Seek an experienced and visionary leader

The Maricopa County Community College District has begun a search for a new chancellor after Maria Harper-Marinick resigned in September.  It has set up a search committee to help with the selection.  In a statement issued by the Board, it said it was “in the search for our next chancellor, we seek an experienced and visionary leader who will build upon our system’s past success and shepherd the colleges toward a future with an abundance of opportunities,”

The board has hired the  search firm Diversified Search to recruit for the position. It named 21 people to the search committee, which will  select candidates as finalists. The board will make the final hiring decision.

“It’s a matter of ethics . . . and we should discuss it,” he said; but Board members refused to discuss the issue

Yavapai Community College District Governing Board member Paul Chevalier challenged the District Governing Board at its October meeting to openly discuss whether there had been discrimination in some form between the East and West regions of Yavapai County over the past several years.  He asserted that under the Governance model adopted by the Governing Board, the members were supposed to discuss disagreements. He argued in his contribution to the Governing Board September evaluation (see below) that the allocation of power among the Board members over the years raised a possible “ethical” issue for the Board and was in his view discriminatory.

Chevalier gave a specific example at the meeting in support of his claim. He said  that over the past twelve years no one from the east side of the County had been District Governing Board Chair, the most powerful position on the Board.  He argued that with the east side having 40% of the population, it should in theory have had someone as chair 40% of the time.

Despite his challenge to members to discuss the issue, the Governing Board remained silent.  No one would discuss whether his view was correct.  You may view his challenge to the Board in the very short video clip below. The issue was made at the October 8, 2019 Board meeting.

Irwin currently  running for County Supervisor while sitting on YC Governing Board

A question was raised about whether current Yavapai Community College Board member Steve Irwin could simultaneously hold the positions of both a County Supervisor and a Yavapai Community College Board member. However,  It is clear that under current law he could not hold both positions. 

Under A.RS. § 15-1441(G), a county officer as provided in section ARS 11-401 is not eligible to serve as a member of a community college district governing board during his or her term of office. A.R.S. § 11-401(A) lists the county officers as follows:

1. Sheriff.
2. Recorder.
3. Treasurer.
4. School superintendent.
5. County attorney.
6. Assessor.
7. Supervisors.
8. Clerk of the board of supervisors.
9.  Tax collector.

Source:  Yavapai County Education Superintendent.

Announces she will leave when her contract ends in May 2020

Maricopa County Community College District Chancellor Maria Harper-Marinick has announced that she will leave her position as the head of the  largest community college system in Arizona when her contract ends in May.

In a statement in which she announced her departure, she called the journey, “exhilarating, challenging, and at all times rewarding” because of the students and Maricopa employees “who are committed to ensuring that access to quality education and student success is a priority for our colleges.”

Harper-Marinick has worked for the Maricopa district for nearly 28 years and was appointed chancellor in 2016. The governing board in 2017 extended her contract through May 2020. 

Source:   AZCENTRAL Sept. 3, 2019

Vote failed at Scottsdale Community College; Chancellor, Faculty to attempt to mediate dispute

Maricopa Community Colleges Chancellor Dr. Maria Harper-Marinick

Maricopa Community Colleges Chancellor Maria Harper-Marinick received a “no confidence” vote in her leadership from faculty representatives in nine of 10 colleges in the Maricopa County Community College District. The vote failed only at the Scottsdale Community College.

John Schampel, president of the Maricopa Community Colleges Faculty Association, wrote in an email that: “This vote, however unpleasant, has been necessary to preserve the values of teaching and learning that form the foundation for student success.”

The “no confidence” resolution began circulating to faculty leadership earlier this month, claiming the chancellor has failed to provide effective vision and oversight and accusing her of being “complicit” in governing board actions last year to limit faculty authority.

No-confidence votes don’t obligate the college’s Governing Board to take action. Their purpose is to send a message to the Governing Board that a group has lost confidence in the chancellor.

Some faculty criticized  the resolution claiming it failed to reflect the sentiments of all full-time faculty in the college district because it was cast by faculty senate representatives and not by the faculty at-large.

The dispute arose from the former Governing Board’s decision to abandon a “meet and confer” process that had been in place for 40 years. Faculty claimed it served as the cornerstone of “shared governance”. That is, it was a system of collaboration between the administration and faculty.  

A newly elected Governing Board reversed the action of the old Board.

An investigative report by the American Association of University Professors concluded as follows: “[T]he administration’s silence was deafening. As a result, this committee regards the MCCCD administration as entirely complicit…. Just prior to the vote on the [Governing Board] resolution [to abandon the “meet and confer” process] the Governing Board called upon Chancellor Harper-Marinick for comment. She replied that it would be inappropriate to comment on the resolution.” The AAUP report stated that, “in the view of this committee, that decision was a profound dereliction of her duty as chief administrative officer of an educational institution.”

You may read much more about the vote in a story posted on the web by reporter Anne Ryman, Arizona Republic, published April 18 by clicking here.

Facing a possible no-confidence vote by the end of next week; big issue focuses on challenge to faculty authority 

Chancellor Maria Harper-Marinick

The Arizona Republic, in an article by  Anney Ryman published April 11, reports that the Maricopa Community Colleges Faculty Association is asking representatives at all 10 colleges to cast a “no-confidence” vote in the leadership of Chancellor Maria Harper-Marinick. The faculty leadership claims that  the chancellor has failed to provide effective vision and oversight and accuses her of being “complicit” in governing board actions last year to limit faculty authority. The leadership also claims that she failed to demonstrate leadership at “pivotal moments.”

The main issue appears to involve the authority of faculty to meet and confer about pay and benefits. The Maricopa Governing Board in February 2018 voted to end a long-standing process used to negotiate faculty pay and benefits called “meet and confer.” However, that decision was reversed when three new governing board members took office in January.

The Maricopa Colleges faculty association points to a report critical of the college district by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) that was released in March. The AAUP said it found evidence, obtained through public-records requests, that strongly suggested the Governing Board’s motivation for ending meet and confer was “union busting,” or mischaracterizing the faculty association as a collective-bargaining group and then attempting to destroy it.

The report was also critical of the chancellor, saying Harper-Marinick chose not to provide an opinion on the February board resolution that ended meet and confer. A AAUP committee that wrote the report said, “in the view of this committee, that decision was a profound dereliction of her duty.”

You may read the entire article by Anney Ryman in the Arizona Republic by clicking here.

Board rejects invitation to openly discuss potential bias by West side of County against the East side

Third District Governing Board representative Paul Chevalier attempted to generate a discussion among Board members about possible voting bias between the East and West sides of the County at the March 2019 Board meeting. He asserted that prejudice exists “against East side representatives by West side representatives.”

Chevalier stated that the Board 3.1 policy asked the members whether they were “enforcing the discipline needed for excellence” on the Board.  He said the discipline was absent because of bias. He gave as an example that “East side representatives are not voted to become Board Officers.” He observed that  “to do so requires at least one West side vote (along with two East side votes).” He pointed out that no one from the east side of the County has held the position of Board Chair for at least 12 years or Board Secretary in nine years. He said that “prejudice causes ill feelings” and encouraged the Board to discuss the issue.

Chevalier went on to say that when you have a problem you should discuss it. He said that it appeared the Board was not enforcing its own guidelines that mandate it to respective Board member roles in policy-making principles because of the existing prejudice. He challenged the Board to explain why, for example, keeping East side representatives off as Board officers was not counter to the existing policy.

Sigafoos rejected any effort to discuss this issue. Said he was not going to get into a debate over the issue; that it was past history. No one else commented. Chevalier said, “So Everything Stays the same.”

West County members say they don’t want to discuss “history” and Chair refuses to go over the six specific areas contained in evaluation review document up for discussion; Chevalier seeks opportunity for Board to discuss how to achieve a consensus on difficult issues

Governing Board representative Paul Chevalier appeared to send shivers up and down the backs of the west-county voting bloc (Chair Ray Sigafoos, secretary Steve Irwin, member Pat McCarver) when he asked that they discuss the six-part self-evaluation the members had completed and included in the February agenda for “review.”  When he made the initial request, the Board fell silent with only Deb McCasland stating she agreed with Mr. Chevalier.

In his comments to the review compilation, Chevalier wrote that section 3.1.1.1 of the Board policy regarding proper notice that:

“A September, 2016 retreat action is a glaring example of failure to comply. Legal Counsel Adams, in the past, instructed this Board that `agendas must list specific matters to be discussed, considered or decided at the meeting. She defined ‘specific’ as follows: ‘Common sense test: Agendas must contain enough information reasonably necessary to inform the public of the matters to be discussed or decided.’ At the September Retreat the west side Board voted to suspend the Verde Valley Board Advisory Committee even though this was not a specific matter on the agenda. None of the following people were informed: The two Board representatives of the east side, the VVBAC members and the public in general. Ask any of them if you doubt me. As a result, Board member Filardo resigned.”

He also wrote that:

“At a Board meeting in 2016 the Board Chair refused the committee’s request to have the Board meet with it to discuss its recommendations. The Board Chair (at the time Pat McCarver) refusing the request stated publicly that she does not meet with committees.”

Sigafoos and McCarver both indicated that these incidents were past history and should not be discussed. Deb McCasland and Chevalier disagreed.

Chevalier went on to write that:

“The group is not a body that acts as a team. You have east side representatives and west side representatives. The west siders are the majority and, to the best of my knowledge, rarely accept important recommendations of the east siders. No compromise, no consensus and no sharing of Board leadership with the east siders is the majority practice. It needs to change.”

Chevalier pushed Chair Ray Sigafoos to find a way the Governing Board could discuss the issues he had raised.  He suggested a future retreat, workshop or meeting.  Sigafoos appeared reluctant to do so but eventually indicated he might.

You may view this unusual Board discussion on the video clip below.