Panel says complaint against board valid
Jessica Smith
A five member team, chaired by Margaret Lee, was invited to the district by the Dr. Rufus Glaspar, MCCCD chancellor, in response to an anonymous letter that was sent to the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) in May 2009 alleging non-compliance with HLC governance requirements. Between Sept. 20-23 the team conducted interviews with board members, district faculty, staff, and students.
The independent panel distributed their research and opinions on the conduct of the Maricopa Community Colleges Governing Board on Oct. 10.
According to the extensive 55 page report, “The evidence provided to the team in written documents, in video recordings, in individual group conversations compels the team to conclude that the complaint presented to the Higher Learning Commission is valid.”
These findings and their effects are still reverberating throughout all 10 campuses. The report validated claims of intimidation of MCCCD staff and employees, micromanagement, lack of experience, and abuse of power.
As a result of the consultant team’s findings, the chancellor will be hiring a facilitator to assist the district in reviewing and implementing the consultants’ recommendations.
By Nov. 16, the chancellor and the governing board will provide an official response to the HLC inquiry.
Board members were chastised for their repeated exclusion of the chancellor and his executive council, espeically with regard to fiscal operations like the development of the fiscal year 2010-11 budget and the decision to create an request for propsal (RFP) for an outside efficiency study.
The RFP resulted in a $1.14 million contract with Alvarez and Marsal, hired to analyze the efficency of the district.
According to the report, “The 3-2 decision of the Board to contract with Alvarez and Marsal and the process and communications leading up to that decision are symptomatic of the absence of effective governance and of the impact of ineffective communication.”
“Many see the costly outsourcing of what was originally proposed as and Evaluation of Stewardship and Values as the pathway to dismantling the federated operating structure of the 10-college district and the outsourcing of other services, leading to loss of their own jobs.”
The team criticized the board for lack of experience in governance. They also highlighted members’ incompetence in their capacity to properly oversee such a large district and pointed to the detrimental results this problem creates.
“The majority of the Board members who have taken on the operational responsibilities of the district (i.e. developing the budget) do not begin to meet even the most minimal qualifications for administrative positions.”
Additionally the report states, “The Board’s fractured relationship with the Chancellor and his leadership team, as well as with each other, have created a climate of fear and intimidation and a culture of mistrust throughout the organization.”
Although the Board has repeatedly stated that their focus is on the well-being of students, according to the panel’s findings, “There is a fundamental and often observed disconnect between their rhetoric and the reality of their behaviors and decisions. Most of the Board members speak much more frequently about the voters who elected them and the taxpayers to whom they feel responsible.”
“Claiming to be acting in the interests of students, the Board members’ rhetoric is out of sync with the chaos that they have created by micromanaging a complex enterprise that they are simply not qualified to do.”
Overarching disrespect among board members and towards the MCCCD community as a whole was also a dominate observation made by the group.
“Most of the members display a lack of understanding of how their adversarial and uncivil conduct and their lack of informed decision making threatens the stability of services and damages the reputation of a highly respected institution.”
Similarly the report comments that decisions by the board, “.have contributed to a universal erosion of confidence that has demoralized and embarrassed the college community.”
“However well intended though ill-informed, the Board’s lack of good financial stewardship threatens to compromise the ability of the district to meet the educational needs of its citizenry.”
If the Board fails to fully rectify the findings of the committee, they could end up costing the MCCCD its accreditation.
