Chair and attorney block Kiel from responding to the unwarranted behavior. Was the December appointment of Kuykendall a major mistake? 

OPINION: Fourth District Yavapai Community College District Governing Board member Patrick Kuykendall launched a vicious personal attack on First District Representative William Kiel during the February 18 Governing Board meeting. The outburst occurred amid a discussion on the authority and accountability of Yavapai’s president, Dr. Lisa Rhine, and the adoption of a resolution that vested virtually all power in her.

In his carefully controlled but angry tirade Kuykendall declared that he “wanted it on the record” that, in his view, Mr. Kiel had “made threats and been . . . disrespectful.” He further claimed, “I’ve sat on a lot of boards, and I’ve never been on a board with somebody with so much hate and discontent.” He provided no examples.

Not satisfied with his initial attack on Kiel, Kuykendall pressed on in anger saying:  “The reason we’re not in live meeting is when somebody mentions firearms and they’re unstable, it is a threat.”  Once again, he provided no examples to support his attack.  (See video clip.)

Mr. Kiel, clearly caught completely off guard by this stunning accusation, attempted to question the source of Kuykendall’s claim regarding “stability.” Yet, he was abruptly prevented from doing to  by the Board’s attorney and Chair Deb McCasland. (See video.)

Such an inflammatory and vicious public attack on a fellow Governing Board member is unwarranted and should immediately call into question Kuykendall’s fitness to serve on the Community College Governing Board. In my judgment, his appointment in December to the open Board seat in District 4 now appears to be a major mistake.  Given his discomfort and anger directed at Mr. Kiel, he  should resign.

A video clip of Mr. Kuykendall’s outburst in context follows below: A complete video of the meeting is available at the Community College’s Governing Board website.

Staff may face discipline even by giving out the date of a retirement party to the media

OPINION: At Yavapai Community College, President Dr. Lisa Rhine’s leadership has fostered a pervasive culture of fear among faculty and staff. Employees risk termination for as little as engaging with a District Governing Board member or responding to media inquiries—a directive Dr. Rhine has enforced with unmistakable clarity.

The chilling effect of President Rhine’s mandate is so profound that even a simple request for the date of a retirement celebration honoring a respected faculty member was denied—staff too fearful of jeopardizing their jobs to share basic information. This unfolded just last week when the Blog contacted the college  to inquire about the retirement of Linda Shook, the Associate Dean for the Sedona Center and Program Director for the Osher Lifelong Learning Program (OLLI). Shook, an exceptional leader and dedicated member of the college since 2019, will be a significant loss to the OLLI program.

The staff member contacted by the Blog was visibly apprehensive, unwilling to respond to the straightforward request for the date and time of Dean Shook’s retirement celebration. Citing institutional restrictions, she stated, “We cannot talk to blogs,” underscoring the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that now permeates the college.

Dr. Rhine has taken extraordinary steps to muzzle employees. She has reinforced her hardline stance through small-group meetings, formal letters to faculty and staff, and repeated warnings about the severe consequences of engaging with outsiders. During District Governing Board meetings, she has doubled down, making it clear that disciplinary action—including termination—awaits those who defy her directive.

With fear now the defining feature of Yavapai College’s work environment, open dialogue and transparency have become casualties of Dr. Rhine’s authoritarian media-Governing  Board mandate.

Where is the evidence of Chair McCasland’s “safety concerns” for holding meetings at the Rock House on the Prescott Community College campus? Or elsewhere?

Editor: Robert Oliphant

OPINION: The Chair of the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board, Deb McCasland,  has unilaterally decided that all future board meetings will be held exclusively via Zoom. This apparently includes meetings at the Rock House on the Prescott Community College campus or anywhere else.

Her stated reason? A vague and unsubstantiated email statement received by District Governing Board members sent by the Board Executive Assistant to the President & District Governing Board, which declared in part “that [Chair Deb McCasland] after learning of safety concerns related to our board meetings, . . . has decided that governing board meetings will be held virtually only until further notice.”  This raises an obvious question: What safety concerns?

Despite repeated requests for clarification from some Board members, Ms. McCasland has refused to provide any specific details about what threats, incidents, or conditions necessitate such a drastic shift in how the public Governing Board meetings are held.  If there were genuine concerns about safety—such as specific threats, past disruptions, or law enforcement recommendations—one would expect some form of documentation or at least a public acknowledgment of the issue. But instead, Ms. McCasland  has chosen silence.

The public deserves answers in situations like this for several reasons:

1. Public safety is an issue concerning the entire community.  If there is a legitimate threat, the community has a right to know. Are there security concerns that affect not just the Governing Board, but also students, faculty, or the broader public? Keeping people in the dark about potential dangers does not enhance safety—it undermines it.

2. There are potential drawbacks to transitioning to Zoom meetings. For example, it tends to limit a spontaneous response between Governing Board members who are engaged in discussion, reduces opportunities for face-to-face accountability, and allows board members to retreat into a digital echo chamber where tough questions can be most  easily ignored.

3. Avoiding answering hard questions from Board members is not a valid safety concern. In recent months, public frustration with the Board appears to have grown—particularly over issues like free speech of Board members and taxation. Some members of the Board have been raising these uncomfortable issues.  Could this shift to Zoom be an attempt to electronically silence criticism from certain Governing Board members by easily preventing their questions by muting them with a simple click  rather than a response to an actual threat? Without evidence to the contrary, that suspicion is entirely reasonable.

4. Other Public Bodies in the County Continue to Meet in Person. City councils, school boards, and other governing entities across Yavapai  County continue to hold public meetings without issue. If they can maintain both safety and accessibility, why can’t the College Board?

5. No Governing Board members have publicly reported any safety threats. Neither the first nor third District Governing Board member representatives, when interviewed, could recall any safety concerns that arose during recent Governing Board meetings.  Moreover, during the last two January Governing Board hearings, there has been no public disruption of any kind.  In fact, public attendance has been almost nonexistent.

The District Governing Board serves the public, not the other way around. The decision to eliminate in-person meetings should not be accepted without clear, compelling evidence that it is necessary. If safety is truly at risk, the Chair and Board should provide concrete information and work with local authorities to ensure that in-person public meetings can still take place safely and transparently.

Until that happens, this decision looks less like a measure for public safety and more like a move to shield Board members and the College from accountability. That is unacceptable. The community should demand answers—and insist that public meetings remain in a typical public in-person format, not on zoom.

The only sensible part of the proposed 2025 budget to be considered  at the May 21, 2024, District Governing Board meeting is the 11% increase in salaries and benefits for faculty and staff, which is crucial for retaining and attracting quality personnel

Editor: Robert E. Oliphant

EDITORIAL: On May 21, 2024, the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board will meet to deliberate on several financial measures aimed at funding costly capital projects on the other side of Mingus Mountain. The proposals include the issuance of a new $16 million revenue bond, the refinancing of two existing revenue bonds, and at least a 3.4 percent increase in the County property tax rate. The Board has already released between one and two million dollars in revenue at its last meeting by modifying its reserves policy at the suggestion of College leadership, thereby allowing additional annual funds to be allocated for these projects.

I contend that approval of   the tax rate increase is misguided and will disproportionately burden taxpayers in Sedona and the Verde Valley, who stand to benefit little, if at all, from these expenditures. Here’s why:

1. The proposed $11 million investment to acquire a 41-acre camp near Prescott, which includes over eighty buildings for programs and housing, lacks a compelling educational justification. While expanding the college’s footprint and providing housing are worthwhile goals, I have not seen data that prioritizes this project over other educational initiatives. Furthermore, the significant shift towards online education and the absence of a major surge in student applications suggest that such an expansion is unnecessary.

2. Constructing a $20 to $40 million Health Science building at the Prescott Valley Center is a nice idea. But it is a project that a university would undertake. It is not a project for a small Community College struggling with enrollment to consider that would, at best, provide service of sorts to only a small portion of the County. It’s way too costly to build and far too costly to maintain!

3. For over fifty years, the Community College has ignored the development needs of Yavapai County’s rural areas. In the past decade, the focus has been on enhancing facilities in and around Prescott, with approximately $150 million invested in capital construction and major renovations. In contrast, Sedona and the Verde Valley have seen scant attention, with only a handful of projects like a $9 million student residence, a $10 million distillery/beer project, and a planned commercial driving program—all of which were abandoned.

4. The District Governing Board approved a 5% tax rate hike just a year ago. I think the new additional 3.4% tax rate hike has not been educationally justified. Where are the compelling education reasons for it?

5. The only sensible part of the proposed budget is the 11% increase in salaries and benefits for faculty and staff, which is crucial for retaining and attracting quality personnel. This increase is sustainable, funded by the substantial student tuition hike already approved and the funds released from the reserve policy adjustment in April 2024.

Given the absence of serious educational justification or a showing of a dire need for the 3.4% tax rate increase, approval of it appears very unwise. Moreover, the use of the additional funds, as explained by the Community College leadership,  fail to adequately serve the broader community’s interests, some of which have been ignored for a half century.

The Board should rethink its priorities before approving this expenditure. Moreover, why isn’t there  anything more than a scintilla of concern for  the Verde Valley and Sedona’s educational needs rather than investing in a road sign?

Editor: Robert E. Oliphant

OPINION. During the April 23 District Governing Board meeting, Yavapai Community College executives proposed an expenditure of up to half a million dollars for the installation of a directional sign along one of the roads leading to its Career and Technical Education Center (CTEC) at the Prescott airport. This decision comes on the heels of the College’s acquisition of 1.15 acres of land for approximately a quarter million dollars back in September on which to place the sign.

Total cost for this sign: Almost three-quarters of a million dollars?

This allocation of three-quarters of a million dollars for a road sign directing drivers to CTEC is to me a prime example of wasteful spending by the Community College, indicative of a concerning shift away from addressing the many unresolved educational needs of Yavapai County. It also raises questions about the institution’s fiscal priorities and accountability, particularly in light of the ease with which funds seem to be flowing into its coffers.

Consider the broader financial landscape: At the April 23 meeting the Community College Governing Board greenlit a staggering $11 million investment to purchase and initiate renovations on a 41-acre former church camp situated outside Prescott. Furthermore, the Board seems poised to approve a $16 million new revenue bond in May, alongside plans to refinance existing bonds for additional income. Adding to the burden for County taxpayers, there’s a looming 4% property tax hike to be voted on at the May meeting, which follows last year’s 5% increase. It only requires three votes of the Governing Board to go into effect.

All these financial maneuvers are aimed at two major targets: Firstly, renovating the  the 41 acre church camp it just purchased. Secondly, to stockpile resources for the eventual construction of the $31 million Prescott Valley Health Science Center slated to begin construction in two years.

However, amidst this flurry of expenditures and ambitious projects, it’s evident that the educational needs of rural areas within the County are being brushed aside, with a sharp, almost greedy, focus on increasing property taxes to pay for Prescott area projects. This neglect is nothing new; it’s a decades-old pattern perpetuated by a District Governing Board largely centered around and lobbied by Prescott/Prescott Valley interests. Regions like Sedona and the Verde Valley continue to struggle for equitable development opportunities due to this centralized focus and successful lobbying.

It’s disheartening to witness such disproportionate allocation of resources, exemplified by the exorbitant expenditure of three-quarters of a million dollars on a mere directional sign for CTEC. This decision not only reflects a disconnect from the College’s core educational mission but also highlights a broader systemic issue of neglect towards underserved communities within our County. Moreover, some may say it reflects reckless spending and regional bias.

It’s high time for the Community College District Governing Board to reevaluate its priorities and commit to a more equitable distribution of resources, ensuring that all residents—urban and rural alike—have access to the educational opportunities they deserve. That can begin at the May Board meeting where final budget decisions will be made for the coming academic year.  Anything less is a disservice to the County citizens it purportedly serves.

About everything that can be done to discourage citizen attendance at District Governing Board meetings is being done by the College and the Board, which explains apathy and disinterest

Editor: Robert E. Oliphant

OPINION:  During the March meeting of the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board, Chair Deb McCasland rightfully pointed out the sparse attendance of local residents at these gatherings. Her observation sheds light on a prevalent issue in contemporary society: the apathy of citizens towards civic engagement. However, several factors contribute to this phenomenon, especially when it comes to the Community College District Governing Board.

Lack of Media Notice for Board Meetings: One significant factor contributing to apathy is the lack of media notice regarding Board meetings. Unlike some governmental bodies in Yavapai County, the Board does not publish its agenda in local newspapers in advance of its meetings. Nor does it announce its agenda and any issues of importance that will be discussed on local radio stations. Citizens discover agenda items only when the agenda is posted on the Board website, which is usually one day before the meeting. This notice failure deprives citizens of crucial information about important issues to be discussed before a meeting, resulting in County residents being uninformed and disengaged.

 Abandonment of Local Television Coverage: Another example is how local television coverage of Board meetings has been abandoned. Prior to 2020-2021, Verde Valley Broadcasting televised Board meetings. Those meetings were shown on local television channels later in the week. However, without explanation, this practice was discontinued.

Reluctance Regarding Televised Board Meetings: A notable factor contributing to the apathy of citizens toward the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board is the apparent reluctance of College President Dr. Lisa Rhine to provide County residents with information about the College’s activities via televised Board meetings. In an unexpected twist for a higher education institution, Rhine expressed opposition to live-streaming coverage of Board meetings in January 2024. Her perspective was that the videos primarily served to assist staff in preparing accurate minutes. However, she believed that if made public, they could potentially be used to defame the College. Consequently, she advocated keeping them under cover. Despite Rhine’s stance, as of February 2024, the Board voted in favor of and has implemented live streaming of its meetings—a significant step toward transparency.

 Reluctance of College PR department to answer resident questions:  The Community College has a fairly large public relations department.  However, it has adopted a practice of not answering questions put to it by some residents or by avoiding direct answers in other instances.  This aids the College in keeping the public in the dark about its operations, thus fostering apathy.

 Lack of Interaction Between the Board and the Public: Another contributing factor to citizen apathy regarding the Governing Board lies in the limited interaction between Board members and the public. Some Board representatives have candidly admitted feeling ill-informed about the College, which prevents them from effectively discussing the College with their constituents. The lack of information  may explain why elected representatives rarely engage with civic groups and organizations to discuss matters related to the College, which only adds to apathy.

 Barriers to Public Discussion by Elected Representatives: Most residents are probably unaware of the absolute barrier existing for elected Governing Board members when it comes to discussing College operations. The College has strongly advocated strict limitations on Board representatives discussing “operations.” Operations make up about 95% of what the College does.  The representatives  fell for the College advocacy and adopted a policy preventing them from discussing any Community College action deemed an “operation.”  As a result of this restrictive policy, the elected representatives have tied their hands in terms of what they can say to the public. (So much for the First Amendment.) This no doubt contributes in a big way to the prevailing apathy surrounding the District Governing Board meetings. 

Lack of detailed monthly reports from the Community College president: A major failure on the part of the Governing Board is to request a detailed monthly report from the President regarding operations at each campus and center.  If the Board were concerned about reducing apathy and providing constituents with information, such reporting would be at the top of its agenda.  Residents in Prescott Valley, Chino Valley, Sedona, Cottonwood, and other areas remain largely uninformed about the operations of the Community College at their local centers or campuses. The Board’s failure to ensure transparent communication on a regular basis about operations leaves citizens in the dark. Why should they not know what is unfolding in their educational community?

Perhaps the Board members are grappling with distinguishing between requesting monthly operations reports and interfering with day-to-day activities. It is crucial to recognize that regular reporting does not equate to micromanagement. Instead, it empowers the community by providing insight into College operations.

Presently, the only available operations information stems from data accompanying proposed budgets. However, this falls short of the comprehensive understanding needed for informed decision-making.  By advocating for detailed monthly reports from each campus and center, the Board can bridge the information gap, foster transparency, and actively engage residents in the College’s vital affairs.

Limited access to Board representatives: Constituents in Yavapai County have limited access to their elected Governing Board members, as they lack local offices and staff. Communication is primarily through the Board website, where emails often go unanswered. This detachment from local communities throughout the County fosters a sense of disconnection and alienation among citizens, further reducing their motivation to participate in Governing Board meetings.

Does College prefer apathy? Interestingly, it may be that the Community College executives  may actually  prefer citizen apathy when it comes to the Verde Valley and other more rural areas of the County. Citizen apathy may serve as a convenient means of maintaining the status quo and preserving the College’s control over what it wants to do without outside resident interference of any kind. By discouraging active citizen engagement, the Community College operates with less scrutiny and accountability, advancing its agendas without significant opposition or oversight. Therefore, the College’s behavior  may subtly perpetuate conditions conducive to citizen apathy, such as limited media coverage, minimal community involvement, lack of reporting, and uninspiring civic programs outside Prescott.

In conclusion, there are major barriers that have been erected by the College and the District Governing Board to allow the free and open transmission of information to the public.  Unless these issues are addressed, apathy will remain high and citizen knowledge about the College will remain low. Maybe that is just what the College and the Governing Board want. If so, their behavior is a self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to apathy.