Archive for Politics

FEDERAL FUNDING UNCERTAINTY LOOMS OVER YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE WITH POTENTIAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE OF TRUMP/MUSK DOGE INVOLVEMENT

Will existing contracts and grants with the Federal Government be cut? Or eliminated?  Will DOGE cause Hispanic student enrollment to plumet?  Will student loan and the Pell grant programs be reduced or eliminated?

COMMENTARY:  The actions by the Trump administration’s newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) may have a significant impact on the operations of Yavapai Community College. There is concern because DOGE is already taking away millions of dollars in existing  grants and contracts from various educational institutions. In addition to this concern, the Trump administration has mandated that educational institutions eliminate anything that directly or indirectly might be linked to what are commonly called “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)” programs or projects.

Are Yavapai Community College’s  $12 million in federal contracts and grants in jeopardy?

Yavapai Community College’s $126 million annual budget includes $12.3 million in federal grants and contracts for the current academic year. About $7.25 million has already been spent by January 2025. Will these funds be affected? The answer is unclear. 

To date, the administration with the assistance of DOGE unexpectedly cut approximately $1 billion from the U.S. Department of Education’s research office. The impact of those cuts has been immediate in some areas of the country. For example, at St. Thomas University in St. Paul, Minnesota, DOGE canceled a previously approved grant program that was supporting 185 students pursuing careers in special education. The $6.8 million grant to St. Thomas was deemed a DEI initiative and subsequently eliminated as part of the administration’s broader crackdown on DEI-related programs. Students in the affected program had been receiving between $10,000 and $20,000 per year in scholarship aid to help cover tuition costs.

St. Thomas is appealing the decision, noting that a DEI statement was required when applying for the grant funds, even though the training, or at least most of it, did  not necessarily involve DEI.

It remains unclear whether any teacher education programs or other initiatives at Yavapai College might be considered DEI projects and, therefore, subject to similar funding cuts. Major  cuts in federal funds could have  devastating consequences.

Yavapai must also worry about any aspect of its operation that involves race, even tangentially. In a letter sent  Friday, February 14 the New York Times reported that the Federal Education Department warned that colleges risk losing federal funding if they continue to take race into account when making scholarship or hiring decisions, or considered  race in “all other aspects of student, academic and campus life.”

On Monday, February 17  the Education Department said it had canceled $600 million in grants focused on training teachers in “inappropriate and unnecessary topics” such as critical race theory, social justice activism, antiracism and “instruction on white privilege.”

Additionally, the future of federal support for Yavapai Community College is even more uncertain if the Department of Education is eliminated as promised by DOGE.

Concerns Over a Possible Decline in Hispanic Student Enrollment;  23% of Yavapai’s Student Body Hispanic

Another concern among educators is a potential drop in enrollment among Hispanic students created by DOGE.  Yavapai Community College reports that 23% of its student body is made up of Hispanic students.

The possible large drop in enrollment is linked to DOGE gaining access to millions of student records and concern over how this information is used. For instance, there are questions about whether student grant application information, which is completed by almost all students,  could be shared by  DOGE with immigration authorities. It is feared that the information, if shared, could be used to assist immigration authorities in locating a student’s grandparents or other relatives who may be undocumented but have been living  in the country for decades.

As rumors and uncertainty apparently spreads through Hispanic communities, it is already being reported that families are not  sending their children to school. For example, in Memphis, Tennessee,  one person described the climate as one of fear and hesitation in the Hispanic community, stating, “Everybody is terrified. They’re scared to come out.”

The same level of fear was reported in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

That fear has apparently intensified following newspaper reports this past week that DOGE gained access to a federal database containing personal details on millions of students and parents participating in the federal student loan program.

It is unclear whether the rumors and stories regarding  how DOGE might use community college federal student grant and loan applications have reached or will affect  the Hispanic college-eligible community in Yavapai County.  As noted earlier, Hispanic students currently make up about 23% of Yavapai’s student body.

Will DOGE’s policies lead to a significant decline in Hispanic enrollment next fall? While the answer remains uncertain, the concern is real. The consequences could be significant.

The Future of Pell Grants and Federal Student Loans

Another related concern pertains to the federal student loan and grant program. Notably, approximately 20% of Yavapai Community College students depend on Pell Grants, a vital source of financial aid for low-income undergraduate students. Unlike federal student loans, Pell Grants do not require repayment, except under specific circumstances.

There’s concern that DOGE might reclassify the student grant/loan programs as DEI initiatives or change funding and eligibility, limiting student access. Reducing or eliminating these financial support programs would significantly impact Yavapai Community College, which heavily relies on them.

Worst-case scenario.

For now, uncertainty reigns in Washington, D.C. and at educational institutions throughout the nation. With chaos unfolding at the federal level and threats to close the Department of Education, Yavapai Community College—like many institutions—finds itself in a precarious position, waiting to see what will happen and whether it can weather the storm that may be coming.

If Hispanic student enrollment declines sharply and federal contracts and grants are reduced, Yavapai Community College could face a severe financial crisis. To remain viable, the college may need to implement substantial tuition increases, raise Yavapai County’s primary tax rate—an action requiring only three votes from its five-member governing board—and cut costs by increasing class sizes while reducing faculty and staff positions. In a more drastic measure, the college might even revisit the idea of selling the Sedona Center, a possibility it explored around 2014–15.

Ideally, these concerns will subside, the rumors and speculation will prove unfounded, and conditions will stabilize—an outcome that serves everyone’s best interests.

ANALYSIS BY YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE SUGGESTS YAVAPAI COUNTY FACES SEVERE SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS AND NURSES

Yavapai County lags far behind the rest of Arizona and the nation when it comes to numbers of doctors per thousand of residents when adjusted for population age

Yavapai County lags significantly behind the rest of Arizona and the nation in the number of doctors and nurses per capita, according to a report presented by Yavapai Community College. The discouraging analysis was shared with the College District Governing Board at its January 28 workshop.

At first glance the report says that the number of doctors per 100,000 residents in Yavapai County may not seem drastically low. However, when adjusted for the County’s older population and its increased healthcare needs, the data paints a much bleaker picture.

For instance, while Yavapai County officially reports having 55 doctors per 100,000 residents, this figure drops to 25 per 100,000 when accounting for the greater medical demand of an aging population. By comparison, under the same adjusted assumptions for age, the state of Arizona has 45 doctors per 100,000 residents—80% more than Yavapai County. Nationally, the number rises to 75 doctors per 100,000, three times higher than Yavapai County’s adjusted figure.

A similar trend is seen among nurses. After adjusting for the County’s older population, Yavapai County has 498 nurses per 100,000 residents. In contrast, Arizona as a state reports 949 nurses per 100,000—91% more that Yavapai County—while the national average stands at 1,014, more than double Yavapai County’s figure.

The analysis was conducted by Yavapai Community College economist and data analytics expert Ryan Jones, with assistance from Vice President of Finance and Administration Clint Ewell. The adjustment for age was based on data indicating that Yavapai County’s population is 50% older than the national norm, leading to significantly higher medical care needs.

Above slides were prepared and presented by the Community College to the Governing Board at the January 28, 2025 workshop.

 

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

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

HIGHER EDUCATION LEARNING CONSULTANT WARNS OF ACCREDITATION RISK FOR YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE IF GOVERNING BOARD INTERVENES IN HIRING DESPITE LANGUAGE OF STATE STATUTE

Board lawyer says YCC Governing Board years ago delegated all employee hiring (including vice presidents and deans) to President and that delegation was legal — Board may only hire the president

The meaning of Arizona Statute 15-1444 concerning hiring practices at community colleges was a key topic of discussion at the January 14, 2025, Yavapai Community College Governing Board workshop. The statute, cited below, appears to grant the Governing Board authority over hiring decisions.

Despite the language of the statute, the Yavapai Community College Governing Board was advised by its attorney that it had delegated all hiring authority to the college president several years ago. The attorney explained that she had sought clarification on the legality of this delegation from the Arizona Attorney General through a formal letter. While no official opinion was issued, the Attorney General’s response to her inquiry convinced her that the delegation complied with the law. As a result, she concluded that the Board currently has no role in employment decisions beyond hiring the college president.

The remaining question is whether the Governing Board could revoke its previous delegation and assume some involvement in the hiring process.

Ken Burke who hails from Florida, and a consultant from the Association of Community College Trustees, strongly opposed any suggestion of Board involvement in hiring decisions below the level of the college president. He warned the Governing Board:

“As far as accreditation authorities, I can speak with 100% certainty: if trustees got involved in hiring people below the level of president, you would lose your accreditation.”

Burke’s position was echoed by Yavapai College president Dr. Lisa Rhine and Dr. David Borofsky, Executive Director of the Arizona Association of Community College Trustees.

Yavapai Community College (YCC) is accredited by the nonprofit Higher Learning Commission (HLC), a regional accrediting body that evaluates institutional quality and educational programs. Accreditation by the HLC ensures that YCC meets acceptable standards for higher education delivery.

A portion of the discussion at the meeting can be observed below:

 

 

 

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

 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.

PRESIDENT RHINE FORWARDS VAGUE LETTER WRITTEN BY GOVERNING BOARD CHAIR TO STAFF AND OTHERS ALLEGING FALSE MISINFORMATION ABOUT BOARD POLICY IS BEING CIRCULATED BY “ILLEGITIMATE BLOGS, WEBSITES, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND OPINIONATED NEWS ORGANIZATIONS”

Chair McCasland’s letter lacks clarity and substance while ignoring controversial Policy 310, which has resulted in numerous articles and comments raising concerns over chilling free speech by threatening to fire any of the 500 to 1,000 full or part-time College employees who dare to communicate with any Governing Board member

Robert E. Oliphant

OPINION: Yavapai Community College president, Dr. Lisa Rhine, recently forwarded a letter to the Community College’s staff and others written by Yavapai Community College District Governing Board Chair Deb McCasland. In the letter, McCasland warned about “false information” being publicly disseminated, claiming the misinformation was coming from “illegitimate blogs, websites, social media, and opinionated news organizations.”

The most obvious failure of the letter was this: At best it was extremely vague. It lacked any specifics about the alleged misinformation she claimed was being disseminated. It failed to identify any of the media sources she deemed unreliable.  It provided no context whatsoever.

The glaring omissions in the letter cast significant doubt on the credibility and intent behind the claims. These omissions are especially troubling given her sweeping condemnation of the local news media—or is she even making such a condemnation? The lack of clarity leaves readers guessing.

When making such broad accusations, it seems to me that it is critical to identify the supposed false information and provide evidence to substantiate the broad claims being asserted. The letter should have named the various alleged “illegitimate blogs, websites, social media, and opinionated news organizations.” Without this information, the letter comes across as baseless and unhelpful. It is impossible to evaluate the validity of her warnings.

Notably, the letter sidestepped addressing the controversial Governing Board Policy 310, which has sparked significant commentary in the local news in recent weeks. Policy 310, enacted by a 4-1 vote of the outgoing Board in November, includes a contentious clause stating: “Under no circumstances should an individual Board member direct or contact by any means, a staff member concerning a college or community issue.” Critics, including this Blog, argue that this policy undermines the elected Board member’s role as representatives of Yavapai County taxpayers. It also reflects a troubling lack of trust in Board members and imposes what some see as an inappropriate or at least “chilling” restraint on free speech. The College disagrees.

Of interest, the letter written by McCasland briefly referenced Board Policy 401, a restatement of an existing policy that has not attracted notable controversy. By contrast, the ongoing public discussions and commentary have focused on Policy 310 and its implications.

Moreover, McCasland appeared determined to remind employees that President Rhine wielded nearly unchecked authority over them and anything classified by her as “operations.” However, McCasland’s remarks appeared to veer off course at times. She seemed to vaguely insinuate that the “misinformation” she mentioned in her letter was somehow tied to criticism of the staff’s exceptional work. Consider her statement:

“Despite what you may read in illegitimate blogs and websites, on social media, or from unsourced and opinionated ‘news’ organizations, your work is unmatched and life-changing. I would encourage you to disregard anything that alludes otherwise. Do not even entertain it.”

Yet, the Blog has found no recent articles publicly critical of staff. This statement, then, resembles what some might call a “red herring”—an attempt to mislead or distract. The fact is that recent commentary has been directed at the College’s executive leadership, particularly the troubling fixation on secrecy, suppression of free speech, and various financial and procurement practices.

In sum, Chair McCasland’ s decision to broadly dismiss criticism as “false information” without examples or context undermines her letter’s credibility. Instead of fostering transparency and addressing valid concerns, the letter appears to deflect attention away from legitimate issues while failing to provide clarity or constructive guidance.

The letter forwarded  to staff and others by president Rhine is found immediately below:

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD HAS ELIMINATED THE OPEN CALL TO THE PUBLIC FOR TUESDAY’S MEETING

District Governing Board abandoning decades of precedent by removing the Open Call for this particular meeting? Why would it do this?

The removal of the Open Call, a longstanding feature of Yavapai Community College Governing Board agendas, has raised eyebrows among some community members. For decades, this agenda item has allowed Yavapai County residents to address their representatives directly for up to three minutes. While sometimes utilized by only a handful of speakers, the Open Call serves as an important avenue for public input, offering a vital connection between the community and its elected officials.

Its absence from the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting is puzzling and, to some, troubling. On the surface, it may seem like a minor procedural adjustment. However, eliminating this opportunity could have far-reaching consequences for public participation in the college’s governance. It risks eroding transparency and trust, key pillars of any public institution.

Speculation abounds as to why the Open Call has been dropped. One possibility is that the Board and college leadership have grown increasingly sensitive to public criticism, particularly when such comments are broadcast online. Perhaps they fear the reputational damage that can result from critical remarks being aired in a public forum. This concern, while understandable, raises serious questions about the Board’s commitment to open dialogue and accountability.

Whatever the reasoning, the decision seems counterproductive. Public institutions thrive on engagement and feedback, even when it is critical. Silencing this mechanism, whether intentionally or not, sends a message that public input is unwelcome—a move that could alienate the very community the college is meant to serve.

The lack of explanation only deepens the mystery. Why has this decades-old tradition been abandoned? Is it a temporary oversight or a deliberate shift away from transparency? Until the Board provides clarity, the community is left to wonder—and to question the direction its leadership is taking.

You may view the summary agenda by clicking here.

FEARING A NEW DIRECTION IN JANUARY, COLLEGE LEADERSHIP SEEKS TO CEMENT PRESIDENTIAL POWER AND MARGINALIZE GOVERNING BOARD AUTHORITY WITH APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AT TUESDAY’S MEETING

Move calculated to consolidate power in Community College President and preempt scrutiny from Yavapai County taxpayers

Editorial:  In a move that appears calculated to consolidate power and preempt scrutiny, Yavapai Community College leadership has presented a resolution that will be discussed and voted on at Tuesday’s meeting.  The resolution, apparently prepared with the cooperation of an outside consultant, is designed to significantly curtail the authority of its Governing Board.

This resolution, strategically scheduled for a vote at the final Board meeting of 2024, seeks approval from a “friendly” majority that includes two outgoing Board members. The timing and content of the resolution raise serious concerns about transparency, governance, and the future independence of the Board.

The proposed policy would profoundly alter the relationship between the Board and the College President. It imposes strict limitations on Board members, barring them from contacting staff about any “college or community issue” and forbidding a member from “publicly criticizing the president.” This framework, cloaked in language emphasizing “decorum” and “cooperation,” effectively insulates the President from accountability while silencing dissent within the Board.

A Preemptive Power Grab

College leadership’s urgency in pushing this resolution stems from the impending arrival of two new Governing Board members in January. These incoming members could disrupt the administration’s longstanding dominance over Board decisions. By securing the votes of the two lame-duck outgoing members, the administration aims to solidify the President’s authority and restrict the new Board’s ability to challenge or revise policies.

The resolution’s provisions go far beyond ensuring decorum; they establish an autocratic model of governance that marginalizes the elected representatives of Yavapai County residents. Key provisions include:

  1. Prohibition of Staff Contact: Board members are explicitly forbidden from directly engaging with staff, regardless of the issue, effectively severing lines of communication and oversight.

  2. Ban on Public Criticism: Members are barred from voicing any public critique of the President, stifling free speech and dissent.

  3. Deference to the President: The resolution demands unwavering support for the President, requiring Board members to publicly endorse decisions once made, even if they personally disagree.

  4. Reinforced Presidential Control: The President is granted expansive authority over operational decisions, policy implementation, and staff management, with minimal oversight from the Board.

Implications for Governance

This resolution redefines the role of the Governing Board, transforming it from an oversight body to a ceremonial entity tasked with rubber-stamping decisions made by the administration. The document openly prioritizes the President’s autonomy over the Board’s ability to represent the community’s interests.

The resolution’s language emphasizes “collective authority” and “respect for roles,” yet these principles are weaponized to suppress individual Board members who might question the administration’s actions. The elected representatives’ duty to advocate for their constituents is subordinated to a requirement to support the President unequivocally.

Moreover, the resolution highlights the administration’s fear of public accountability. Prohibiting Board members from criticizing the President and restricting their engagement with the press effectively shields the College from external scrutiny.

Impact on Yavapai County voters

The adoption of this resolution would mark a troubling shift in the governance of Yavapai Community College. It risks undermining the Board’s role as a check on administrative power and silences voices critical of the status quo. By approving this resolution, the current Board would not only tie the hands of their successors but also erode the principles of transparency and accountability that underpin public institutions.

This resolution does not merely address operational efficiency or Board conduct; it seeks to fundamentally alter the balance of power at the College. The incoming Board members, and by extension the community they represent, deserve the opportunity to participate in shaping the institution’s future without being shackled by the dictates of outgoing members and an overly empowered administration.

The Resolution at a Glance

The full text of the resolution underscores its autocratic nature. The document’s emphasis on loyalty to the President and strict limitations on Board member actions reflects a broader effort to suppress dissent and ensure compliance. It provides that the Board will “monitor” a Board member, something it already does in part by scanning a member’ college email account.  Key excerpts include:

  • “The Board provides visible public support for the President, does not undermine his/her authority and counters misinformed public criticism.”

  • “Under no circumstances should an individual Board member direct or contact by any means, a staff member concerning a college or community issue.”

  • “The Board understands that the President is the primary contact with the college community and does not publicly criticize the President.”

  • The Board will monitor inappropriate behavior of the Board as a whole and individual Board members, and take appropriate corrective action-when necessary. 

These provisions crystallize the administration’s intent to silence opposition and maintain its dominance, even at the expense of democratic governance.

The following is the draft resolution:

Proposed New District Governing Board Policy

Policy 310 Yavapai College Code of Conduct and Ethics 

The Board expects of itself, as a whole and of its individual members, ethical and professional conduct. This commitment includes proper use of authority and appropriate decorum in group and individual behavior when acting as Board members. The Board shall: 

Enforce upon itself whatever discipline is needed to govern with excellence. Discipline will apply to matters such as abiding by Board Policy, respect of roles, abiding by the  majority’s decisions and adherence to ethical practices. 

The Board will protect the mission of student learning and student success as they protect the long-term interests of the college. 

Yavapai College District Governing Board will demonstrate a commitment to informed, ethical decision-making based on what is best for the students, the college and the community– not on special interests or personal agendas. Members will review Boad materials provided, attend scheduled meetings, and request data and information  through protocols established by the Board in conjunction with the President. 

In addition: 

Per Yavapai College Board Policy 401, Delegation to and Accountability of President, the Governing Board has delegated the day-to-day management of Yavapai College to the President. Therefore, 

The Board acknowledges the difference between governance and administration of the college. The Board’s primary function is to establish the policies by which the college shall be administered. The authority for overall college administration, to initiate policy recommendations, administer academic programs, conduct college business, direct staff and faculty, and implement board actions is delegated to the college president. Yavapai College District Governing members will respect the delegation of authority to the president to administer the college. 

The Board provides visible public support for the President, does not undermine his/her authority and counters misinformed public criticism. 

The Board is responsible for creating and maintaining a spirit of cooperation and a mutually supportive relationship with its president. Yavapai College District Governing Board will promote a healthy working relationship with college president through respectful, supportive, open and honest communication. 

Authority rests with the entire board and not individuals. The Board’s voice is only expressed through the policies and actions it takes in the official meetings. Once the Board has decided on a policy or position, each Board member must be prepared to honor the Board’s decision. As individuals, YCDGB members have no legal authority to determine policies, programs, or procedures, or to direct the President or any staff. 

Under no circumstances should an individual Board member direct or contact by any means, a staff member concerning a college or community issue. Board members will refer all of their concerns and constituent concerns via email to the President to resolve or   answer. Board members never speak or act on behalf of the college, unless instructed to do so by a majority vote of the Board. 

The Board understands that the President is the primary contact with the college community and does not publicly criticize the President. 

The Board will maintain appropriate confidentiality of all executive {closed} sessions, as required by Arizona state statutes, 38-431.03. 

The Board will monitor inappropriate behavior of the Board as a whole and individual Board members, and take appropriate corrective action-when necessary. 

Board members do not speak to the press in any way that reflects negatively on their colleagues or the college. 

The Board should be knowledgeable of the Higher Learning Commissions Criteria for Accreditation, especially as it relates to the Board (see HLC Criteria 2.5). Therefore, the Board’s performance as a whole and as individuals has the potential to positively and/or negatively affect accreditation. 

YCDGB will devote time to activities that will enhance their knowledge of the college, and higher educations’ issues as they engage in a regular and ongoing process of professional development, continuous improvement, self-assessment, and participate in college events as appropriate. 

YAVAPAI COLLEGE DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD

RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY TO PRESIDENT

RESOLUTION 2024-18

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the District Governing Board is the legally constituted and final authority for the operation of Yavapai County Community College District, including any policies that govern the College; 

WHEREAS, the Board’s sole official connection to the operational organization, its achievement, and conduct is through the College President; 

WHEREAS, only officially passed motions of the Board shall be binding on the President; 

WHEREAS, The President shall be the Board’s only link to operational achievement and conduct, so that all authority and accountability of staff, as far as the Board is concerned, shall be considered the authority and accountability of the President; 

WHEREAS, In the case of Board members requesting information or assistance without Board authorization, the President shall refuse such requests that require, in the President’s opinion, a material amount of staff time or funds or are disruptive; 

WHEREAS, The Board shall instruct the President through written policies which prescribe the organizational priorities to be achieved, allowing the President to use a reasonable interpretation of these policies; 

WHEREAS, the Board fully understands proper use of authority including the clear distinction of Board and Staff roles and collective rather than individual authority of the Board; 

WHEREAS, the Board acts consistent with its own policies and those imposed upon it by law and regulations; 

ENACTMENTS: 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND REAFFIRMED that the Yavapai County Community College District Governing Board Pursuant to A.R.S. 15-1444(A)(6) & (B)(4), delegates to the College President all of its authority to operate the college and employ, except for any actions taken with regard to a contract of employment for the position of College President. The Board will exercise authority over the College and the President only as they operate with one voice as a whole. Individual Board members will abide by and uphold majority decisions of the Board. 

This shall be based on the following principles: 

YAVAPAI COLLEGE 

  1. Accordingly, decisions or instructions of individual Board members, or officers shall not be binding on the President except in rare instances when the Board has specifically authorized such exercise of authority. 
  2. The Board shall not evaluate, either formally or informally, any staff other than the President. 3. The President shall be authorized to establish all college operational policies, make all decisions, take all actions, establish all practices, and develop all activities. 
  3. As long as any particular delegation is in place, the Board shall respect and support the President’s choices. 

NOW, BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Governing Board delegates to the President such additional authority as is necessary to ensure that College operations meet the changing needs of our students and employers. 

The Governing Board shall retain all powers and duties as prescribed by law that are not formally delegated in this Resolution or Board Policies. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Yavapai County Community College District Governing Board this 19th day of November 2024. 

Approved as to form: 

Ms. Deb McCasland, Board Chair 

Mr. Chris Kuknyo, Board Secretary

VOTERS BOOT 20-YEAR VETERAN YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT #1 REPRESENTATIVE RAY SIGAFOOS FROM GOVERNING BOARD IN NOVEMBER ELECTION

Voter concerns over large increases in property tax rates and a Community College west side  wasteful spending spree appear main factors among many that were behind William Kiel’s successful challenge

William Kiel

William Kiel unseated Ray Sigafoos as the District 1 representative on the Yavapai Community College Governing Board, ushering in a possible shift for the institution. Kiel, a civil engineer with a Master of Science in Civil Engineering, criticized the Board for engaging in what he described as wasteful spending. He pointed to several controversial decisions, including the Board’s move to raise property tax rates by 8.4% over the past two years, expand the budget by 155% within the same timeframe, and allocate $11 million for a church camp outside Prescott.

Kiel also took issue with President Dr. Lisa Rhine’s salary, which he suggests is approaching $400,000, questioning why the exact figure remains undisclosed to county voters. As an example of further waste, he cited the CTEC building, where “literally hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of equipment made of carbon steel is rusting away” due to the use of swamp coolers rather than adequate air conditioning—an oversight he suggests may cost taxpayers dearly.

Kiel has pledged to improve transparency with a goal of increasing  public access to information both at the Board and administration levels.

Sigafoos, who served the Governing Board for twenty years, leaves a legacy that includes seven years as Board chair and two as Board secretary, following his appointment in 2005.

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD CANDIDATE KIEL CHALLENGES BOARD’S REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE PRESIDENT RHINE’S SALARY

Alleges two reasons for withholding the information: (1) The salary is excessively high compared to similar positions at other similarly sized community colleges, and the Board wants to keep it private; (2) The amount is so large that it would shock the average Yavapai County taxpayer who funds it

William Kiel

William Kiel is running against Ray Sigafoos for a seat on the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board in District One, with voters deciding the outcome in November.

During the October 29 District Governing Board meeting, Kiel used the open call to question the Board on an issue he had encountered. He inquired about a claim suggesting that any unspent funds collected and budgeted by the College within a fiscal year cannot be carried over to the next. The Board offered no response.

Kiel also raised concerns about the Board’s refusal to disclose the annual salary of Community College President Dr. Lisa Rhine to Yavapai County taxpayers. He asserted that the Board may be withholding this information for two reasons: first, the president’s salary is disproportionately high compared to similar community college positions at similarly sized institutions, and second, the amount is so excessive that Yavapai County taxpayers would be appalled if they knew the details.

Ray Sigafoos

In response, Ray Sigafoos, Kiel’s opponent, excused himself from the Board to address Kiel’s statements. His comments largely mirrored those from a May 21 meeting, when he defended property tax increases by listing the College’s wide-ranging initiatives across Yavapai County, which he argued justified the 8.4% property tax hike in total over the last two years. In his latest remarks, Sigafoos also highlighted what he deemed the College’s recent accomplishments but notably avoided addressing the issue of Dr. Rhine’s undisclosed salary.