College Board Chair Stifles Voices of Elected Officials

The Yavapai Community College Governing Board is facing tensions regarding potential changes to its governance policies. Chairwoman Deb McCasland, representing District 2, is at the center of a dispute concerning the proposed Rule Change that would limit discussions on significant issues affecting the college, thereby centralizing authority with unelected administrators.

Board member Toby Payne, representing District 3, expressed concerns in a letter to McCasland dated January 19. He requested an agenda item for a discussion led by legal counsel on the distinction between delegating authority and relinquishing it. Additionally, he urged a work session to address Policy 310, which he argues conflicts with state laws and guidelines from the Higher Learning Commission.

Payne criticized the manner in which Policy 310 was presented, claiming it was imposed without prior discussion with board members. He referenced Arizona Revised Statutes §15-1444(A), which mandates the board to evaluate conditions at each community college, and opposed the notion that the board’s connection to operations lies solely through the college president.

Furthermore, Payne pointed out that Policy 310 restricts board members’ First Amendment rights by barring them from speaking to the press or criticizing the president and the college publicly. This approach, he believes, undermines the duties of elected officials and contradicts their legal obligations.

Under Governing Board Policy 308, board members can request agenda items. However, during an April 22 meeting, instead of discussing Payne’s concerns about Policy 310, McCasland proposed a future discussion on Policy 308 itself, prompting a debate on the interpretation of board procedures.

District 1 representative William Kiel questioned the necessity of reviewing Policy 308, suggesting it adequately allows board members to place items on the agenda. McCasland indicated that the revision process would be addressed in upcoming meetings, although Kiel remained skeptical about its implications for board members’ rights.

The board eventually voted 3-2 in favor of discussing Policy 308, with Kiel and Payne opposing the motion. Payne later published an opinion piece criticizing McCasland’s handling of his agenda requests, asserting they had not been adequately addressed.

In communication with the media, McCasland responded to inquiries about her actions regarding Payne’s requests. She suggested that Payne might have altered his views after the April meeting, prompting discussion about the effectiveness of his requests.

Despite assertions from McCasland that board items requested by Payne were considered, he maintained that the specifics of his January request had not been fulfilled, as the agenda items discussed did not align with his concerns. He expressed dissatisfaction with the narrative that his requests had been met.

The board’s next meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 19, where these issues are likely to remain at the forefront of discussions.