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: