Will become Justice of the Peace for the Prescott District in 2023, which makes him no longer eligible to hold a seat on the Board

Attorney Mitch Padilla will be leaving the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board at the end of this year.   He was sworn in to become a Board member on January 13, 2021. 

Mitch Padilla

Padilla won the primary election August 2 as a Republican against two other Republican candidates.  Because there was  no Democrat primary opponent, there will be no contest in the November general election. Padilla will take the seat as Justice of the Peace in January.

 Padilla served two years of a six year term on the District Board.  He represents District 5, which consists of Castle, Diamond Valley, Glassford, Granville, Groom Creek, Horseshoe, Lynx Creek, Mountain View, Prescott Valley 1/Navajo, Prescott Valley 2, Pronghorn View, Roundup, Superstition, and Yavapai Hills.

It is anticipated that the County Superintendent of Schools will appoint someone from District 5 to serve out the remainder of Padilla’s term.

Board Chair says items Chevalier wanted discussed based on March open call public comments were not appropriate Board matters but issues for President;  Chevalier asks that those matters not within President’s ambit be discussed at May  Board meeting

It’s sometimes tough, if not impossible,  to get an agenda item placed on the Governing Board agenda for discussion.  It’s even tougher to find a public way of getting a response from the Administration to concerns raised by citizens at various Board meetings if they are not discussed at a Board meeting.  Citizens are left pretty much in the dark without a public response from anyone.

Third District Representative Paul Chevalier

The difficulty of getting a particular item publicly discussed by the Community College Governing Board was illustrated  by the recent actions of Third District Community College Representative Paul Chevalier.

At the March 2022 Governing Board meeting in Sedona several citizens raised  a number of issues during the Open Call to the public. There was, of course, no response from the Governing Board to them at that time because they weren’t on an agenda.

Also at the March meeting, immediately following the citizen comments, Mr. Chevalier specifically requested that an agenda item be added to the April agenda so several of the citizen comments, 27 of them,  could be addressed by the Board. (Click here to view a video clip of Mr. Chevalier making the March request.)

Prior to  the April meeting, Mr. Chevalier spoke with the Governing Board Chair. She explained that “our agenda was full with Board matters. I had a conversation with you that we only discuss Board business and that is why it’s not on this agenda.” When Chevalier asked if the Chair would put the item on the next agenda, the Chair replied: “I think I told you that a lot of your request was not Board business.”  Chevalier then responded that he once again was formally requested that those items that were raised by the public at the March meeting that are Board matters be placed on the May agenda.  (Click here to view a video clip of Mr. Chevalier making the April request.)  

The Board meeting then moved on without further discussion. 

Exercising his right under Board policy, Chevalier asked Board Chair to place on the agenda for the next meeting discussion and possible action regarding statements and requests made by the public at the March 22 meeting | Published agenda for April does not clearly show such an item was placed there and will be discussed

Third District Paul Chevalier made an unusual request at the March 22 Governing Board meeting in Sedona.  He asked that the Governing Board Chair, Deb McCasland, pursuant to Board policy 34.33, place on the “next” agenda an item for discussion and possible action that focuses on the statements and requests made by the public during open call at the Sedona meeting. (See video clip below.)

Chevalier commented that “when members of the public come to speak to the Governing Board during open call, that the Board members should carefully consider what they said. After all,” he continued, “the public took the time” to attend the Board meeting and “what they say should not be ignored” by the Board.

An examination of the summary agenda posted by the Governing Board for the April meeting does not appear to include this item.  Possibly, it will be raised at a later time, or the agenda will be altered prior to Tuesday’s meeting to allow discussion and possible action on Mr. Chevalier’s request.

A short video clip of Mr. Chevalier’s request appears below.

Election for 2022 positions held during  Workshop at the Prescott Valley Center January 28

Chair Deb McCasland

Secretary Ray Sigafoos

The Yavapai Community College District Governing Board held is annual election for officers at its January 28 meeting at the Prescott Valley Center. District two Representative Deb McCasland was unanimously elected to continue for one year as Board Chair and District one Representative Ray Sigafoos was elected to continue for one year as Secretary. McCasland was first elected to the position of Chair of the Board in January of 2020.

Representative Paul Chevalier had initially nominated Representative Sigafoos as Chair. However, while he said he appreciated the nomination, he withdrew his name from consideration because his business did not allow him the time to manage the position. Chevalier then joined the other Governing Board members who unanimously elected McCasland and Sigafoos as Board officers for this year.

McCasland was first elected to the District Governing Board in 2014. Her background includes more than thirty years as a Community College employee. She retired in 2010. Sigafoos was first elected to the District Governing Board in 2005.

Padilla denies an intention to suggest that Chevalier quit the Board | Chevalier perceives Padilla’s intention was to encourage him to leave Board; Chevalier defends record supporting the College as a whole while charging members on the west side of Mingus Mountain as riding a Community College gravy train that has left his side of Mingus Mountain far behind

Third District Representative Mr. Paul Chevalier

As the sun began to sink on the day-long Yavapai Community College District Governing Board Workshop on Friday, January 28 at the Prescott Valley Yavapai Community College Center, Third District Representative Paul Chevalier and Fifth District representative Mitch Padilla came to loggerheads over Mr. Chevalier’s sometimes contrary views and persistent support of Sedona and the Verde Valley during Board meetings. 

Mr. Padilla charged Mr. Chevalier as being “fundamentally opposed to the majority on the Board” who work “for the betterment of the whole of the College” and worried that Chevalier’s strong commitment to his District was not productive.  “Every time you bring it up, it is going to be voted down,” said Padilla. (See video below). He went on to ask Chevalier, “why do you remain on the Board . . .?

Fifth District Representative Mr. Mitch Padilla

Chevalier perceived Padilla’s comments and question as amounting to a proposal that he quit the Board. Padilla denied that was his intention.   Chevalier said that “the vast majority of the time I have voted with the whole Board” on issues.  He also said that he remains on the Board because he made a promise to the people of his district that he would try and get more equitable treatment for them. “The district is way, way behind what they should get,” said Chevalier.

Chevalier attributed the fact that the other Board members do not feel as strongly as he does about representing the citizens of their districts is that they are on what he described as a Community College “gravy train.” Meanwhile, according to Chevalier, citizens on the east side of Mingus Mountain have been left far behind.

An unedited video clip of the three-minute exchange between Mr. Chevalier and Mr. Padilla appears below.

Claims using “Yavapai Community College” is derogatory in context in which it is used | Concedes that the legal name is “Yavapai County Community College District (see video clip)

The November 16 Yavapai Community College District Governing Board meeting found time to listen to a grievance by Board member Ray Sigafoos about those persons who refer to the institution as “Yavapai Community College.” Rather than “Yavapai College.” 

According to Mr. Sigafoos, the institution has always been called  “Yavapai College”  and he has a “serious adverse” reaction   every time he reads “Yavapai Community College.”  He interpreted the use of the name “Yavapai Community College” as derogatory claiming its use “is pejorative, it’s targeted.” According to Sigafoos, referring to the Yavapai County institution as a community college  “misunderstands” the institution’s entire purpose.  He did not elaborate.  (See video clip for context.)

Sigafoos  suggested that the label “Yavapai College” is used for marketing and “branding.”  He noted that at least one other institution, Arizona Western Community College, uses the name “Arizona Western College.”

Sigafoos also noted that in two years Yavapai may be awarding four-year degrees. If that happens, he claimed  “it is better to have a diploma that says `Yavapai College’ for four years in a nursing program” than have a four-year degree saying,  “Community College.” According to Sigafoos, “it sounds better.”

Representative Chris Kuknyo noted during the Board discussion that the institution was originally created as  “Yavapai Community College.”  Sigafoos admitted that the legal name is  “Yavapai County Community College District.”   

Mr. Kuknyo also commented that when the word “community” is used it may bring in a “whole different focus to an organization.” He went on to say that there have been times when the community has “perceived us as an elitist group of people and unless you have the money to sign up for all the events you are never going to get in to see a show” – it is only for the elite.  (See video clip for complete context.)   

From the Blog’s perspective, when entities  use “college” and “community college” as a part of their name they are projecting quite different word pictures.  The reason for that is that there are significant  commonly understood differences associated with the use of “community college” and “college.” Here are a few examples:

• The types of degrees offered is a major difference between community colleges and four-year colleges and universities.   Community colleges offer professional certificates and/ or an associate degree after two years of study.  Colleges offer a variety of degrees after four years of study.
• Community colleges have lower tuition and fees than colleges. At public, four-year colleges, the average in-state tuition and fees were $10,440 in 2019-2020 and out-of-state tuition and fees were $26,820, according to the College Board’s 2019 Trends in College Pricing report. Comparatively, the average in-district tuition and fees at public two-year colleges in the same year were just $3,730.
• Most community colleges do not require standardized admissions tests (only a test of English for international students). Colleges may require that students have taken standardized admissions tests, possess minimum grade point averages, and meet other criteria.
• Community colleges offer flexible course schedules to accommodate students’ lives outside of school. Most colleges do not.
• A high school diploma is not usually required to attend a community college. Colleges require a high school diploma.
• Community college instructors spend most of their time teaching and working with students, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They usually don’t spend as much time working on research as their counterparts at four-year institutions.
• Community colleges are typically commuter schools. The average student at community colleges tends to be older than students attending a college.
• The average age of a community college student is 28, according to the American Association of Community Colleges. About two-thirds of community college students attend school part time. Most students work either part or full time.
• Many community colleges offer a selection of student organizations that students can become involved with, but the social atmosphere at community colleges tends to be drastically different from that at residential four-year colleges and universities.
• Colleges are usually state or privately supported. A community college is considered “local” and often supported by local taxpayers.

It seems obvious that it is far more correct to refer to Yavapai College” as “Yavapai Community College.”

The video clip of this conversation from the Governing Board’s November 16 meeting may be viewed by clicking here. 

November 16 workshop  at CTEC also generates  expressions of unhappiness by some with east side press coverage and Sedona Counsellors asking questions about taxes.  | Chevalier eventually threatens to  leave workshop unless Fourth District Representative ceases perceived personal attack on him

Governing Board meeting at CTEC.

[BLOG EXCLUSIVE.] On November 16 the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board gathered at 9:00 a.m. at the Career and Technical Education Center (CTEC) at the Prescott airport for an all day Workshop.   Representative Paul Chevalier had driven 75 miles to attend the workshop from his home in Sedona. Fourth District Representative Chris Kuknyo, who was  apparently recovering from Covid with oxygen support – or so it appeared –  was participating via  video connection from his home. The remaining members of the Governing Board, Dr. Lisa Rhine, the Board lawyer, plus a couple others, were huddled around a long, rectangular  table in a small room at CTEC.

The information the Governing Board  provided the public  before the Workshop via an original and then revised  agenda was  unusual because of the significant  differences  in language between the two.  The first public agenda stated that “Because of space constraints and increasing COVID community spread, the public will be able to observe the College District Governing Board Workshop meeting online only via YouTube Link: . . . There will be no Call to the Public on the agenda for this Workshop meeting.”  However, when the revised agenda was published,  any reference to COVID was stricken and an  Open Call to the public added along with an issue involving  a faculty future compensation complaint.  The revised Workshop agenda  resembled  more closely a general monthly Governing Board meeting than a workshop. 

The purpose of the first portion of the Workshop, according to the revised agenda, was to be a discussion about   “Board Self-Assessment” with the first item “Board Overall Performance.”   The Workshop began smoothly with an eight-minute overview/introduction  by the Workshop moderator,  Dr. David Borofsky. After that, matters began getting rocky.

Mr. Paul Chevalier, Third District Community College District Representative, opened the  Board member  discussion with an illustration he chose  to contrast past and present equitable issues between the east and west sides of the County. The illustration was based on a presentation given two weeks earlier at the monthly Board meeting where Dr.  Craig Ralston explained the successes of the fall 2021 performing arts programs. Chevalier innocently  commented   that “at our last meeting, we had a wonderful presentation about Performing Arts – 564 people but less than a dozen of those people were getting instruction on the east side of the mountain.  That’s the past.”   He then continued saying,   we need to look at the future.

Astonishingly, Chevalier’s use of  this illustration provided the  catalyst for a half hour firestorm of suggestions, criticism and analysis  directed at him about how, when, who, and what he should question as a Board member. In addition, Mr. Chevalier perceived that Fourth District Representative Chris Kuknyo was personally attacking him.   

Occasionally, the rhetoric wandered from a focus on Chevalier to condemnation of others on the east side including press coverage and the Sedona City Council seeking information about taxes paid by its citizens to support the Community College.  The fact that Mr. Chevalier asked Dr. Ralston a simple question about where each of 11 programs was taught during a public meeting seemed to trigger deep indignation  in some (not all) of the Board members. 

The fact that Mr. Chevalier had lauded Dr. Ralston for his work with the performing arts seemed unimportant to the Board critics.  Recall that Dr. Ralston is the  Director of Programming and Development, Associate Dean of Performing Arts and in charge of the Performing Arts Programs and knew all about the programming and the location of programs. The exchange at the previous Board meeting between Dr. Ralston and  Mr. Chevalier lasted only a  minute or two.  A review of a video of the exchange at the previous meeting does not appear to suggest that Dr. Ralston was either surprised or upset by the questions – but see it for yourself and make your own decision (see exchange on earlier Blog post).

Fourth District Governing Board representative Chris Kuknyo appeared emotional as he  accused  Chevalier of “grilling” Dr. Ralston. According to Kuknyo, Dr. Ralston underwent a  grilling “by the guy who always grills about the Verde Valley.”  Kuknyo  opined that Ralston was taken “by surprise” by Chavlier and exclaimed that it was “embarrassing on my part to watch.” Kuknyo also said, among other things,  that  Dr. Ralston should have avoided answering Mr. Chevalier’s simple questions by declaring  that “every one of the classes is available on the east side, they all were available to anyone on the east side.”

Chevalier, for his part, was at a loss to understand how asking Dr. Ralston, who is  in charge of programming and development for the Community College Performing Arts Center, and  intimately involved in programming, was either surprised or otherwise adversely affected by his questions.

Some Board members also seemed to believe that it was inappropriate for  Chevalier to be so continually  focused on the Verde Valley. It was suggested  that he should understand that courses in the Verde Valley will never match in number those in Prescott.  Some on the Board  appeared to dislike  his style of asking questions. Eventually,  some of the Board strongly indicated that they believed  that Mr. Chevalier should not ask such questions of faculty in public, rather, he should ask them in private of Dr. Rhine.

Although  the Board continued to focus much of its criticism on Chevalier and his determination to represent the west-side and other underserved residents of the County, there  were occasional off-hand comments  directed at others in the Verde Valley.  For example, Mr. Kuknyo appeared upset with the City of Sedona’s Counselors, a couple of whom  had requested information about the property tax contributions of east side residents to the Community College’s annual revenue.  He commented critically, “there is also a city government over there that now wants all the records on what is being spent in their community.  I’ve never heard of a municipality calling on another central municipality to start showing its records on what is spent.  This is getting crazy.” 

Kuknyo also was unhappy with press coverage suggesting that the Board needed its own advocate on the east side of the County and that “there’s a gentleman putting out and electronic newsletter on Yavapai that I have read and it is filled with half-truths, misinformation, and misguidance on what’s going on at the college.” He offered neither proof nor a single example to support his assertions.

There was much more to the tense half hour; too much for here.  For example, and to the surprise no doubt to  some, Dr. Lisa Rhine expressed concern that if faculty were asked questions about their presentations by Board members they may not show up to do them.  She also alluded without out explanation to “elitism” on the east side and felt the press, in particular the Blog, looked for “opportunities to slam the college.”  Furthermore, she indicated that “negativism” on the east side might have reduced contributions to the Foundation. 

For another example, Chair Deb McCasland observed that Mr. Chevalier was trying to make a point at Governing Board meetings that there was inequity in classes between the east and west sides of the County. She commented that it “is always going to be that way.” She also urged Chevalier to take any questions to Dr. Rhine privately and to send any questions he might ask to her prior to a Governing Board meeting.

After around a half hour, Mr. Chevalier, obviously agitated, asked, “So far, I’m the one being attacked. . . . Chris keeps attacking me. I’m not going to sit here [and be attacked]. I’m leaving right now unless we have an agreement that it ceases.”     Kuknyo agreed and the focus of the discussion turned to other matters. 

Later in the afternoon session Mr. Chevalier notified the Board that he would no longer ask questions of faculty presenters.  However, he said he would continue to ask questions of the President and Vice Presidents. 

A video clip of the half hour appears below. (Sorry for the poor quality of the audio but the  stream was not consistent.)  The Governing Board may later post the entire meeting on-line once the Board minutes are approved.  

Padilla suggests extremely long term plans not may not be sufficiently flexible; greatest challenge for College in next few years may be how to use changing technology

Governing Board member Mitch Padilla led the  discussion at the March District Governing Board meeting on the topic of the decision by the Administration to create a new Master Plan.  At the conclusion of the discussion, the Board voted unanimously to allocate the $200,000 in the 2021-22 budget, suggested by the Administration,  to hire experts to create a new Master Plan.

Mr. Padilla expressed concern about a future long-term Campus Master plan that might reduce the College’s flexibility to meet new and emerging needs.  He said that to “set a plan out for ten years and try to adhere to that year after year until you get to the eighth or ninth year, when you begin the planning of the next ten, doesn’t allow for advances in technology.” He also said that changing technology is the single greatest factor the College is facing in terms of “changes in the next few years.” From his perspective, the Community College needs maximum flexibility in a Master Plan.

Representative Ray Sigafoos commented that the present ten-year plan was “just a plan” and not a collection of hard decisions that were “locked in cement.”   He noted, for example,  that plans to spend millions of dollars on the Prescott Valley Campus to move allied heath from the Verde Campus there and develop a major allied health training facility never fully materialized. 

Representative Chris Kuknyo agreed with Vice President Clint Ewell that the College did not need more space.  He urged the College to continuing caring for the space that  it has and if deciding to build,  do so in a way that  “will last.” He also urged the College to be cautious and not begin a Master Plan “too early,” referring to lessons that might be learned from how it has operated during the Pandemic.

Representative Paul Chevalier commented that more space may be needed in Prescott Valley as it continues to grow.  He also said that more space for Career and Technical Education will most likely be needed on the Verde Campus.  Further, “Camp Verde,” he said,  may “be the future of the Verde Valley” with its land and location.  “Don’t forget about Camp Verde” in the new Master Plan.

President Dr. Lisa Rhine noted that the College needed “to be cautious “ in developing a new Master Plan.  She thought that the Pandemic may have caused the College  to change how instruction is delivered  in the future.  She said that at this point “we have adequate buildings; we may need to look at space and modify  how it is used.   We need to continue with our planned maintenance.” 

You may view most of the discussion in the video clip below or you may go to the District Governing Board web site where the entire meeting is reproduced on video.