Archive for GOVERNING BOARD – Page 5

SPARKS FLY AS BOARD WORKSHOP TURNS INTO CRITICISM AND PERSONAL ATTACK ON CHEVALIER BECAUSE HE ASKED PERFORMING ARTS DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMING AND DEVELOPMENT DURING A PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD IF MUSIC AND THEATER TRAINING WERE OFFERED ON THE VERDE CAMPUS AND/OR AT THE SEDONA CENTER

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.  

 

 

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER MITCH PADILLA LEADS DISCUSSION ABOUT NEW MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL—BOARD APPROVES HIRING EXPERTS IN 2021-22 BUDGET

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.

 

GOVERNING BOARD CLAMPS DOWN ON WHAT BOARD MEMBERS MAY ASK DURING PUBLIC SESSIONS ABOUT FINANCES; OR PLACE AS AN AGENDA ITEM

Board refuses to allow Representative Chevalier to ask certain questions at January  meeting where Board briefed on financial matters; then  refuses to allow him to put the matter about that area on Board Agenda for discussion at February meeting

Paul Chevalier

The Yavapai Community College District Governing Board has decided to clamp down on Representative Paul Chevalier’s efforts to bring into public  view a  more detailed understanding of how the College Administration is spending taxpayer money.  Over the past several meetings Chevalier  has tried in a number of ways to publicly discuss budgetary matters with his questions often being gaveled down as out-of-order or a matter  the Board does not discuss, at least in Public.  He has repeatedly been told to contact the College President rather than have the matter openly discussed during a Board meeting.

An example of the controversy came at the very outset of Tuesday’s meeting. (See video below.) He sought to have an item he had been told he could not publicly discuss at the January  meeting (See January meeting video clip below) and had asked that it be placed on the agenda for open discussion at the February 9 meeting. He had followed his January request with a phone call and letter request to place the matter on the Agenda to the Board Chair. 

Below is the statement he read to the Governing Board on February 9 regarding the Agenda item.   

The Chair ruled the matter was not appropriate for Board public discussion and was supported by a 4-1 vote from the other members of the Governing Board. 

A video clip below contains  the complete discussion about  the issue at the February 9 meeting. It is followed by  a second video clip from the January meeting where the issue was first raised by Mr. Chevalier. 

                           STATEMENT BY MR. PAUL CHEVALIER TO GOVERNING BOARD

February Bd Mtg 1.3 Adoption of Agenda

I move that this agenda not be adopted.  I would like to explain why I am making this motion.  But for me to be able to talk I need a Board member to second my motion so we can have discussion. Seconding the motion does not commit you to vote for it. Will one of you second my motion for discussion? I believe some of you will find my explanation valuable.

Thank you. I will now explain why I made this motion.

At our January budget work session meeting the college presented in the Board packet a glossary of terms it uses. I wished to ask some questions about that glossary so I could understand it better but I was told that as it was not on the agenda I could not ask questions. I thought that since it was in the packet the college presented to the Board I should have been able to ask for an explanation of some of the terms. Our chair said it was not on the agenda.

 I then asked that it be put on the February Board agenda.  I cited Board Policy 3.4.3.3, which states “ any Board member who wishes to put an item on the agenda should so through the Board Chair. If it is a Board Issue it will be placed on the next Board agenda.”

I followed up my oral request with one in writing.

A week later the Board Chair asked me in an e-mail why I wanted to discuss apart of the glossary. I responded to her as follows; “To ask questions about items listed in the glossary so that I am sure I understand them. “

Last week I received the following response from the Chair.

“Paul your proposed questions on this report are not issues our Board would consider or decide. “

On that basis my request was not included in this agenda and therefore the agenda should not be approved.

The Chair’s decision is of grave concern to me.  The Chair appears to believe that if the Board delegates something to the college it is no longer a Board issue.  The Chair stated that something is not a Board issue if the Board would not consider or decide. It.   

The chair is wrong. Let me give you a real life example. A few years ago the former President’s administration fired an employer who brought a lawsuit stating he was fired illegally.  This lawsuit was not brought against the President it was brought against the Board even though the Board had delegated firing of college employees to the College President and it is an issue our Board has never consider or decide.

This lawsuit was lawfully brought against the Board because in fact it is a Board issue. The Arizona Legislature made our Board the one and only governing body of this college. As this lawsuit clearly illustrates our Board cannot escape its governing responsibilities by delegating matters to the college. The law is clear  – our Board remains accountable for anything the college says, writes or does.

You and I individually have a right to put on our Board agenda anything the college does, says or writes. I asked to do this not for the purpose of to take away college delegation, but simply to ask questions and for discussion. The Chair’s decision to deny this to me violates our policy.

 Do I like impeding our going forward with this agenda? Of course not. But I am out of options to right this wrong unless the Chair will now agree to honor my request on the next Board agenda. In that case I will withdraw my motion.  If not, I ask for your support for my motion. I know that may be hard for you. It was hard for me to write this. But if we fail to correct wrongs that is how the public representation gets hurt and eventually democracy dies.

 

NEW GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER CHRIS KUKNYO SWORN IN AT JANUARY BOARD MEETING; MITCH PADILLA, WHO JOINED BOARD IN SEPTEMBER 2020, AGAIN SWORN IN

Ceremony held at beginning of January 12 regular Board meeting; both to serve six years

Yavapai Community College District Governing Board members, Mr. Chris Kuknyo and Mr. Mitch Padilla, were sworn in  at a ceremony conducted by Tim Carter, Yavapai County School Superintendent, during the Board’s regular monthly meeting held January 12.   Both will serve six years as members of the Governing Board.

Mr. Padilla joined the  Board in September 2020  as the representative from District #5.  This District was represented by Steve Irwin who left the seat earlier in 2020  to run for County Supervisor. No one filed for the District #5 position by the deadline other than Mr. Padilla. Consequently, Mr Padilla was appointed and has served for four months before he was again formally sworn in again at the January meeting.

Mr. Kuknyo represents  District 4 of Yavapai County. This seat was  previously held by  Pat McCarver, who chose not to seek re-election.   Her  term expired December 31, 2020.

You may view the swearing in ceremony , which is on the video clip below.

 

DEB MCCASLAND UNANIMOUSLY RE-ELECTED AS GOVERNING BOARD CHAIR

Will serve a second year; Ray Sigafoos chosen as Board Secretary

Chair Deb McCasland

Yavapai Community College District Two Representative Deb McCasland was unanimously selected to continue for a second year as the Chair of the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board at its January 12 meeting.  McCasland was nominated by District one representative Ray Sigafoos.  There were no other nominations.

Mr. Sigafoos was then nominated by Ms. McCasland to act as Governing Board Secretary for the coming year.  With  no other nominations for the position coming from the Board, he was selected unanimously.

When it came to Chair appointments, Ms. McCasland appointed herself and Ray Sigafoos to serve on the State Trustee Board. She also appointed herself to serve as Board spokesperson and as Yavapai Community College Foundation liaison.  She asked  District 4 Representative Chris Kuknyo  and District 5 representative Mitch Padilla to “shadow” her with the Community College Foundation meetings with each attending alternate meetings with her.

When Paul Chevalier was asked if he had ever functioned in any of the appointive positions by Mr. Kuknyo, he said “no.” He said  he believed Ms. McCasland would prefer that the two of them do it.  Ms. McCasland commented  that “last year” Mr. Chevalier said he didn’t want to be a liaison “so we’ll do it this way this year.”

 You may view the entire six minute discussion about Governing Board appointments in the video clip below.

 

CHEVALIER RESPONDS TO BOARD TRANSPARENCY LETTER; CITES CONCERN WITH OBTAINING ACCURATE PROGRAM COSTS IN SOME DEPARTMENTS, TAX RATES, AND OVERALL COSTS

Argues greater transparency will allow the public to “know how the college is spending its money,  then actions can be taken to eliminate expenditures that are extravagant or unnecessary”

Third District Paul Chevalier publicly responded to the letter adopted by the Yavapai Community College Governing Board at its Governing Board meeting on September 8 regarding transparency in his individual capacity as the Third District Yavapai Community College Representative.  In his response, Chevalier  compared the College’s 28 page $84 million budget with entities such as the cities of Cottonwood (budget 310 pages), Prescott (307 pages) and Prescott Valley (309 pages), NAU (187 pages) and others.

Chevalier claims in his letter that various departments are not transparent in terms of budgets including the department operating the athletic program, tennis court and indoor swimming pool.  He claims he has no idea about  the individual costs associated with operating each of those programs.

He also raised issues about comparative tax rates and his obligation to protect the public as an elected representative.  Rather than elaborate further,  you may read his response below for more details.

My Response –Paul Chevalier 

Yavapai College Board Member representing District 3.

No doubt my fellow Yavapai College Board members believe the budget the college presents to the Board provides them with sufficient information to make good budget decisions.  It does not provide me with enough information to do that – not even close.

Our Yavapai College budget is 28 pages long.  Compare this with the other public entities in our County and nearby.  Cottonwood’s budget is 310 pages, Prescott’s is 307 pages, Prescott Valley’s is 330 pages, Sedona’s is 390 pages and NAU’s is 187 pages. These are detailed transparent budget. A 28 page budget for an entity with a budget like Yavapai College’s of  $84 million dollars can neither be detailed or transparent. It is impossible.

Let’s take the case of Athletics information. ATHLETICS IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE YAVAPAI COLLEGE BUDGET. Not one single word or number. That is not transparency. There should be plenty of information in the budget about athletics because Yavapai College sponsors four athletic teams. In addition to the teams we also have a seven court tennis complex recently renovated at a cost in the high 100,000’s of dollars of taxpayer money. It is located in Prescott. Note: Yavapai College does not have a tennis team.  These courts are mainly used by Prescott or nearby residents. The same goes for an Olympic swimming pool located on the Prescott, campus. Yavapai College has no swim team. Mainly residents use it. Do we know anything about the cost to the taxpayers of any of this? No.  Transparency zero. This is just one example of the lack of transparency in this budget.

Compare Yavapai College’s approach with how NAU addresses the subject of athletics in its budget. NAU has a full page in its budget devoted to athletics’. It separately lists the costs for each team it has, its coaches, its athletic operations cost and other athletics activities and then it goes deeper and breaks down for each team and other activity the various types of cost within that team etc. 

Before we go further let me explain one of the reasons why a detailed transparent budget matters.  When a Board and the public know how the college is spending its money then actions can be taken to eliminate expenditures that are extravagant or unnecessary. If that information is kept from a Board or the public then such misuses of money will go unknown and unchecked. People in our county have publicly spoken out about our high taxes and some have even come before the Board to do so.

I look at our Yavapai College tax rate versus Maricopa Country Community College’s tax rate and I am baffled. Our tax rate is 50% higher than Maricopa’s. That is a lot of difference. I also have looked at the total budget number of Coconino College versus Yavapai College’s total budget number. Comparing our most recent prepandemic student populations I find that Coconino have 58% of the student hours of Yavapai. One should then expect the Yavapai College budget to be about 42% higher than Coconino’s. But here is the shocker. Coconino’s prepandemic budget for this year was $27.5 million while Yavapai College’s was $84 million – more than three times as high! Why! Unless I can see a detailed transparent Yavapai College budget I will not know and neither will you.

A significant part of my job as a Board member is to protect the public of Yavapai County from over spending by the college that leads to over taxation. Unless and until I am given the opportunity to see a transparent Yavapai College budget I will not able to do that part of my job effectively.  My term is for another four plus years. I am not going away and I will continue to pursue this.

THIRD DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE PAUL CHEVALIER WANTS YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE TO PRODUCE A MORE TRANSPARENT BUDGET

Urges transparency in strongly worded statement he was not permitted to read to the Board at General Meeting July 28; ruled not on agenda and no discussion of any kind could be held

Third District Yavapai Community College representative Paul Chevalier has consistently urged the College to produce a much more detailed, transparent budget to the public.  The annual budget is estimated at about $85 million and over 90% of funds come from taxpayers in one form or another.

At the July 28 meeting he again raised this issue and wanted to express to the Board and President Lisa Rhine his views on the subject.  Legal Counsel for the Governing Board ruled he could not read or discuss the issue because it was not on the Board agenda.

The Blog has obtained a copy of his written remarks and they are produced below (with Mr. Chavalier’s permission).  There is also a brief video showing the ruling on the issue by the Board legal counsel.

  Yavapai College Board Meeting Comment on Budget July 28.2020

I have an update comment to the Board and the President concerning the annual Yavapai College budgets that are presented to this Board for its approval. I have recently reviewed the annual budgets of other public entities in our county. I specifically reviewed four major Yavapai County cities 2019/2020 budgets, all of which are available on line. They are as follows:

First in alphabetical order is Cottonwood AZ’s annual budget that was presented to its City Council and is available to the public. It is 310 pages long. It is detailed and transparent.

Next, Prescott AZ’s annual budget – detailed and transparent – it is 307 pages long. 

Next, Prescott Valley AZ’s annual budget  – also a detailed transparent budget. It is 330 pages long.

Finally, Sedona, AZ’s annual budget – it too is a detailed transparent budget and it is 390 pages long.

All Yavapai County city budgets present in detail how public money is being spent and they offer explanations of why it is being spent.

What about nearby colleges and universities budgets?  Are they also detailed and transparent?

To find out I reviewed NAU’s budget.  NAU’s main campus is less than 30 miles from the Yavapai County border.  NAU’s 2019/2020 annual budget can be found online. It is 187 pages long.  Moreover, the print size on many of the NAU budget pages is much smaller than the Yavapai College or City budgets discussed above. If the NAU print size matched those budgets it would have been closer to 300 pages in length.

The NAU budget details individual expenses of each department and details individual expenses of its other major activities.  Not only can one find in the NAU budget detail on how the money was spent for each academic discipline but also one can read the detail of how the money was spent on activities such as information technology and athletics. 

The Yavapai College budget is neither detailed nor transparent. Its 2019/2020 budget is just 28 pages long. I do not have the exact length of the 2020/2021 Yavapai College budget handy but I am aware it is little different from its 2019/2020 budget length. It is impossible to be detailed or transparent in a 28 page Yavapai College budget.

 Members of the public in my district have discussed why Yavapai College won’t provide detailed transparent annual budgets to its Board and to the public.  

Our immediate past President had been blamed for not making the college budgets transparent. People now realize that if the blame were only with the past President then this situation would have changed when she left office a year and a half ago.

 It did not change.

Members of the public has been discussing why this is so.

The prime reason discussed by members of the public is that the college leadership refuses to provide detailed financial information because with this knowledge members of the public or a member of the Board might challenge the college on how it spends some of the public’s money.

The less detail the Board or the public is given about how the college spends money the easier it is for college leadership to spend it their way without questions being asked. Yavapai College leadership doesn’t want checks and balances over its power.

 This thinking, of course, ignores the fact that one of the key purposes of the rule of law is to control people in public power from abusing it. That is a key element of our democracy. Withhold transparency and democracy erodes. We need to insure our public actions support our democracy. Refuse to do that and we lose our freedom.

I will address another possible reason voiced by some members of the public that I respect. It is more even alarming than the reason already discussed and you should be made aware of it.  It is this  – some of the people in power at Yavapai College do not want the Board, or the public, or you, madam President, to know where all the money has gone that the College has or is taking in. The public audit required by law will not reveal it. It would take a transparent detailed public budget to account for all the money used and that is why some people believe the college is avoiding financial transparency.

I do not want to believe that corruption exists at the college but that belief is gaining traction. No good reason has ever been given for the college’s lack of budget transparency. It is not the practice of other major public entities in our county. I see no way to justify it.  Neither does anyone I have talked with.

If there is nothing to hide, why hide anything?

We are in a time in America of anger, fear, frustration and distrust with public protests brought on by multiple factors coalescing including high unemployment, increasing poverty, a deadly pandemic, racial discrimination, police brutality, corruption and assorted other abuses of government power. Out of this environment the public’s cry for transparency is permeating activist America.

Our local public’s suspicion generated by Yavapai College’s refusal to be financially transparent needs to be acknowledged not ignored. The college needs to maintain and further gain the public’s respect and trust. Refusing to disclose complete detailed financial information does the opposite.

All the Yavapai County City Governments discussed here provide detailed transparent budgets to the public and their elected city councils. NAU provides transparent budgets to the public and its Board.  Yavapai College needs to join them and become totally open to the public’s financial scrutiny and it needs to do it with its next budget.

Ignorance is the friend of tyranny and the enemy of democracy. Our college’s job is to reduce ignorance.  And yet when it comes to its own finances our college seeks to keep the public ignorant. Complete budget transparency is the right thing to do. Additionally it is the prudent course of action to take. The college should not risk harming its reputation by fighting complete public financial transparency any longer.  

Lisa, I am in touch with the public of my district. I am presenting to you here what I have been told, what I have observed and my personal research. I hope you find this helpful in making the decision on the depth of the content of the next college budget.

Paul Chevalier

MEET MITCH PADILLA – WILL JOIN YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE GOVERNING BOARD IN SEPTEMBER

Prescott lawyer and student advisor/lecturer  via his LLC will take Steve Irwin’s  District  #5 seat

Prescott criminal defense lawyer Mitch Padilla will join the Yavapai Community College Governing Board in September as the representative from District #5.  This District was represented by Steve Irwin who left the seat earlier in 2020  to run for County Supervisor. No one filed for the District #5 position by the deadline other than Mr. Padilla.

Mr. Padilla ran for Prescott Justice of the Peace in 2018 but was defeated in the Republican primary that year by Glenn Savona.  The seat on the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board is nonpartisan.

In addition to his law practice, Mr. Padilla operates a business called “My College Roadmap, LLC.”  He writes on his LLC website that “I  consistently address the importance of finding ways to pay for college in order to keep student loan debt to a minimum or eliminate it altogether.”  He offers seminars at high schools and attends fairs.  You may view the “My Roadmap, LLC” website by clicking here.

Mr. Padilla  grew up in Southern California and graduated from Cantwell High School in Montebello. Following graduation, he  enlisted in the U.S. Navy and while there  earned a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSBA) degree from Chapman University in Orange, California.

He later earned a Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree from the University of San Diego and a Juris Doctor (JD) degree from Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.  He and his family  moved to Kingman and then settled in Prescott in 2008. He joined the Arizona Attorney General’s office and resigned in 2018 to set up private practice in Prescott. 

The following is the letter he sent to Yavapai County School Superintendent Tim Carter when he filed for the Yavapai Community College District #5 position.

“Hello Friends,

“My name is Mitch Padilla, a local attorney and resident of the Granite Dells community in Prescott. I am running for the Yavapai College Board, District # 5. It is an area that encompasses Yavapai Hills north to the Prescott Airport, south to the Walker area, and east to Prescott Valley (Fain Road).

“I am running for this Non-Partisan position because I am a proponent of higher education no matter what format it comes in. I believe that education should be affordable, but not necessarily free. Education should be accessible to everyone who wants it, but not so overwhelming that it intimidates those who may seek it. As a board member, I will look for ways to increase access to education while at the same time ensuring that Yavapai County taxpayers are never taken advantage of in their financial support of Yavapai College.

“SOME KEYS FACTS ABOUT ME:

“I have lived in Arizona since 2006; Prescott since 2008

“I currently serve as a Tri-City College Prep High School Board Member; since 2015

“I currently serve as a Yavapai Regional Transit Board Member; since 2018

“I created a business, My College Roadmap, in order to inform and educate high school students and parents on how to navigate the college application process.

“I am a practicing attorney in Prescott; primarily handling criminal defense cases

“I am a US Navy Veteran of 22 years

“MY OWN EDUCATION CONSISTS OF:

“Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Juris Doctor (JD)

“University of San Diego; Master of Business Administration (MBA)

“Chapman University; Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSBA)

“VISIT MY WEBSITES TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ME:

“www.mycollegeroadmap.net

“mitchpadillalaw@gmail.com

“Thank you!

“~ The General Election is Tuesday, November 3, 2020 ~”

TWO NEW GOVERNING BOARD MEMBERS MOST LIKELY DETERMINED FOR SIX YEAR POSITIONS ARE PADILLA AND KUKNYO

Filings show the yawning public interest in overseeing work of $85 million County Community College as only one candidate in each of District #4 and #5 completed paperwork for position by deadline

The Yavapai Community College Governing Board will have two new members joining it shortly.  Absent an unusual happening prior to August 20, data from Yavapai County’s Superintendent’s office (https://ycesa.com/election-candidates/), shows only one candidate has qualified to fill the District 5 seat vacated by Steve Irwin. While the time for completing paperwork has expired,  there is always a  remote possibility  someone may file to  become a write in candidate.

 The person completing the appropriate paperwork for the position in District #5 is Mitch Padilla.  Padilla will most likely be sworn in sometime in September because the seat is vacant. Steve Irwin vacated the seat earlier in the year to run for Yavapai County Supervisor.

The District #4 seat, which is now occupied by Pat McCarver, will most likely be filled in January by  Chris Kuknyo.  McCarver decided not to run after serving for more than a decade on the Board. Kuknyo is the only person to have completed the paperwork by the filing deadline for the position in that district.

Below is a four minute Governing Board discussion regarding these two seats and the election.

GOVERNING BOARD ADJOURNS: NO REGULAR MEETINGS UNTIL SEPTEMBER, CANCELS AUGUST RETREAT

Chevalier gets  Board to agree to a mid-July information meeting saying going four months without a meeting is “not doing our job”

The last regular monthly meeting of the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board until September was held May 12.  The scheduled August retreat was scrapped by a 3-1 vote.  Although the Governing Board  will not convene in a regular monthly session until September, it will, hold a public informational meeting with the College President in mid-July.   

At the May meeting, representative Paul Chevalier initially proposed that because of the  present unique circumstances, the Board should consider holding  regular monthly meetings in the summer.  “To go four months at this time of crisis without a regular meeting, I think, is not doing our job,” he said. He later changed his motion to a single mid-July informational meeting.

Ray Sigafoos opposed adding regular summer meetings to the Board schedule saying “some people have travel plans, which includes some things out of the country, like me.”

Pat McCarver also opposed adding regular summer meetings. She said that because changes at the Community College will most likely not occur until after July 1 that a June meeting was unnecessary.  She suggested something in July or August as an informational  meeting where the College President would provide  the Board with an update. McCarver noted that she had some commitments in June. She also suggested the meeting should run an hour or less.

Dr. Lisa Rhine, College president, said that a June meeting would not provide a great deal of new information.  She said that if the Board  added  a meeting that  one in July made the most sense to her. She also suggested that as an alternative to a public meeting that she could communicate the updates to the Board via reports.

In response to Dr. Rhine’s suggestion that she communicate to the Board without a public meeting of some kind, Chevalier pointed out that he is barred under existing Board practice  from directing any questions to the President unless it is done at a public Board meeting.  Without being able to ask questions about information provided by the College administration was troublesome to him. He indicated he was being forced into requesting a public meeting by current Board practice and procedure.  

Chair Deb McCasland said the Board could get together on zoom and reminded everyone that the Board is required to announce any meeting as an official meeting.  However, she noted that a July meeting  would not require the various reports from the President that are required at other official monthly meetings.  The Governing Board attorney agreed with McCasland.

When discussion had finished and it was clear he didn’t have support for a meeting every month in the summer, Chevalier moved to hold an information meeting online  in mid-July at “everyone’s convenience.” The motion carried unanimously.

The Board also voted 3-1 (McCasland dissenting) to defer the August retreat to another date to be decided.

You may view the Board discussion on the video below.