­

Archive for Politics

MESA COMMUNITY COLLEGE GUTS NATIVE AMERICAN CONVOCATION TO COMPLY WITH PERCEIVED DEI MANDATE

A decade-long ceremony honoring Native American students is canceled, and Native American clubs like MCC’s Inter-Tribal Student Organization face dissolution. Tribal leaders argue the relationship of Native American Tribes and the federal government is misunderstood and say the college erred in its decision

Arlyssa D. Becenti, writing in the Wednesday, March 12 edition of the  Arizona Republic, reported that the Native American Convocation scheduled for May was cancelled at Mesa Community College (MCC)  because of the perceived DEI mandate issued by President Donald Trump. The event was to be a celebration of the academic  achievements of Native American students attending Mesa Community College.

According to the article, Native American students from MCC and the nine other Maricopa County community colleges “received troubling news.” Due to actions by President Donald Trump, their Native American Convocation would be canceled. Additionally, Native American clubs, likely including MCC’s Inter-Tribal Student Organization and others, would be dissolved.

“I am incredibly disappointed to learn that the 2025 Maricopa County Community College District’s American Indian Convocation has been canceled,” Gila River Indian Community Governor Stephen Roe Lewis said in a news release. “This decision concerns me deeply, because it shows fundamental misunderstanding of the federal-tribal relationship which is based on political, not racial status. Today I am calling on MCCCD to immediately correct this error in interpreting the federal Executive Order and to allow the convocation to proceed.”

Maricopa Community Colleges have traditionally held a smaller ceremony to honor Native American students from all 10 community colleges in the Maricopa Community Colleges District. This year, that ceremony, along with similar convocations for other diverse student groups, has been canceled.

Neither Maricopa Community Colleges nor the county community college district responded to The Arizona Republic’s request for comment.

The issue of racial and political classification among Native Americans gained attention after Trump’s Education Department issued a memo on February 14. The memo claimed that Supreme Court decisions prohibit treating students differently based on race to achieve goals like diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity. This raised concerns among Navajo leaders and their attorneys.

“The letter doesn’t mention federal funds that are provided to Indian tribes and tribal organizations are not based on race,” said Chris Schneider, principal attorney for the Navajo Department of Justice. “It’s longstanding, its federal case law, you have Morton v. Mancari, which is a United States Supreme Court case … that determine that Indian isn’t always per se going to be a classification according to race. Instead, based upon the history of the United States and Indian tribes, it’s more political classification.”

Many legal experts believe the Trump administration ignores legality, precedent, the Constitution, and tribal treaties. Mel Wilson of the National Association of Social Workers notes this follows the vision of Project 2025. The dismantling of DEI efforts marks a dramatic shift, as colleges and institutions that once honored First Peoples with land acknowledgments have abruptly stopped doing so.

ARIZONA’S LARGEST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT CUTS DIVERSITY INITIATIVES AMID TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PRESSURE

No public information about DEI changes at Yavapai Community College 

According to a March 4, 2025 article in the Arizona Republic by Helen Rummel, the Maricopa County Community College District is removing various diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives from its schools following increasing pressure from the Trump administration. The changes are being made to comply with guidance from the Office for Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Education. A four-page letter  from the Office required schools to remove race-based programming by February 28 or risk losing federal funding. The letter was said to be an effort to clarify existing legal requirements under Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause, and other federal civil rights principles, but apparently does not carry the force of law.

Maricopa Community Colleges Chancellor Steven Gonzales announced that employee affinity groups, pronouns in email signatures, and all DEI and gender identity-related language will be removed from district materials. More changes may follow to comply with evolving requirements.

Employees are no longer to be able to use money from the district to attend any conferences or events focusing on DEI, including ones that center on race, identity or national origin. Employee groups focusing on race and identity would be removed, like affinity groups and the Diversity Advisory Council.

Websites for groups like HSI EXCELlence and the Black Student Union were removed, though student clubs are not impacted. Many DEI-related pages, including those on convocation ceremonies for diverse cultural backgrounds, were also taken down.

“As a public higher education institution, the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) must comply with all local, state, and federal laws, including recently issued enforcement priorities set forth by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights,” a Maricopa Community College district spokesperson said in a statement to The Arizona Republic.

“We recognize that these required changes may be disappointing to some of our students and employees. However, we remain committed to fostering a welcoming learning environment for all students as they pursue their educational goals.”

Yavapai Community College has not yet provided the public with any information regarding what action, if any, it has taken in regard to the Trump mandates.

FEDERAL JUDGE TEMPORARILY BLOCKS DOGE FROM ACCESSING SENSITIVE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT INFORMATION – ORDER RUNS TO MARCH 10

Says Trump administration failed to provide sufficient justification for gaining access to the information

Federal judge Deborah Boardman on Monday, February 24, 2025 issued a temporary restraining order saying disclosure of the education department’s sensitive personal information to DOGE affiliates is irreparable harm that money damages cannot rectify.” She also said the Office of Personnel Management can’t disclose the information.

In her opinion, Judge Boardman wrote that “DOGE affiliates have been granted access to systems of record that contain some of the plaintiffs’ most sensitive data — Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses, income and assets, citizenship status, and disability status — and their access to this trove of personal information is ongoing. There is no reason to believe their access to this information will end anytime soon because the government believes their access is appropriate.”

It should be noted that last week a federal judge in a related case refused to issue a restraining order restricting Musk’s team, finding that the group that brought the lawsuit had not shown that a group of students who had lodged similar complaints had suffered clear harm by having their data analyzed by affiliates of Mr. Musk.

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.