. Rhine, David Borofsky and Lynne Adams will discuss this, but precisely the point is that this needs to be discussed with the board.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Respectfully,

Toby Payne

YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD CHAIR LIMITS QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS TO FINANCE EXPERTS AND OTHER PRESENTERS AT JANUARY 28 SIX-HOUR WORKSHOP TO TWO MINUTES “SO EVERYONE” OF THE FIVE BOARD MEMBERS CAN “PARTICIPATE”

First District Representative Bill Kiel requests further explanation from chair regarding  the time limit but receives no response

At the start of the January 28 all-day workshop,  Yavapai Community College District Governing Board Chair Deb McCasland announced she was holding  an “order” restricting Board members to just two minutes of questioning per presenter. She justified the limit by stating it was necessary “so everyone could participate.” The Board consists of five representatives.

First District Governing Board representative Bill Kiel questioned McCasland about the reasoning behind the extremely short restriction, but she did not respond. He argued that he had spent hours preparing for the meeting and could not understand the sudden “order” limiting his ability to ask experts about their research and various opinions they were providing  the Board.

In the Blog’s view, limiting a Board member’s questioning to two minutes—particularly during an all-day workshop—is unprecedented and excessively brief. This is especially concerning given that members may receive dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of data just three or four days  before a workshop.

Some presentations on January 28 were highly complex, such as the extensive financial briefing delivered by the Vice President of Finance and Administrative Services. From the Blog’s perspective, a two-minute window is  woefully insufficient for meaningful discussion and opportunity with questions in this area, especially when it involves the following: A $126 million dollar budget, Arizona’s complex property tax law, fund accounting used by the College, and related matters.  It is clear that a thorough, clear understanding of these issues,  even for those on the Board who might possess  a strong background in accounting or finance, is challenging.

Moreover, the two-minute rule appeared to be inconsistently applied. For example, after Community College President Dr. Lisa Rhine’s presentation, Representative Kiel exceeded the two-minute limit without interruption. Yet, at other times, he was abruptly cut off by the Chair or the Board’s legal counsel and cautioned that his two-minute time  for questions  was up.

The selective enforcement of this rule raises questions about its purpose and fairness.

It is worth noting that Governing Board members serve without compensation and have limited time before meetings to review extensive data. As a result, some may struggle to fully digest the material, leading to a reluctance—or inability—to ask substantive questions. Instead, they default to praising presentations and presenters, sidestepping serious inquiry, which makes the two-minute rule largely irrelevant to them.

By contrast, Representative Kiel stated that he spent hours reviewing the data and came well prepared. However, the strict time limit prevented him from asking all his relevant questions. Below is a video clip of an early exchange between Chair McCasland and Mr. Kiel regarding the two-minute rule—one of several clashes that unfolded throughout the meeting.

HIGHER EDUCATION LEARNING CONSULTANT WARNS OF ACCREDITATION RISK FOR YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE IF GOVERNING BOARD INTERVENES IN HIRING DESPITE LANGUAGE OF STATE STATUTE

Board lawyer says YCC Governing Board years ago delegated all employee hiring (including vice presidents and deans) to President and that delegation was legal — Board may only hire the president

The meaning of Arizona Statute 15-1444 concerning hiring practices at community colleges was a key topic of discussion at the January 14, 2025, Yavapai Community College Governing Board workshop. The statute, cited below, appears to grant the Governing Board authority over hiring decisions.

Despite the language of the statute, the Yavapai Community College Governing Board was advised by its attorney that it had delegated all hiring authority to the college president several years ago. The attorney explained that she had sought clarification on the legality of this delegation from the Arizona Attorney General through a formal letter. While no official opinion was issued, the Attorney General’s response to her inquiry convinced her that the delegation complied with the law. As a result, she concluded that the Board currently has no role in employment decisions beyond hiring the college president.

The remaining question is whether the Governing Board could revoke its previous delegation and assume some involvement in the hiring process.

Ken Burke who hails from Florida, and a consultant from the Association of Community College Trustees, strongly opposed any suggestion of Board involvement in hiring decisions below the level of the college president. He warned the Governing Board:

“As far as accreditation authorities, I can speak with 100% certainty: if trustees got involved in hiring people below the level of president, you would lose your accreditation.”

Burke’s position was echoed by Yavapai College president Dr. Lisa Rhine and Dr. David Borofsky, Executive Director of the Arizona Association of Community College Trustees.

Yavapai Community College (YCC) is accredited by the nonprofit Higher Learning Commission (HLC), a regional accrediting body that evaluates institutional quality and educational programs. Accreditation by the HLC ensures that YCC meets acceptable standards for higher education delivery.

A portion of the discussion at the meeting can be observed below:

 

 

 

UA EXTENSION DIRECTOR TO SPEAKS AT YCC VERDE VALLEY CAMPUS FROM 12:30 TO 1:45 P.M. ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 30 IN ROOM M-137

As a part of the free Osher Lifelong Learning Institute’s community education program, Dr. Rodolfo Martinez Morales will discuss Agriculture & Sustainability

Dr. Rodolfo Martinez Morales, the University of Arizona’s Extension Director for Santa Cruz County, will discuss Regenerative Agriculture and its potential to increase sustainability as part of the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute’s (OLLI) free “Munch & Learn” program, Thursday January 30, from 12:30 to 1:45 p.m., on Yavapai Community  College’s Verde Valley Campus. The program is free and open to the public. The lecture will be held in Room M-137.  OLLI asks that you preregister by calling 928-649-4275.

In the press release for this event Dr. Morales is described as developing a strategy to integrate regenerative agriculture with ecological restoration to enhance small-scale farming. His January 30 topic will be “Regenerative Agriculture as a Strategy for Ecological Restoration and Sustainable Landscapes.” He is an expert on crop and soil science, has worked in agriculture development and ecology and has broadened his research into plant and soil ecology, regenerative agriculture and sustainable landscapes.

There is no charge for “Munch & Learn” presentations, but registration is required to ensure seating. Call 928-649-4275 or visit www.yc.edu/olliopen to register.

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD SCHEDULES WORKSHOP FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 28 AT ROCK HOUSE ON PRESCOTT CAMPUS TO BEGIN AT 9 A.M. AND MAY RUN TO ABOUT 4:00 P.M.

Topics will include discussion of budget and “attorney education workshop”

The Yavapai Community College District Governing Board will hold a workshop meeting on Tuesday, January 28, 2025, at the Rock House on the Prescott Campus. The meeting will start at 9 a.m. and is expected to conclude by 4 p.m. A live stream of the meeting will normally be available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/user/YavapaiCollege.

The workshop agenda includes a discussion of the Community College budget and a lecture by the Board’s attorney entitled, “Attorney Education Workshop.” 

Members of the public are generally not permitted to speak during these workshop sessions. However, under Arizona law, the public has the right to attend, listen, record, or videotape the meeting, provided they do not disrupt the proceedings. For more information on these rights, refer to Arizona Attorney General Opinion No. I78-001.

Further updates  will be provided as they become available. The agenda is usually posted by Monday, the day prior to the meeting.

 

IN AN OCCASIONALLY TENSE MEETING, MCCASLAND RE-ELECTED AGAIN AS YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD CHAIR IN 3-2 VOTE OVER PAYNE; BRACETY NAMED SECRETARY

 Board Lawyer and McCasland interrupt and quash Kiel’s effort to fully explain why he felt McCasland was not qualified with attorney suggesting his statement (questions) were denigrating McCasland and McCasland ruled him out of order

Deb McCasland was re-elected as the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board Chair by a 3-2 vote, defeating Third District Representative Toby Payne. In the same meeting, District 5 Representative Steve Bracety was chosen as Board Secretary. The election occurred during the District Governing Board’s workshop January 14.  McCasland will have served as chair for seven years when she completes this term in 2027.

The election process  turned contentious when newly elected Bill Kiel attempted to explain how his initial interactions with McCasland had negatively shaped his view of her leadership. Before he could fully elaborate on what occurred, both McCasland and the Board attorney interrupted him on several occasions. At one point McCasland ruled him out of order and the Board attorney suggested  he was denigrating McCasland when discussing her negative behavior. She forcefully directed him to concentrate on Toby Payne’s qualifications, not Ms. McCasland’s negatives.

 The following is a rough transcription of a portion of the exchange between Kiel, McCasland, and the Board attorney:

Kiel:  “At the last Board meeting . . .”

McCasland interrupts:  “We’re talking about the election?”

Kiel referring to Ms. McCasland:  “Yes, yes. Right now I want to talk about an interaction between you and I.”

McCasland interrupts:  “It is not relevant.”

 Kiel: It is  relevant to this. At the last Board meeting (in November after he had just been elected) I introduced myself to you and I said I look forward to a positive and productive meeting.  I want to know why you told me that you doubt that we could have a positive and productive. . . .”

Board attorney:  “O.K. We’re moving, moving on now.  You can make a statement (McCasland in background also attempting to interrupt) but this is not a deposition. “

McCasland:  “No.”

Board attorney:  “You can make your statement but you’re not asking her a question.  (“remainder unclear”)

 Kiel addressing McCasland: (McCasland continues talking in background)  “I don’t understand why you tell me that you doubted that we could have a positive and professional relationship? I sent you on twelve eighteen . . .

McCasland:  Sir, you are out of order.

Kiel:  No, I am not. This goes to why I . . .

Board attorney interrupts:  “Mr. Payne, Let’s focus on Mr. Payne.  And why you think  he is appropriate as opposed to denigrating your fellow board member.” 

Kiel attempting to proceed:  “on twelve twenty-eighteen and last Sunday I emailed Ms. McCasland and asked her for . . .”

McCasland interrupting:  “This has nothing  to do with . . .”

Kiel:  “This has everything to do it . . .”

Board attorney interrupted:  “Mr. Kiel, focus on why Mr. Payne is appropriate. We do not need to denigrate the current chair . . .”

Kiel:  I’m not denigrating her, I just saying the current chair is not doing what is required . . .”

McCasland interjecting:  “Then I think you’ve made you point.”

Board attorney interrupting Kiel:  “Then you’re done.  So focus on Mr. Payne. He’s got a lot of positive qualities.  I’m sure we could talk about that as opposed to talking about what you believe Ms. McCasland’s negative qualities are.  Focus on Mr. Payne and why you nominated him and believe he would be appropriate.”

McCasland, nominated for her third consecutive two-year term by Bracety, argued that her extensive experience made her the most qualified candidate. She cited her five years of service as Chair and national recognition. (McCasland was named Trustee of the Year by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) at its 2023 annual meeting in Denver, Colorado.) McCasland later nominated Bracety to serve as Secretary.

The deciding vote for McCasland came from newly appointed Representative Patrick Kuykendall, who indicated  that he has known the McCasland family for some time and applauded their civic involvement.

Arguments for Change in Leadership

Kiel, who nominated Payne for Chair, voiced concerns about the Board’s longstanding leadership practices. During his campaign, he said he met many constituents dissatisfied with how funds were distributed across districts. He argued that electing a Chair from District 3 would demonstrate goodwill (and to some extent  address historical imbalances).

Kiel also noted that District 3 had not been represented in the Chair role for at least 15 years, a precedent he considered troubling. Drawing on his 20 years of experience on various boards, Kiel remarked that it was unusual for a governing board to retain the same Chair for multiple consecutive terms. He advocated for leadership rotation, which, he argued, fosters fresh perspectives, promotes collaboration, and develops leadership skills among board members. He added that having multiple members with experience as Chair enhances stability, especially in cases of unforeseen circumstances such as illness or resignation.

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS MAY NOT TALK WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE 500-1,000 PART OR FULL-TIME STAFF WHILE CONDUCTING MANDATED STATUTORY VISITS TO CAMPUSES ACCORDING TO YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD LAWYER

Discussion during visit with staff may result in raising serious accreditation issues

Newly elected Yavapai Community College Governing Board member Bill Kiel raised a question during the Governing Board’s January 14, 2025 workshop about the meaning of a provision found in section A(1) of Arizona Statute 14-1444. This statute directs a District Governing Board to visit and examine the management, conditions, and needs of each campus under its jurisdiction. Representative Kiel queried whether, during such a visit, a Yavapai Community College District Board member could ask questions of any of the 500 to 1,000 persons now employed by the College.

The statute reads as follows:

The Community College Board attorney indicated that a Board member could not speak directly with a member of the staff. Rather, any question the Board member might have must go directly to the president of Yavapai Community College. Moreover, a Board member could never, for example, alone visit a campus or center and discuss a matter with a member of the staff, even inadvertently. 

The Board lawyer intimated in a somewhat confusing fashion that discussion with a staff member during a visit, or otherwise, could well raise serious accreditation questions.

Thus, the Board attorney’s opinion, as best the Blog can understand it, appears to tie the hands of any Board member learning or asking anything directly from any member of the staff during a Board visit to a campus or otherwise. One could argue that the 500 to 1,000 part-time and full-time employees and the District Governing Board are effectively muzzled when it comes to any interaction between them at any time. 

Please view the following video clip of the attorney providing a short response to Mr. Kiel’s question during the January 14, 2025 workshop for verification.

PRESIDENT RHINE FORWARDS VAGUE LETTER WRITTEN BY GOVERNING BOARD CHAIR TO STAFF AND OTHERS ALLEGING FALSE MISINFORMATION ABOUT BOARD POLICY IS BEING CIRCULATED BY “ILLEGITIMATE BLOGS, WEBSITES, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND OPINIONATED NEWS ORGANIZATIONS”

Chair McCasland’s letter lacks clarity and substance while ignoring controversial Policy 310, which has resulted in numerous articles and comments raising concerns over chilling free speech by threatening to fire any of the 500 to 1,000 full or part-time College employees who dare to communicate with any Governing Board member

Robert E. Oliphant

OPINION: Yavapai Community College president, Dr. Lisa Rhine, recently forwarded a letter to the Community College’s staff and others written by Yavapai Community College District Governing Board Chair Deb McCasland. In the letter, McCasland warned about “false information” being publicly disseminated, claiming the misinformation was coming from “illegitimate blogs, websites, social media, and opinionated news organizations.”

The most obvious failure of the letter was this: At best it was extremely vague. It lacked any specifics about the alleged misinformation she claimed was being disseminated. It failed to identify any of the media sources she deemed unreliable.  It provided no context whatsoever.

The glaring omissions in the letter cast significant doubt on the credibility and intent behind the claims. These omissions are especially troubling given her sweeping condemnation of the local news media—or is she even making such a condemnation? The lack of clarity leaves readers guessing.

When making such broad accusations, it seems to me that it is critical to identify the supposed false information and provide evidence to substantiate the broad claims being asserted. The letter should have named the various alleged “illegitimate blogs, websites, social media, and opinionated news organizations.” Without this information, the letter comes across as baseless and unhelpful. It is impossible to evaluate the validity of her warnings.

Notably, the letter sidestepped addressing the controversial Governing Board Policy 310, which has sparked significant commentary in the local news in recent weeks. Policy 310, enacted by a 4-1 vote of the outgoing Board in November, includes a contentious clause stating: “Under no circumstances should an individual Board member direct or contact by any means, a staff member concerning a college or community issue.” Critics, including this Blog, argue that this policy undermines the elected Board member’s role as representatives of Yavapai County taxpayers. It also reflects a troubling lack of trust in Board members and imposes what some see as an inappropriate or at least “chilling” restraint on free speech. The College disagrees.

Of interest, the letter written by McCasland briefly referenced Board Policy 401, a restatement of an existing policy that has not attracted notable controversy. By contrast, the ongoing public discussions and commentary have focused on Policy 310 and its implications.

Moreover, McCasland appeared determined to remind employees that President Rhine wielded nearly unchecked authority over them and anything classified by her as “operations.” However, McCasland’s remarks appeared to veer off course at times. She seemed to vaguely insinuate that the “misinformation” she mentioned in her letter was somehow tied to criticism of the staff’s exceptional work. Consider her statement:

“Despite what you may read in illegitimate blogs and websites, on social media, or from unsourced and opinionated ‘news’ organizations, your work is unmatched and life-changing. I would encourage you to disregard anything that alludes otherwise. Do not even entertain it.”

Yet, the Blog has found no recent articles publicly critical of staff. This statement, then, resembles what some might call a “red herring”—an attempt to mislead or distract. The fact is that recent commentary has been directed at the College’s executive leadership, particularly the troubling fixation on secrecy, suppression of free speech, and various financial and procurement practices.

In sum, Chair McCasland’ s decision to broadly dismiss criticism as “false information” without examples or context undermines her letter’s credibility. Instead of fostering transparency and addressing valid concerns, the letter appears to deflect attention away from legitimate issues while failing to provide clarity or constructive guidance.

The letter forwarded  to staff and others by president Rhine is found immediately below:

YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE MAY BE LOSING DIRECTOR OF VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY, MICHAEL PIERCE

An eleven year employee involved in the developing the enology/viticulture program, he has served in his current position for over six years: reliable sources claim he has given notice to College of his intent to resign 

Although Yavapai Community College has not officially confirmed his departure, reliable sources have informed the Blog that Michael Pierce, Director of the Viticulture and Enology program, has given two weeks’ notice of his resignation.

Pierce has been with the college for 11 years, serving as Director of the Viticulture and Enology program for more than six of those years. While there has been no formal announcement, it is thought that Pierce may have accepted a position with Arizona State University.

In addition to his role at Yavapai College, Pierce lists himself on LinkedIn as the winemaker for Pierce Wines Arizona, a role he has held for over 15 years. He is currently identified as the winemaker for the company.

Pierce’s journey into winemaking began as a hobby during his college years. According to a 2015 interview with Wines and Vines, Pierce studied electronic media and visual communication at Northern Arizona University, graduating in 2004. After graduation, he initially worked in print and web design but pursued his interest in winemaking by taking online viticulture and enology courses through the University of California, Davis, extension. In 2007, he transitioned to Washington State University’s program.

Pierce told the Wines and Vines interviewer that he gained practical experience by working harvest jobs in New Zealand, Oregon, and Tasmania (Australia). In 2010, he secured a winemaking position at Arizona Stronghold Vineyards. Four years later, he joined Yavapai Community College as the Director of Enology. In 2018, his responsibilities expanded when he was named Director of the Viticulture and Enology program.

Michael Pierce’s departure, if the information provided the Blog is accurate,  marks the end of a significant chapter at Yavapai Community College, where he played a key role in developing the Viticulture and Enology program.

You may Read the full 2015 interview in Wines and Vines at:  https://winebusinessanalytics.com/sections/printout_article.cfm?content=152124&article=feature