Yavapai Community College in Northern Arizona

Archive for District Governing Board

YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE REPRESENTATIVE PAYNE’S REQUEST TO CORRECT THE FORMAL FEBRUARY GOVERNING BOARD MINUTES TO REFLECT WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED — WHEN NO OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION WAS ALLOWED BEFORE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION — IS REJECTED 3-2

By R. Oliphant

Thursday, April 3rd, 2025

Payne argued his addition would make the minutes more transparent to the public; Board majority remained mostly silent, with the Chair claiming discussion was unnecessary since the motion concerning entering the executive session was on the meeting videotape

At the March 26 meeting, Third District Yavapai Community College Governing Board member Toby Payne requested that the official minutes accurately reflect what transpired when the Board voted to enter executive session on February 18. He specifically asked that the following statement be included in the February minutes. “I respectfully request the following to be added,” he said:

Mr. Kiel requested that the Board discuss an issue or issues prior to going into executive session. The Chair did not open the floor for discussion after a second to go into executive session, so Mr. Kiel decided not to attend the executive session. Mr. Payne stated that he was very concerned about the transparency to the public about why the Board is going into executive session or why the Board is holding a virtual meeting. He did not attend the executive session.

Mr. Payne’s request to amend the minutes was rejected by a 3-2 vote, with Chair Deb McCasland, Patrick Kuykendall, and Steve Bracety voting in favor. Only Representative William Kiel voted against the motion in support of Payne. The majority members offered few comments before casting their votes. Chair McCasland stated that everything was documented in the meeting video and noted that she had never engaged in a discussion regarding the decision to enter an executive session.

A video clip of this portion of the meeting may be viewed below:

Categories : District Governing Board, GOVERNING BOARD

WHOOPS! BOARD MEETING AGENDA INADVERTENTLY NOT ACTIVATED FOR THE MARCH 25 MEETING – ON ADVICE OF ATTORNEY, MEETING MOVED TO GIVE RESIDENTS 24 HOUR OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW SUMMARY AGENDA

By R. Oliphant

Thursday, March 27th, 2025

No details were released regarding the exact nature of the embarrassing failure to activate the link

The Yavapai Community College Governing Board unexpectedly rescheduled its zoom meeting set for March 25 to March 26. The change occurred when Board member William Kiel informed the Board’s lawyer on the morning of March 25 that the electronic link to the Board agenda had not been activated on the Board’s website. Because the link was not properly activated, members of the public were unable to access the agenda at least 24 hours before the meeting, as required by law.

Arizona law mandates that Board agendas be made publicly available at least 24 hours prior to a meeting. However, the Board’s lawyer believed that the March 25 meeting could have proceeded despite the web notification failure because paper copies of the time, place, and summary agenda were properly posted elsewhere. However, she advised the Board to reschedule the meeting to ensure that the public, particularly those relying on the website link, had an opportunity to review the agenda and the topics to be discussed at least 24 hours before the event.

The written explanation offered by the Board lawyer is set out below:

“The Governing Board’s legal counsel learned late on the morning of March 25, 2025 that the link on the College’s website to the District Governing Board’s March 25 meeting agenda was inadvertently not activated until the morning of March 25. The agenda was posted more than 24 hours in advance, but the link was not made “live” at the time. Therefore, members of the public attempting to access the meeting agenda from the College’s website could not do so at least 24 hours in advance.

“The College physically posted the meeting agenda more than 24 hours in advance of the March 25 , 2025 meeting.

“The Open Meeting Law allows a governing board to proceed with a public meeting if a ‘technological problem or failure’ prevents the posting of the agenda on the website 24 hours in advance, as long as the agenda was physically posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law. Although the March 25 District Governing Board meeting could therefore proceed despite the technological agenda posting issue, the Board has been advised to reschedule the meeting to ensure that the public receives adequate notice of the meeting.”

Categories : District Governing Board, GOVERNING BOARD

DESPITE OVER $2 MILLION IN CONSULTING FEES IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE DELIVERS FEW RESULTS FOR SEDONA AND VERDE VALLEY

By R. Oliphant

Tuesday, March 18th, 2025

Developmental projects for the Verde Campus of over $20 million including major housing, creation of commercial driver training program, important brewing and distilling project, and future EV hi-tech repair all scrapped despite recommendations from consultants and initial concept approval by Board

OPINION:According to data obtained from Yavapai Community College, the institution has spent over $2 million in consulting fees with SmithGroup, Inc. over the past three years. SmithGroup has been advising the college on capital development projects throughout the district.

Records indicate that the college paid SmithGroup consulting fees of $364,907 in 2022, $399,738 in 2023, and $1,312,938 in 2024.

In its 2022 master plan, SmithGroup recommended a development strategy for the Verde Campus, which the Governing Board conceptually approved. The plan outlined approximately $20 million in proposed projects, including $9.25 million for student housing, $608,000 for a commercial driver training program, $8.04 million for expanding the fermentation program with craft brewing and distilling, $3.09 million for renovations to Building “M,” and $146,000 for acoustic upgrades to rooms at the Sedona Center.

However, several projects outlined in the plan for the Verde Campus have since been abandoned, including major student housing, the commercial driver training program, and the fermentation and distilling expansion. Additionally, an electric vehicle (EV) project proposed in 2022 as a possibility for the Verde Campus has also been scrapped.

Given these outcomes, Verde Valley residents may reasonably question whether local taxpayers should be footing the bill for much, if any, of the $2 million spent on consulting. Or does the responsibility for the lack of development and refusal to follow the recommendations lie entirely with the controlling west side voting bloc on the District Governing Board?

Categories : Construction, District Governing Board, GOVERNING BOARD

A CLOAK OF CONCERN WITHOUT EXPLANATION

By R. Oliphant

Saturday, March 15th, 2025

Is Zoom being used by Yavapai Community College District Governing Chair as a convenient tool to control and cut off unwanted discussion?

OPINION: In a perplexing display of opacity, the chairperson of Yavapai Community College’s District Governing Board, Ms. Deb McCasland, has repeatedly insisted that unspecified “safety concerns” prevent the Community College’s District Governing Board from holding in-person public meetings. (For example, in-person public meeting on the Verde Campus once scheduled for this month.) Yet, despite weeks passing since announcing there were “safety concerns,” she refuses to elaborate on what these concerns entail or provide any evidence to substantiate them.

Meanwhile, the public sees no signs of any credible threat—no incidents, no warnings, and nothing to suggest that an in-person meeting would pose any risk beyond the ordinary. The absence of a clear explanation has only deepened skepticism, raising questions about whether these so-called safety concerns are legitimate.

This refusal to engage in transparency has left many wondering whether the claim of safety is merely a convenient pretext to control meetings. By relying on Zoom, the chair can dictate the flow of discussion with a click of a button—muting dissent, cutting off Board members she does not favor, and silencing the public at will.

Moreover, instead of promoting open dialogue and accountability, this approach suggests that the Board’s leadership is more focused on controlling the narrative than fulfilling its responsibility to the community it was elected to serve.

Categories : District Governing Board, Editorials/Essays, GOVERNING BOARD, OPINIONS

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD SHIFTS MARCH 25 VERDE CAMPUS MEETING TO ZOOM

By R. Oliphant

Friday, March 7th, 2025

—No Explanation Given

OPINION: Residents of Sedona and the Verde Valley have few opportunities to meet in person with members of the Yavapai Community College Governing Board or attend the handful of meetings scheduled each year. The primary reason? Nearly all Board meetings are now held on the Prescott Campus, specifically in the Rock House.

The sole spring exception was supposed to be the March 25 meeting, which had been scheduled as an in-person session at the Verde Valley Campus. However, the Board has now changed that meeting to a Zoom-only format—without offering any explanation.

Perhaps the journey from Prescott to the Verde Campus is too burdensome for Board members so they have decided to use zoom. By contrast, students from Sedona and the Verde Valley are expected to make the trip whenever a class is offered only on the other side of the mountain—just as residents must do if they wish to attend Board meetings. It seems the burden of a long drive depends entirely on who holds the power and who is left without a say.

Categories : District Governing Board

MCCASLAND AND ALLIES BLOCK BOARD MEMBER KIEL FROM DISCUSSING A PROCEDURAL MOTION THROUGH WHAT SOME MIGHT CALL A CALCULATED MANIPULATIVE TACTIC

By R. Oliphant

Friday, February 28th, 2025

Universally accepted process followed at Board meetings of calling for discussion before voting on a motion was disregarded during the February 18 Board meeting. This episode appears to be a part of an ongoing pattern of hostility specifically directed at Kiel by a majority on the Board

OPINION: Some members of the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board seem to harbor a strong dislike for the newest elected member, William Kiel. (Most likely viewing him as asking too many questions; being too persistent, wanting greater transparency, and doesn’t necessarily agree with all their views.) That animosity became evident at the outset of the February 18 Board meeting when Kiel attempted to speak to a motion before it had been voted on. In response, the Chair McCasland employed a sleight-of-hand maneuver to pass the motion, bending procedure just enough to disguise what some feel was her real intent, which was to muzzle Kiel.

The procedural trickery unfolded when McCasland skipped the standard step of allowing discussion on a motion after it is seconded, opting instead to push for an immediate vote. When Kiel objected following the vote, the board attorney stepped in, suggesting to the members who had hurriedly introduced and approved the motion to consider rescinding it so there could be discussion. Both flatly refused.

The treatment of Kiel is perplexing because it is universally understood that once a motion is made and seconded, board members are given an opportunity for discussion prior to a final vote. In this instance, the expectation was even more unmistakable because Kiel had explicitly informed the chair in advance he wanted discussion.

Despite standard procedure and Kiel’s prior notice, the Governing Board Chair brazenly disregarded protocol at the February 18 meeting. The most obvious reason for this abrupt deviation is that Kiel is clearly not in Chair McCasland’s favor. Likewise, Board member Patrick Kuykendall’s refusal to rescind his second to the motion appears rooted in his personal disdain for Kiel.

The blatant dismissal of standard procedure in Kiel’s case raises serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the Governing Board’s decision-making process. When procedural rules are selectively applied or ignored based on personal biases, it undermines the very principles of transparency and accountability that should guide the District Governing Board. If Board leadership is willing to bend the rules to silence a dissenting voice, it begs the question—what else are they willing to manipulate to maintain control?

A video clip of the incident appears below:

Categories : District Governing Board, Editorials/Essays, OPINIONS

SHROUDED IN SECRECY, GOVERNING BOARD CHAIR MCCASLAND CONTINUES TO REFUSE TO EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC WHY A TYPICAL LIVE BOARD MEETING AT THE ROCKHOUSE ON THE PRESCOTT CAMPUS IS “UNSAFE”

By R. Oliphant

Thursday, February 20th, 2025

Secret 15 to 20 minute meeting held February 18 on the safety issue with no information made public afterwards: Should students and the public be worried?

The Yavapai Community College Governing Board’s first order of business at its February 18 meeting was to call a secret executive session to discuss “Facility Safety and Security Measures.” Only three of the five Governing Board members attended the secret meeting in addition to College president Dr. Lisa Rhine.

The closed-door session, allegedly “ hosted” by Rhine, lasted approximately 15 minutes and the topic was “facility safety.” When the attendees emerged from the session, they were smiling. However, not a word was uttered about the supposed campus safety claim being made by Chair Deb McCasland.

Notably, before Tuesday’s Board meeting, McCasland claimed in an email sent to the Governing Board members that she had learned of “safety concerns related to our board meetings.” The concerns, whatever they were, appeared so serious to her that she switched the February 18 live meeting from the Rock House on the Prescott Campus to one on zoom.

Despite the change, McCasland has continued to withhold from the public any information about the alleged safety concerns.

Deepening the mystery, at least two District Governing Board members had sought an explanation or evidence from McCasland to substantiate her safety concern claim prior to Tuesday’s secret executive meeting. Yet, even when directly asked via email by them for facts, she rejected the request.

The entire mystery surrounding the public facility safety claim isn’t just unusual—it’s deeply unsettling to students at Yavapai Community College and the public.

Categories : District Governing Board, Executive meetings, Secret meetings

CHAIR MCCASLAND ABRUPTLY SHIFTS YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD MEETINGS TO ZOOM BECAUSE OF UNSPECIFIED “SAFETY CONCERNS”

By R. Oliphant

Friday, February 7th, 2025

Provides no evidence or examples to Board members supporting the decision; Representative Payne asks for information regarding the nature of the concerns and fears that the zoom mode of communication may interfere with Board open discussion of issues

On Thursday afternoon, February 6, 2025, members of the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board were notified via email that, due to unspecified “safety concerns,” future Board meetings would be held on Zoom. The notice stated that Chair McCasland “believes this will allow all meeting attendees, including the public, to participate in a safe setting.”

McCasland provided no examples or further explanation for the abrupt and somewhat alarming decision. Third District Representative Toby Payne sent an email to Chair McCasland requesting clarification about the “safety concerns” that prompted the switch to Zoom meetings. So far, there has been no reply.

Representative Toby Payne

When questioned by the Blog about McCasland’s safety concerns, Payne indicated he was unaware of any. When asked if he had received any threats, he responded, “No.” He commented that he was concerned that the switch to the virtual format may interfere with communication during the meetings among Board members.

It is noteworthy that during the month of January the Governing Board has held two workshops with each lasting around six hours. There was no opportunity for the public to speak at either meeting. However, there were few, if any, members of the public present at either meeting.

The relevant portions of the two emails are set out below:

(Email from Yvonne Sandoval, Executive Assistant to the President & District Governing Board)

Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 2:15 PM

Subject: Important Statement from Board Chair McCasland

“Good afternoon, Board Member,”

“Per Board Chair McCasland’s directive, letting you know that after learning of safety concerns related to our board meetings, she has decided that governing board meetings will be held virtually only until further notice. Meetings will be live-streamed and recorded in the same way governing board meetings were handled during pandemic closures. We will provide notice of this change to the public on our website, and the information will also be included on all meeting agendas. She believes that this will allow all meeting attendees, including the public, to participate in meetings in a safe setting.“

Mr. Payne’s response:

“Chair McCasland:

“Please explain to all the Board members what your “Safety Concerns” are that have prompted your switch to a Virtual Meeting for the Yavapai College Board. I believe this will hinder the free flow of discussion.”

Toby Payne

Categories : ADMINISTRATION, District Governing Board

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

By R. Oliphant

Friday, January 31st, 2025

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

Categories : District Governing Board, Food Service, MULTI PURPOSE FIELD VERDE CAMPUS, Politics

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

By R. Oliphant

Saturday, January 18th, 2025

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.

Categories : District Governing Board, Politics