Author Archive for R. Oliphant

HAS THE DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD ELIMINATED THE OPEN CALL TO THE PUBLIC FOR TUESDAY’S MEETING?

Is the District Governing Board abandoning decades of precedent by removing the Open Call to the Public for this particular meeting? Why would it do this?

The Open Call to the public that has been a part of Yavapai Community College agendas for decades appears to be missing from a draft of the agenda of Tuesday’s meeting obtained by the Blog.  The Open Call opportunity allows Yavapai County residents to directly address their representatives for up to three minutes—a tradition that, while sometimes utilized by only a few, serves as a valuable mechanism for public input on Board decisions.

The agenda for the Tuesday, November 19, 2024, meeting has not yet been posted to the public as of Saturday, November 16, leaving the status of the Open Call uncertain. The Blog cannot confirm that it will be missing when published on Monday but it was not evident on a draft agenda obtained by the Blog.

If you plan to attend the meeting at 1 p.m. on the Prescott Campus at the Rock House, be sure to review the posted agenda on Monday to see if the Open Call remains part of the session. This decision, while on the surface appearing pretty minor, could significantly impact public participation in governance over the long run—stay informed!

Note that the Tuesday  meeting will most likely be live streamed at https://www.youtube.com/user/YavapaiCollege

FEARING A NEW DIRECTION IN JANUARY, COLLEGE LEADERSHIP SEEKS TO CEMENT PRESIDENTIAL POWER AND MARGINALIZE GOVERNING BOARD AUTHORITY WITH APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AT TUESDAY’S MEETING

Move calculated to consolidate power in Community College President and preempt scrutiny from Yavapai County taxpayers

Editorial:  In a move that appears calculated to consolidate power and preempt scrutiny, Yavapai Community College leadership has presented a resolution that will be discussed and voted on at Tuesday’s meeting.  The resolution, apparently prepared with the cooperation of an outside consultant, is designed to significantly curtail the authority of its Governing Board.

This resolution, strategically scheduled for a vote at the final Board meeting of 2024, seeks approval from a “friendly” majority that includes two outgoing Board members. The timing and content of the resolution raise serious concerns about transparency, governance, and the future independence of the Board.

The proposed policy would profoundly alter the relationship between the Board and the College President. It imposes strict limitations on Board members, barring them from contacting staff about any “college or community issue” and forbidding a member from “publicly criticizing the president.” This framework, cloaked in language emphasizing “decorum” and “cooperation,” effectively insulates the President from accountability while silencing dissent within the Board.

A Preemptive Power Grab

College leadership’s urgency in pushing this resolution stems from the impending arrival of two new Governing Board members in January. These incoming members could disrupt the administration’s longstanding dominance over Board decisions. By securing the votes of the two lame-duck outgoing members, the administration aims to solidify the President’s authority and restrict the new Board’s ability to challenge or revise policies.

The resolution’s provisions go far beyond ensuring decorum; they establish an autocratic model of governance that marginalizes the elected representatives of Yavapai County residents. Key provisions include:

  1. Prohibition of Staff Contact: Board members are explicitly forbidden from directly engaging with staff, regardless of the issue, effectively severing lines of communication and oversight.

  2. Ban on Public Criticism: Members are barred from voicing any public critique of the President, stifling free speech and dissent.

  3. Deference to the President: The resolution demands unwavering support for the President, requiring Board members to publicly endorse decisions once made, even if they personally disagree.

  4. Reinforced Presidential Control: The President is granted expansive authority over operational decisions, policy implementation, and staff management, with minimal oversight from the Board.

Implications for Governance

This resolution redefines the role of the Governing Board, transforming it from an oversight body to a ceremonial entity tasked with rubber-stamping decisions made by the administration. The document openly prioritizes the President’s autonomy over the Board’s ability to represent the community’s interests.

The resolution’s language emphasizes “collective authority” and “respect for roles,” yet these principles are weaponized to suppress individual Board members who might question the administration’s actions. The elected representatives’ duty to advocate for their constituents is subordinated to a requirement to support the President unequivocally.

Moreover, the resolution highlights the administration’s fear of public accountability. Prohibiting Board members from criticizing the President and restricting their engagement with the press effectively shields the College from external scrutiny.

Impact on Yavapai County voters

The adoption of this resolution would mark a troubling shift in the governance of Yavapai Community College. It risks undermining the Board’s role as a check on administrative power and silences voices critical of the status quo. By approving this resolution, the current Board would not only tie the hands of their successors but also erode the principles of transparency and accountability that underpin public institutions.

This resolution does not merely address operational efficiency or Board conduct; it seeks to fundamentally alter the balance of power at the College. The incoming Board members, and by extension the community they represent, deserve the opportunity to participate in shaping the institution’s future without being shackled by the dictates of outgoing members and an overly empowered administration.

The Resolution at a Glance

The full text of the resolution underscores its autocratic nature. The document’s emphasis on loyalty to the President and strict limitations on Board member actions reflects a broader effort to suppress dissent and ensure compliance. It provides that the Board will “monitor” a Board member, something it already does in part by scanning a member’ college email account.  Key excerpts include:

  • “The Board provides visible public support for the President, does not undermine his/her authority and counters misinformed public criticism.”

  • “Under no circumstances should an individual Board member direct or contact by any means, a staff member concerning a college or community issue.”

  • “The Board understands that the President is the primary contact with the college community and does not publicly criticize the President.”

  • The Board will monitor inappropriate behavior of the Board as a whole and individual Board members, and take appropriate corrective action-when necessary. 

These provisions crystallize the administration’s intent to silence opposition and maintain its dominance, even at the expense of democratic governance.

The following is the draft resolution:

Proposed New District Governing Board Policy

Policy 310 Yavapai College Code of Conduct and Ethics 

The Board expects of itself, as a whole and of its individual members, ethical and professional conduct. This commitment includes proper use of authority and appropriate decorum in group and individual behavior when acting as Board members. The Board shall: 

Enforce upon itself whatever discipline is needed to govern with excellence. Discipline will apply to matters such as abiding by Board Policy, respect of roles, abiding by the  majority’s decisions and adherence to ethical practices. 

The Board will protect the mission of student learning and student success as they protect the long-term interests of the college. 

Yavapai College District Governing Board will demonstrate a commitment to informed, ethical decision-making based on what is best for the students, the college and the community– not on special interests or personal agendas. Members will review Boad materials provided, attend scheduled meetings, and request data and information  through protocols established by the Board in conjunction with the President. 

In addition: 

Per Yavapai College Board Policy 401, Delegation to and Accountability of President, the Governing Board has delegated the day-to-day management of Yavapai College to the President. Therefore, 

The Board acknowledges the difference between governance and administration of the college. The Board’s primary function is to establish the policies by which the college shall be administered. The authority for overall college administration, to initiate policy recommendations, administer academic programs, conduct college business, direct staff and faculty, and implement board actions is delegated to the college president. Yavapai College District Governing members will respect the delegation of authority to the president to administer the college. 

The Board provides visible public support for the President, does not undermine his/her authority and counters misinformed public criticism. 

The Board is responsible for creating and maintaining a spirit of cooperation and a mutually supportive relationship with its president. Yavapai College District Governing Board will promote a healthy working relationship with college president through respectful, supportive, open and honest communication. 

Authority rests with the entire board and not individuals. The Board’s voice is only expressed through the policies and actions it takes in the official meetings. Once the Board has decided on a policy or position, each Board member must be prepared to honor the Board’s decision. As individuals, YCDGB members have no legal authority to determine policies, programs, or procedures, or to direct the President or any staff. 

Under no circumstances should an individual Board member direct or contact by any means, a staff member concerning a college or community issue. Board members will refer all of their concerns and constituent concerns via email to the President to resolve or   answer. Board members never speak or act on behalf of the college, unless instructed to do so by a majority vote of the Board. 

The Board understands that the President is the primary contact with the college community and does not publicly criticize the President. 

The Board will maintain appropriate confidentiality of all executive {closed} sessions, as required by Arizona state statutes, 38-431.03. 

The Board will monitor inappropriate behavior of the Board as a whole and individual Board members, and take appropriate corrective action-when necessary. 

Board members do not speak to the press in any way that reflects negatively on their colleagues or the college. 

The Board should be knowledgeable of the Higher Learning Commissions Criteria for Accreditation, especially as it relates to the Board (see HLC Criteria 2.5). Therefore, the Board’s performance as a whole and as individuals has the potential to positively and/or negatively affect accreditation. 

YCDGB will devote time to activities that will enhance their knowledge of the college, and higher educations’ issues as they engage in a regular and ongoing process of professional development, continuous improvement, self-assessment, and participate in college events as appropriate. 

YAVAPAI COLLEGE DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD

RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY TO PRESIDENT

RESOLUTION 2024-18

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the District Governing Board is the legally constituted and final authority for the operation of Yavapai County Community College District, including any policies that govern the College; 

WHEREAS, the Board’s sole official connection to the operational organization, its achievement, and conduct is through the College President; 

WHEREAS, only officially passed motions of the Board shall be binding on the President; 

WHEREAS, The President shall be the Board’s only link to operational achievement and conduct, so that all authority and accountability of staff, as far as the Board is concerned, shall be considered the authority and accountability of the President; 

WHEREAS, In the case of Board members requesting information or assistance without Board authorization, the President shall refuse such requests that require, in the President’s opinion, a material amount of staff time or funds or are disruptive; 

WHEREAS, The Board shall instruct the President through written policies which prescribe the organizational priorities to be achieved, allowing the President to use a reasonable interpretation of these policies; 

WHEREAS, the Board fully understands proper use of authority including the clear distinction of Board and Staff roles and collective rather than individual authority of the Board; 

WHEREAS, the Board acts consistent with its own policies and those imposed upon it by law and regulations; 

ENACTMENTS: 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND REAFFIRMED that the Yavapai County Community College District Governing Board Pursuant to A.R.S. 15-1444(A)(6) & (B)(4), delegates to the College President all of its authority to operate the college and employ, except for any actions taken with regard to a contract of employment for the position of College President. The Board will exercise authority over the College and the President only as they operate with one voice as a whole. Individual Board members will abide by and uphold majority decisions of the Board. 

This shall be based on the following principles: 

YAVAPAI COLLEGE 

  1. Accordingly, decisions or instructions of individual Board members, or officers shall not be binding on the President except in rare instances when the Board has specifically authorized such exercise of authority. 
  2. The Board shall not evaluate, either formally or informally, any staff other than the President. 3. The President shall be authorized to establish all college operational policies, make all decisions, take all actions, establish all practices, and develop all activities. 
  3. As long as any particular delegation is in place, the Board shall respect and support the President’s choices. 

NOW, BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Governing Board delegates to the President such additional authority as is necessary to ensure that College operations meet the changing needs of our students and employers. 

The Governing Board shall retain all powers and duties as prescribed by law that are not formally delegated in this Resolution or Board Policies. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Yavapai County Community College District Governing Board this 19th day of November 2024. 

Approved as to form: 

Ms. Deb McCasland, Board Chair 

Mr. Chris Kuknyo, Board Secretary

YAVAPAI COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT TIM CARTER SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR OPEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD SEAT CREATED BY CHRIS KUKNYO’S RESIGNATION (DISTRICT 4)

Deadline to show interest is December 2

Yavapai County School Superintendent Tim Carter has initiated the process of filling the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board seat soon to be vacated by District 4 representative Chris Kuknyo. This District includes North Prescott, Chino Valley, Paulden, Ash Fork, Seligman, and surrounding areas. Kuknyo will remain on the Board until December 31, 2024, and the new appointment is expected to be finalized and announced by December 18, 2024.

Application Details
Individuals interested in serving on the Board are invited to submit a letter of interest and a resume to Superintendent Tim Carter at the Yavapai County Education Service Agency. Submissions can be sent to the following address:

  • Mail: 2970 Centerpointe East, Prescott, AZ 86301
  • Fax: 928-771-3329
  • Email: [email protected]

Applicants should include details about their background, including family, education, and work experience, as well as an explanation of why they wish to join the Board. The letter must also include the applicant’s residence and mailing address, email address, and home/work phone numbers. Additionally, candidates may submit up to three letters of recommendation.

The deadline for submitting all materials is Monday, December 2, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.

Selection Process
A five-person committee will review all applications, resumes, and any letters of recommendation. The committee will include:

  1. A taxpayer.
  2. A faculty member.
  3. A student.
  4. An elected official.
  5. A workforce development professional.

This committee will shortlist candidates for interviews, establish interview questions, and conduct the interviews on December 13, 2024. Afterward, they will recommend finalists for Superintendent Carter’s consideration.

Before making the final selection, Carter will consult individually with the currently seated Yavapai College Governing Board members to gather their input on the finalists. However, this process raises a notable issue: outgoing Board member Ray Sigafoos, who was defeated in the recent election, will participate in candidate discussions, while newly elected Board member William Kiel, who begins his term in January 2025, will not.

Eligibility Criteria
To be eligible for the District 4 seat, applicants must meet the following qualifications:

  • Be a registered voter residing in District 4.
  • Be a U.S. citizen at least 18 years of age.
  • Have civil rights intact.
  • Neither the applicant nor their spouse may be employed by the college district.

This is a non-partisan seat, and the appointment process will adhere to the statutory requirements.

YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD TO HOLD A MEETING AT THE ROCK HOUSE ON THE PRESCOTT CAMPUS ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, BEGINNING AT 1:00 P.M.

The meeting is anticipated to run about three hours; this is the last meeting of 2024 where business will be discussed

The Yavapai Community College District Governing Board will hold a meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 2024, at the Rock House on the Prescott  Campus. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. and is expected to last approximately three hours. A live video stream will be available on YouTube.

The agenda normally includes an Open Call to the Public, allowing residents and other attendees an opportunity to address the Governing Board at the beginning of the meeting. Individuals wishing to speak should complete a “Request to Speak” form and submit it to the Recording Secretary prior to speaking. Speakers should be prepared to limit their remarks to the allotted time, which is usually three minutes.

Under Arizona law, the public has the right to attend, listen, record, or videotape these meetings. While attendees may not disrupt the meeting, they are welcome to speak during the Call to the Public. For further details, see Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. No. I78-001.

The agenda for the meeting is normally withheld from the public until almost the last minute that is legally allowable.  You can view the agenda when it is finally posted on Monday at https://www.yc.edu/v6/district-governing-board/sub/2024/11/index.html.

It is noted that this is the last meeting of 2024 where business will be discussed.

YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE SEEKS ACCREDITATION FOR CONTROVERSIAL 92-CREDIT B.A. DEGREE, CHALLENGING 125-YEAR STANDARD — GOVERNING BOARD APPROVES AMID MINIMAL SCRUTINY

Driven by the competitive market for students,  Yavapai Community College aims to be first in nation to Earn Higher Learning Commission Accreditation for 92-Credit B.A.—Recognition by other institutions remains uncertain if HLC approves

Colleges and universities typically require 120 credits for a B.A. degree, as this standard reflects the nation-wide amount of study time deemed necessary for comprehensive understanding in a subject area. This requirement includes both general education courses across various disciplines and focused coursework within a chosen major. The 120 credits are intended to ensure students graduate with adequate preparation for the workforce, balancing broad education with specialized knowledge in their field.

The 120-credit benchmark also facilitates easier transfer of credits between institutions and maintains consistency in academic expectations. While 120 credits is the standard minimum, some programs require over 140 credits to meet specific professional or academic demands. This 120-credit standard was established about 125 years ago to bring uniformity to college education in the United States.

A student typically needs 60 credit hours to obtain an Associate in Arts (AA) degree at Yavapai Community College. This is designed for transferring to a baccalaureate-granting institution.

According to the Community College’s October 30, 2024, news release, “Yavapai [Community] College is endeavoring to change the traditional dynamics of higher education with a new Optimized 92-credit Bachelor of Applied Science in Business Degree, designed to be completed within three years.” The 92 hour requirement will provide students “with the opportunity to create optimized bachelor’s degrees that are more affordable and reduce the completion time for students. This new opportunity will allow students to complete a degree in three years rather than four.”

The press release further states that “Yavapai Community] College has positioned itself to be the first community college in the country to offer a reduced credit baccalaureate degree. The College has undergone its curriculum process, and the Yavapai College District Governing Board unanimously approved the degree at its October meeting. The degree must go through the HLC approval process, and if all goes well, it will launch for the fall 2025 semester.”

VOTERS BOOT 20-YEAR VETERAN YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT #1 REPRESENTATIVE RAY SIGAFOOS FROM GOVERNING BOARD IN NOVEMBER ELECTION

Voter concerns over large increases in property tax rates and a Community College west side  wasteful spending spree appear main factors among many that were behind William Kiel’s successful challenge

William Kiel

William Kiel unseated Ray Sigafoos as the District 1 representative on the Yavapai Community College Governing Board, ushering in a possible shift for the institution. Kiel, a civil engineer with a Master of Science in Civil Engineering, criticized the Board for engaging in what he described as wasteful spending. He pointed to several controversial decisions, including the Board’s move to raise property tax rates by 8.4% over the past two years, expand the budget by 155% within the same timeframe, and allocate $11 million for a church camp outside Prescott.

Kiel also took issue with President Dr. Lisa Rhine’s salary, which he suggests is approaching $400,000, questioning why the exact figure remains undisclosed to county voters. As an example of further waste, he cited the CTEC building, where “literally hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of equipment made of carbon steel is rusting away” due to the use of swamp coolers rather than adequate air conditioning—an oversight he suggests may cost taxpayers dearly.

Kiel has pledged to improve transparency with a goal of increasing  public access to information both at the Board and administration levels.

Sigafoos, who served the Governing Board for twenty years, leaves a legacy that includes seven years as Board chair and two as Board secretary, following his appointment in 2005.

YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE IS FAILING SEDONA AND THE VERDE VALLEY WHEN IT COMES TO MUSIC EDUCATION

Associate of Arts in Fine Arts degree with a concentration in Music is offered but virtually all classes taught in Prescott – Chorales, bands, Symphony Orchestra, jazz ensembles, individual instruction and more not offered in Sedona/Verde Valley with exception of two voice classes

OPINION: For over 50 years, Yavapai Community College leadership has focused its efforts on building an extensive music program exclusively on the Prescott Campus. Throughout this time, it has neglected to make similarly accessible music instruction reasonably available to students in other parts of Yavapai County. With the approval of the District Governing Board, this concentrated effort has resulted in a full range of music courses being offered solely in Prescott—such as music theory, piano classes, music appreciation, private lessons, and performance ensembles. This focus has also produced impressive student music groups, including the Master Chorale, Community Chorale, Women’s Chorale, Chamber Singers, Concert Band, Symphonic Band, Symphony Orchestra, and Jazz ensembles, providing students with opportunities to develop their musical talents collaboratively. Additionally, the Community College now offers an Associate of Arts in Fine Arts degree with a concentration in Music—yet music instruction in person is provided only on the Prescott Campus.

The lack of reasonable opportunities for music education outside the Prescott Campus can be traced to several key failures: the logistical barriers posed by the county’s vast geography, the absence of public or college-provided transportation, frequently hazardous travel conditions between the county’s east and west sides, and a glaring disregard for the realities of Community College student life beyond Prescott. These factors collectively demonstrate a profound disconnect between college leadership and the needs of students outside Prescott.

The Expansive Reach of Yavapai County

It seems Yavapai College’s leadership is oblivious to the fact that its district spans all 8,125 square miles of Yavapai County—an area larger than several entire U.S. states. For context, this landmass exceeds Connecticut (5,543 square miles, with 12 colleges and universities), Delaware (1,982 square miles, with three), Rhode Island (1,214 square miles, with three), and nearly matches New Jersey (8,723 square miles, with 19). Even Israel, slightly larger at 8,550 square miles, supports ten universities and 53 colleges. Yet, despite this vast expanse, Yavapai College leadership and its Governing Board have concentrated the music program solely on the Prescott Campus, apparently because of its higher population density. This failure to consider the realities of the county’s geographic scale and the resulting accessibility issues for students outside Prescott is baffling. This centralized approach effectively excludes students from Sedona and the Verde Valley, denying them meaningful access to music instruction.

Geographic Barriers and Accessibility Challenges

In addition to the vast size of the county, a major barrier to student access to music classes in Prescott is the mountainous divide separating Yavapai County’s east and west sides. The Black Mountain Range splits the county, creating an almost impassable obstacle for some students. Only two routes connect Sedona and the Verde Valley on the east side to Prescott on the west. Interstate 17—a four-lane highway—is the only reliable, year-round option. The alternative, Highway 89A, is a narrow, winding mountain road that crosses the 7,000-foot Mingus Mountain. Frequently treacherous with snow, ice, or dense fog, Highway 89A is the shortest route for students from Jerome, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, Verde Villages, and Sedona to reach the Prescott Campus.  Given the massive size of the County and the limited roads available on which to travel, a student may face an arduous and sometimes highly dangerous 90 to 150-mile round trip from his or her home to the Prescott Campus. 

Barriers to Student Success

Another major barrier to student access to music classes is the District Governing Board’s failure to account for the real-life circumstances of students across Yavapai County. Although the Board frequently claims its mission is to serve students and support their success, the lack of accessible music education for students in Sedona and the Verde Valley tells a different story. Many students juggle part- or full-time jobs and family obligations, making lengthy commutes to Prescott impossible. For some, transportation is an added hurdle, with no inter-campus transit options provided by the Community College. Rising fuel costs further compound the financial strain.

Moreover, Yavapai Community College has acknowledged that nearly 20% of its student body faces partial or complete homelessness, exacerbating these challenges. For these students, the lack of resources and stability makes regular travel to Prescott unfeasible, underscoring the inequity in the College’s centralized approach to its music program and its failure to recognize the diverse realities of its entire student body.

Conclusion:

Yavapai Community College’s centralized music program on the Prescott Campus starkly contrasts with its stated mission to serve all students and foster their success. By investing resources solely in Prescott, the College sends a message that educational opportunities in music—and perhaps other programs—are only for those who can access the West side of Yavapai County. This approach disregards the unique needs and challenges of students from Sedona and the Verde Valley, who must contend with long, costly, and sometimes dangerous commutes if they wish to participate.

Moreover, by neglecting these regions, Yavapai College risks leaving behind talented students who could enrich its music programs. Those in Sedona and the Verde Valley deserve a reasonably equal opportunity to pursue music education within their own communities.

It’s time for Yavapai College to live up to its responsibilities as a district-wide institution, investing in infrastructure and program accessibility across the county. Without meaningful steps toward inclusivity, the Community College’s promises to support every student’s success will remain unfulfilled, and the Sedona and Verde Valley communities will continue to shoulder the burden of being underserved. Only by broadening its approach to education can Yavapai Community College truly claim to represent and support all students within its reach.

TUITION INCREASE REQUESTED BY COLLEGE LEADERSHIP OF ABOUT 5% FOR COMING ACADEMIC YEAR QUICKLY APPROVED BY DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD

No student input and District Governing Board members asked no questions prior to making  decision

Tuition increases at Yavapai Community College are annually approved by the District Governing Board with little significant questioning, discussion, or commentary. The meeting on October 29, concerning the requested tuition increase for the 2025-2026 academic year, was no exception. It mirrored last year’s presentation of the topic, which lasted just eight minutes.  This year, the presentation and Board vote took only twelve minutes of the meeting.

Tuition increase

The average increases this year will be around five percent.  In addition to the increases, several classes were moved from tier 1 to tier 2, where the tuition per credit hour is higher.  For example, a tier one student taking 12 semester credits will now pay about $60 more in total.  A tier two student taking 12 semester credits will pay about $72 more in total. A tier three student (Career and Technical Education) will pay about $84 more per semester.

Aviation courses have been increased by 12.1% (commercial) and 31.5% (private pilot). Administrative fees were increased from anywhere from $10 to $95 per request depending on what was asked to be furnished.

According to the College, the various tuition increases in total will bring in about $705,550 of badly needed new money. It is noted that the College also anticipates an overall growth of 7% in students.  If Community College estimates turn out to be correct, this will bring in about $1,037159 in additional revenue in 25-26.

Reasons for student input – lack of discussion

There was no discussion during the Governing Board meeting regarding seeking student input on the tuition increase prior to the vote raising them. That seems unfortunate.

Many agree that when a Community College Governing  Board considers raising student tuition, gathering substantial student input is invaluable for an informed decision. For example, students can offer firsthand insight into how a tuition increase may impact their education, financial stability, and long-term prospects. Hearing from students allows the Board to gauge whether an increase might impose undue hardship, potentially leading to higher dropout rates or declining enrollment, which can ultimately affect the College’s reputation and financial health.

Additionally, student input fosters transparency and trust. It ensures that that those directly affected by such decisions feel heard and valued. This collaborative approach often results in policies that better balance the institution’s financial needs with the students’ welfare, reinforcing a sense of shared responsibility and community within the college.

Reasons for rejecting student input

Possibly the Yavapai Community College Board members believe that consulting students, who may not have complete financial knowledge, could hinder the decision-making process or create unrealistic expectations regarding the Community College’s economic limitations. However, no Board member has suggested that this is the reason there was no student input.

More likely the Governing Board avoided student input because of  the potential for strong opposition, which could delay or complicate the process. Tuition hikes are almost always unpopular among students, and Yavapai’s Board might anticipate that consultations will spark protests or public backlash, shifting the focus away from what they consider the Community College’s long-term interests. The Board may feel  that decisions should be made based on impartial analysis rather than emotional appeals, believing that such an approach allows for a more objective evaluation of the college’s needs.

The Board provided no explanation for excluding student input, leaving the public unaware of its stance on the issue. This issue should have been openly discussed before the decision was made. Its omission, at best, is regrettable.

GOVERNING BOARD HOLDS THIRD SECRET EXECUTIVE MEETING ON PURCHASE OR LEASE OF MORE LAND IN PRESCOTT AT OCTOBER 29, 2024 MEETING

Delays the start of the business meeting by over an hour to accommodate a lawyer, disregarding residents and others who had driven long distances to attend

Once again, Yavapai Community College District Governing Board members were summoned by the Community College leadership into a closed executive session to discuss the potential land purchase or land lease in Prescott. This secretive meeting, which delayed the start of the general meeting by over an hour, required a last-minute agenda change, moving the executive session from its original position as the final agenda item.

Residents and other attendees, some who had traveled considerable distances, were left waiting while the Board deliberated behind closed doors. Notably, Third District representative Toby Payne cast the only dissenting vote against the abrupt agenda change.

This marks the third meeting in just over a month where land acquisition in Prescott has been quietly discussed in a closed session. At a similar meeting on October 17, the Board instructed Dr. Clint Ewell to proceed with negotiations for acquiring more property in the Prescott area.

Meanwhile, the community remains entirely in the dark as to why Yavapai Community College believes additional land in Prescott is necessary, especially given the existing campus facilities and the lack of any publicized plans for expansion or new programming. With no clear explanation from the College about how this purchase aligns with its mission or benefits taxpayers across Yavapai County, residents are left questioning whether their interests and those of outlying communities like Sedona and the Verde Valley are being fairly considered. This lack of transparency only deepens public frustration, as the College leadership continues to operate behind closed doors, making decisions with far-reaching implications without consulting or informing those directly impacted.  

DOES YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE’S DEVOTION TO SPORTS ACTIVELY DETRACT FROM ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO SERVE ALL YAVAPAI COUNTY RESIDENTS—NOT JUST THOSE IN PRESCOTT?

Equity nonexistent, rural/semi rural educational needs and cultural investments outside Prescott go  unmet while millions poured into developing  athletic programs on Prescott Campus

OPINION

Bloated Athletic Program

Editor: Robert Oliphant

Yavapai Community College’s athletic department has grown into a costly enterprise, with head coaches and their assistants overseeing women’s softball, volleyball, men’s and women’s basketball, women’s soccer, men’s soccer, baseball, and E-sports. This program consumes millions of dollars annually and involves over 160 athletes, 20 coaches and assistants, and three athletic trainers. Most of these athletes are housed in residence halls on the Prescott campus, with many receiving scholarships funded either by the College’s Foundation or directly from the General Fund. The Foundation has even dedicated at least one staff member to focus almost exclusively on raising funds for athlete scholarships. There are large travel budgets along with maintenance costs for  upkeep of offices, training facilities, and related matters. It is a bloated program for a Community College! 

Concentration of Resources on or near Prescott Campus

All athletic facilities are located on or near the Prescott side of Yavapai County, and with few exceptions, nearly every game and match take place there. This concentration effectively alienates residents from the east side of the County, who rarely attend these events. The east side’s local newspapers offer little to no coverage for the teams, and there is no public or private transportation available for those east side residents who might want to attend an event. This setup not only isolates a significant portion of the County but also demonstrates how the small Community College caters almost exclusively to the Prescott area.

Ignored Recruitment Mandate

In a Verde Independent commentary published September 7, 2022, Yavapai Community College District Governing Board Chair Deb McCasland revealed that the athletic department was directed five years earlier to prioritize recruiting local talent. A mandate was imposed requiring that 25% of athletes be recruited from local high schools. Coaches were also told that the College would reduce support for out-of-state and international athletes while increasing scholarships for local students. McCasland noted that three coaches left the College, apparently  blatantly ignoring this directive.

The problem is that even now, the Community College continues to defy its own mandate. Out of about 160 athletes on the most current rosters, a mere 20 are from Yavapai County—just 13%. Shockingly, only one of these local athletes is from the east side of the County (1-160). Meanwhile, the number of foreign athletes has increased. The mandate has been all but abandoned, with little accountability for those now responsible.

Staggering costs and Misplaced Priorities

The costs of maintaining Yavapai Community College’s athletic programs are staggering. Millions of dollars are funneled into facilities, equipment, coaching salaries, scholarships, and travel, all while vital academic programs on the east side of the County are underfunded or never developed. This reckless expenditure diverts essential resources away from the College’s core mission: education. In an institution with a constrained budget, athletics should not consume such a disproportionate share of funds. More money must be funneled toward academic programs, student services, and workforce training—particularly in rural and economically struggling areas of the county.

Betrayal of the Educational Mission

Yavapai Community College was founded to provide affordable education and vocational training, offering students a stepping stone to four-year institutions. Yet the inflated focus on athletics undermines this purpose. Rather than striving for academic and vocational excellence, the College has opted to imitate large universities’ commercialized athletic programs. This approach is a blatant misalignment of priorities. As a community college, Yavapai should focus on programs and capital development that directly benefit students’ educational and career goals, not on a bloated athletic department that serves only a fraction of the student body.

Minimal Impact on Student Success

While a small group of student-athletes may benefit from the College’s athletic programs, the vast majority of students see no direct return. Yavapai Community College is not a residential university; many of its students are part-time, commuting, and balancing work and family responsibilities. For these students, athletics are largely irrelevant. The enormous financial investment in athletics does little to improve their educational experience or future career prospects, raising serious questions about the program’s overall value. Simply put, the return on investment for the broader student population is negligible.

Equity and Accessibility Issues

Yavapai Community College’s athletics program disproportionately benefits a privileged few—student-athletes—while the majority of the student population County-wide is neglected. This creates glaring equity and accessibility issues. In a time of limited resources, the College should be focusing on inclusive programs that serve a broader cross-section of students, such as expanding tutoring, career counseling,  job placement services, and vocational training.  Instead, resources are being squandered on athletics, which cater to only a small, select group of students.

Neglect of Rural and Semi-Urban Communities

The College’s fixation on athletics has led to the neglect of the rural and semi-urban areas of the County, particularly the east side. Yavapai has failed to invest meaningfully in the Sedona Center, which was once poised to become a thriving film institute before being gutted by the College’s leadership. Only two cooking courses a semester are being offered at the Sedona culinary school. The Sedona Center is now a shadow of what it could have been. Most recently, the administration has diverted crucial funds to build a student residence facility on the Verde Valley campus, listed by its own experts as a priority, while scrapping other projects that could have made a real impact in the Sedona and Verde Valley areas. Simultaneously, it has been pumping millions into further development on the west side of the County. Among abandoned east side initiatives are the development of a major distillery training program and a commercial truck driving school—both of which were identified as critical needs by experts hired by the College. The leadership’s disregard for the needs of rural/semi-urban  communities is nothing short of a betrayal.

Conclusion

While supporters claim that athletics promote student engagement, provide scholarships, build life skills, foster community, and enhance student health, these supposed benefits are confined to the Prescott side of the County. The overwhelming focus on athletics on the Prescott Campus not only strains the College’s already-limited budget but also misaligns with its core mission of providing affordable, high-quality education to the entire County. Most disturbingly, the College’s devotion to sports actively detracts from its responsibility to serve all Yavapai County residents—not just those in Prescott. It is time for Yavapai Community College to realign its priorities and focus on what truly matters: education, opportunity, serious capital development outside the Prescott area, and equity for every student, not just a select few.