College says just keep calling it the “Verde Campus” although it is no longer considered a campus or branch campus for accreditation purposes.  Is this a psychological blow to the respect and admiration of the Verde Campus?

Recall that the Blog informed its readers in a story September 1 on the fact that after 50 years, the Verde Campus will no longer be considered a branch campus of Yavapai Community College.  It is an “additional location.”  The change in designation was brought about by a new definition of a “campus” or “branch campus” by the Federal Department of Education.

Raquel Henderson, a reporter for the Verde Independent, did a story about the designation change, which  appeared in the Verde Independent October 18 issue of that newspaper.

In an interview for her story in the Independent, she asked the College’s Outreach Director Tyler Rumsey about the designation.  She asked: If the Verde Campus  doesn’t fit the definition of a “campus” or a “branch campus,” what is it?   He responded saying, “we don’t know yet.”

According to Rumsey, so far as college officials are concerned, everyone can keep calling it the “Verde Valley campus.”

Dr. Rhine told Ms. Hendrickson that “the change in designation has absolutely no effect on the academic offerings, student or public services, cultural enrichment activities, or the college’s commitment to investing in the Verde Valley Campus to provide accessible, affordable education to our students,” Rhine said. “In fact, despite the designation change for accreditation, the College plans to continue to refer to the Verde Valley location as the ‘Verde Valley Campus.”

As pointed out by the Blog September 1, Dr. Rhine has not suggested  what changes could be made on the Verde Campus that would return it to a more prestigious” campus” or “branch campus” designation.

Critics argue that the change adds a psychological arrow to the quiver of the Prescott based administration  in its effort to maintain the tightest possible control  of the Verde Valley Campus.  Lowering its prestige, goes this argument, may lower the value of the college in the eyes of local and regional potential student applicants who will choose other institutions to attend.  

Critics also argue that removal of the Verde Campus designation sends a clear message to everyone in Yavapai County that the Prescott location is the only true campus in the County and, therefore, its most prestigious learning center.

Dean Redd publicly reveals the incredible pressure she was placed under by  Prescott bosses who apparently feared some vague kind of collusion against them if she worked with certain citizens and civic leaders

Editor: Robert E. Oliphant

OPINION. It is little wonder that former Sedona Center/Verde Campus Dean Dr. Tina Redd quit her job after only one year. In information just provided to the public, she describes, among other things, the enormous pressure she experienced because her Prescott-based bosses did not want her to consort or communicate with certain groups or civic leaders in the Verde Valley. She was to stay away from these people even if they voiced legitimate concerns, wanted to work with her, respected, and were fond of  her.

Dr. Redd outlined her situation in a letter sent to the Yavapai Community College President Dr. Lisa Rhine. She wrote that: “My team and I have successfully increased educational opportunities in the Verde Valley, created a better work environment for Verde faculty and staff, and made good progress in creating stronger relationships between Yavapai College and Verde Valley stakeholders.” However, “Despite this, I have experienced stressful, disheartening, and challenging work dynamics that have limited my potential and created unacceptable levels of work-related stress.”

In the same letter, Dr. Redd explained  how  hostility coming from Prescott execs toward some in the Valley was directly affecting her work:  “I feel there is general hostility toward the politically-active constituents in the Verde Valley that impedes my ability to represent and support the community.” 

The “politically-active constituents” she refers to are apparently those residents and civic leaders who publicly speak out about concerns of a lack of classes, attention, and a 50-year failure of development in Sedona and the Verde Valley. 

And her worst sin. She was “respected” and “liked” by the politically active constituents, concerned citizens, civic leaders, and others throughout the east side of the County.

Dr. Redd explained in her letter the consequences she perceived coming from her Prescott-based bosses because she received this kind of respect from all quarters in Sedona and the Verde Valley: “I often feel that being respected and liked in the Verde Valley is seen as collusion with citizens and civic leaders who are vocal about their concerns regarding college programming and taxpayer contributions.” 

Think of it. A public servant working tirelessly for a publicly supported taxpayer institution whose bosses apparently feared she might somehow collude with politically active local residents and civic leaders and challenge their iron fisted authoritarian control. What a childish view coming from Prescott. What a dreadful situation for her. Her bosses were not only hostile toward certain Valley residents  they considered “politically active”  but also considered Dr. Redd as possibly “colluding” in some fantasy against them because she was popular among these and other Valley residents.

Collusion. Hostility. Disrespect. These are the ingredients of a recipe cooked up by insecure Prescott bosses most likely designed to maintain total control over Dr. Redd and ensure total control over community college development in the Verde Valley. It is a recipe that would drive any principled person from the Dean’s job.

The disclosures have made two things crystal clear: First, Valley residents can be assured that Dr. Redd’s  permanent replacement will be a lacky to her Prescott bosses, their whims, and ways. That person will be on a constant hot seat to ensure as much as possible that certain residents and civic leaders voices are not heard and that they play no role in their own local community college.

Second, Valley residents can likewise be assured that as long as Prescott maintains its ruthless  control of community college development on the east side of the County via messages sent by them and mouthed by a newly hired, closely monitored Dean, there will be little serious attention paid to the real present and long-term educational needs on that side of Mingus Mountain.

Robert Oliphant.

One illustrative example is a 3-2 vote at May 17 meeting rejecting a minor one-line clarification to March 22  minutes requested by Chevalier

Ugly, petty behavior was on display at the May 17 Governing Board meeting when Third District Governing Board representative Paul Chevalier asked that a sentence be added to the April minutes clearly showing he had asked that certain items be placed on the May agenda.  Normally, such a request for a change to the minutes is granted with little or no discussion.  However, in this case, the matter was put to a vote and the request was defeated.  

To make matters worse, when Mr. Chevalier asked if any of the members voting to reject the minor change would explain why they cast a “no” vote, the room fell silent.  None of the representatives would  explain why the simple, normal run-of-the-mill request was denied.

This incident clearly illustrates, however,  just how far a majority on the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board is willing to go to punish Mr. Chevalier because of  his constant support of Sedona and the Verde Valley during Board discussions.  Several Board members indicated they are unhappy because of persistently hearing about “equity” and questions raised by Chevalier about how the Community College distributes funds between the east and west sides of Yavapai County.

The vote was somewhat ironic because Representative Ray Sigafoos had delivered a careful, half-hour or more lecture to the Governing Board, on the need for more detailed written minutes of Governing Board meetings, only minutes prior to this vote. 

Those voting to reject Mr. Chevalier’s request to add a sentence to the minutes were:  Board Chair Deb McCasland and representatives Chris Kuknyo and Mitch Padilla. 

You may view the request and the rejection by the Governing Board of Mr. Chevalier’s request by clicking here.

College told Council  it rotates Board meetings “between all six centers” (see video) and “holds one at a different center every month” (see video)

Jessica Williamson, Sedona City Council

Sedona Councilwoman Jessica Williams asked the Yavapai Community College administration to respond to a claim by a citizen at the April 26 meeting with the Sedona City Council that the Governing Board held only one of 16 Board meetings on the east side of the County.  In response, the Administration said that “we rotate between all six centers.”  (See video) It continued:  “You know, we hold one at a different center every month and we get over here certainly more than once or twice a year.”  (See video)

According to the information from the College’s website, which is posted below, the Board held a workshop on June 22 not listed plus one regular meeting in Sedona and one regular meeting at the Verde Valley Campus from fall 2021-to summer 2022.  

One could argue that the rotation claim seems somewhat at odds with the meeting notices posted on the District Governing Board calendar meeting dates, which is published on its website.

Click here to see the video of the exchange at the Sedona City Council meeting regarding this question.

Chevalier asserts that  a majority of written comments made by one Board member on Board evaluation form were “false,“ others were “misleading,” and all of them “mean spirited” and “intended to hurt” him

The Yavapai Community College Governing Board members routinely conduct a self-evaluation about the workings of the Board.  The  evaluation may include one Board member’s view of another Board member’s  participation and conduct. The evaluations are not intended to be used for  personal attacks and the evaluations are seldom discussed or debated at any length at a Board meeting.

However, that was not the case with the self-evaluations distributed at the April 2022 meeting to Board members and apparently College president Dr. Lisa Rhine. 

When Third District Representative Paul Chevalier read the comments in the evaluation from one Board member, whose name was not disclosed, about his alleged conduct, he was obviously upset.  So upset that he felt the need to publicly respond  generally to the perceived  “false,” “misleading,” and “mean spirited” comments made in writing by the Board member.

Chevalier believed that the series of comments were aimed directly at him by a single member of the Board and were intended to “hurt” him. 

Chevalier responded to the allegations by explaining that he discusses  “issues” at Board meetings, which may sometimes present a different (diverse) view than that held by others on the Board. Chevalier reminded the Board of its adopted policy regarding diversity of views, which is found in Policy Manual, section 304. That section, Chevalier said,  encourages diversity of viewpoint among Board members.

Regarding the accuser’s behavior, Chevalier said  that “we live in a democracy” and professional behavior is expected of government officials and by implication the unnamed Board member’s comment were unprofessional.  He also noted that he had never made personal comments about any Board member during any public meeting.  

Chevalier promised that despite the hurtful comments, he would continue to speak up for the people he represents.

You may view/listen to Mr. Chevalier’s response to the unknown criticism by clicking here.