PHOENIX -- According to recently released report, some Maricopa Community College District employees submitted a complaint to the Higher Learning Commission (HLC).
It said in the complaint that Maricopa employees "believe [our]
Governing Board is overstepping their role. They are acting as the chief operating office and ignoring the shared governance structure."
Read the full reportThe HLC is the body that gives Maricopa Community Colleges District its accreditation.
The commission asked Chancellor Rufus Glasper to review the complaint.
Glasper then invited a five-member team of higher learning experts to conduct an internal investigation.
Their findings, released as the "Report of a Consulting Visit to the Maricopa Community College District," amounted to a scathing report where investigators determined that the current board doesn’t seem to understand what its roles and responsibilities are.
“No member individually, nor the entire Board collectively, is equipped or qualified by either education or experience to assume operation duties of the Chancellor and the leadership team.”
It added that “the Board President is intent on running the operations of the district.”
Colleen Clark was 23-years-old when voters elected her to the board and she was president by 26.
Clark has no background or experience in higher learning.
Her resume posted on the District’s website reads that she works for the East Valley Bible Church in Gilbert and used to work for organizations that promote abstinence.
She recently made headlines when she was busted by Scottsdale Police near Old Town for a DUI.
The authors of the report said after reviewing board meetings, minutes, e-mails and other data it has determined that “There is a good deal of evidence that suggests that the actions of Board members are motivated by personal interests and/or political agendas. Elections are by areas in the county and some Board members exhibit what appears to be a primary allegiance to the voters who elected them rather than to the students and the educational needs of the entire district.”
It described the board as dysfunctional and provides a list of behavior and “decision making … devoid of good governance practices”.
This included: “attempting to control and censor student newspaper content; threatening to fire employees and telling the Chancellor to terminate employees; acting to influence admission to limited enrollment programs; making religious comments at Board meetings; engaging in proselytizing behaviors with respect to both religion and politics; uttering inappropriate and offensive comments about race, ethnicity, religion, and gender preference; harassing and intimidating students and employees; and, creating a climate that is chilling and an environment that is hostile.”
It said some board members have “chosen not to learn what it needs to know to carry out appropriately informed duties of governance.”
It believes Clark is working to strip the Chancellor of his power over the budget and major decisions which concerned the team because it feels she and some the other board members are not qualified to run the District.
“The team also observed four of the five Board members acting with out any discernable understanding or appreciation of either to complexity of the District or the role/responsibility of the Board as a governing body … the Board member’s rhetoric is out of synch with the chaos that they have created by micromanaging a complex enterprise what they are simply not qualified to do.”
It went on to say, “Their lack of informed decision making threatens the stability of services and damages the reputation of a highly respected institution.”
There is also a fear that the District’s financial solvency is at stake. Speaking on behalf of employees the authors of the report wrote, “They expressed concerns that the prevailing climate of fear and intimidation created by the Board is paralyzing operations, stifling innovation, and potentially jeopardizing AAA bond ratings that the district has long enjoyed.”
It said they found employees who “fear for their jobs” and the district has had to spend more than $23,000 tacking investigations into complaints filed against just one trustee.
They also cited incidents where a board members has bragged about not being able to get fired and about his/her ability to manipulate the votes to “prevail” in order to get her/his way whether it was good for the district or not.
“It appears that Board members act regularly in response to anecdotal information rather than learning from data and reports that are available.”
It said one trustee tried to revise policy to remove the words “inclusive,” “diversity”, and “global”.
It also found evidence of members, “advocating against students and employees who are out of “the mainstream” and part of a “deviant subculture”.
It also felt the some on the board were, “dismissing the need for and value of accreditation and its expectations”.
