Board Lawyer and McCasland interrupt and quash Kiel’s effort to explain why he felt McCasland was not qualified with attorney suggesting his statement (questions) were denigrating McCasland and McCasland ruled him out of order

Deb McCasland was re-elected as the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board Chair by a 3-2 vote, defeating Third District Representative Toby Payne. In the same meeting, District 5 Representative Steve Bracety was chosen as Board Secretary. The election occurred during the District Governing Board’s workshop January 14.

The election process  turned contentious when newly elected Bill Kiel attempted to explain how his initial interactions with McCasland had negatively shaped his view of her leadership. Before he could fully elaborate on what occurred, both McCasland and the Board attorney interrupted him on several occasions. At one point McCasland ruled him out of order and the Board attorney suggested  he was denigrating McCasland when discussing her negative behavior. She forcefully directed him to concentrate on Toby Payne’s qualifications, not Ms. McCasland’s negatives.

 The following is a rough transcription of a portion of the exchange between Kiel, McCasland, and the Board attorney:

Kiel:  “At the last Board meeting . . .”

McCasland interrupts:  “We’re talking about the election?”

Kiel referring to Ms. McCasland:  “Yes, yes. Right now I want to talk about an interaction between you and I.”

McCasland interrupts:  “It is not relevant.”

 Kiel: It is  relevant to this. At the last Board meeting (in November after he had just been elected) I introduced myself to you and I said I look forward to a positive and productive meeting.  I want to know why you told me that you doubt that we could have a positive and productive. . . .”

Board attorney:  “O.K. We’re moving, moving on now.  You can make a statement (McCasland in background also attempting to interrupt) but this is not a deposition. “

McCasland:  “No.”

Board attorney:  “You can make your statement but you’re not asking her a question.  (“remainder unclear”)

 Kiel addressing McCasland: (McCasland continues talking in background)  “I don’t understand why you tell me that you doubted that we could have a positive and professional relationship? I sent you on twelve eighteen . . .

McCasland:  Sir, you are out of order.

Kiel:  No, I am not. This goes to why I . . .

Board attorney interrupts:  “Mr. Payne, Let’s focus on Mr. Payne.  And why you think  he is appropriate as opposed to denigrating your fellow board member.” 

Kiel attempting to proceed:  “on twelve twenty-eighteen and last Sunday I emailed Ms. McCasland and asked her for . . .”

McCasland interrupting:  “This has nothing  to do with . . .”

Kiel:  “This has everything to do it . . .”

Board attorney interrupted:  “Mr. Kiel, focus on why Mr. Payne is appropriate. We do not need to denigrate the current chair . . .”

Kiel:  I’m not denigrating her, I just saying the current chair is not doing what is required . . .”

McCasland interjecting:  “Then I think you’ve made you point.”

Board attorney interrupting Kiel:  “Then you’re done.  So focus on Mr. Payne. He’s got a lot of positive qualities.  I’m sure we could talk about that as opposed to talking about what you believe Ms. McCasland’s negative qualities are.  Focus on Mr. Payne and why you nominated him and believe he would be appropriate.”

McCasland, nominated for her third consecutive two-year term by Bracety, argued that her extensive experience made her the most qualified candidate. She cited her five years of service as Chair and national recognition. (McCasland was named Trustee of the Year by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) at its 2023 annual meeting in Denver, Colorado.) McCasland later nominated Bracety to serve as Secretary.

The deciding vote for McCasland came from newly appointed Representative Patrick Kuykendall, who indicated  that he has known the McCasland family for some time and applauded their civic involvement.

Arguments for Change in Leadership

Kiel, who nominated Payne for Chair, voiced concerns about the Board’s longstanding leadership practices. During his campaign, he said he met many constituents dissatisfied with how funds were distributed across districts. He argued that electing a Chair from District 3 would demonstrate goodwill (and to some extent  address historical imbalances).

Kiel also noted that District 3 had not been represented in the Chair role for at least 15 years, a precedent he considered troubling. Drawing on his 20 years of experience on various boards, Kiel remarked that it was unusual for a governing board to retain the same Chair for multiple consecutive terms. He advocated for leadership rotation, which, he argued, fosters fresh perspectives, promotes collaboration, and develops leadership skills among board members. He added that having multiple members with experience as Chair enhances stability, especially in cases of unforeseen circumstances such as illness or resignation.

Chair McCasland’s letter lacks clarity and substance while ignoring controversial Policy 310, which has resulted in numerous articles and comments raising concerns over chilling free speech by threatening to fire any of the 500 to 1,000 full or part-time College employees who dare to communicate with any Governing Board member

Robert E. Oliphant

OPINION: Yavapai Community College president, Dr. Lisa Rhine, recently forwarded a letter to the Community College’s staff and others written by Yavapai Community College District Governing Board Chair Deb McCasland. In the letter, McCasland warned about “false information” being publicly disseminated, claiming the misinformation was coming from “illegitimate blogs, websites, social media, and opinionated news organizations.”

The most obvious failure of the letter was this: At best it was extremely vague. It lacked any specifics about the alleged misinformation she claimed was being disseminated. It failed to identify any of the media sources she deemed unreliable.  It provided no context whatsoever.

The glaring omissions in the letter cast significant doubt on the credibility and intent behind the claims. These omissions are especially troubling given her sweeping condemnation of the local news media—or is she even making such a condemnation? The lack of clarity leaves readers guessing.

When making such broad accusations, it seems to me that it is critical to identify the supposed false information and provide evidence to substantiate the broad claims being asserted. The letter should have named the various alleged “illegitimate blogs, websites, social media, and opinionated news organizations.” Without this information, the letter comes across as baseless and unhelpful. It is impossible to evaluate the validity of her warnings.

Notably, the letter sidestepped addressing the controversial Governing Board Policy 310, which has sparked significant commentary in the local news in recent weeks. Policy 310, enacted by a 4-1 vote of the outgoing Board in November, includes a contentious clause stating: “Under no circumstances should an individual Board member direct or contact by any means, a staff member concerning a college or community issue.” Critics, including this Blog, argue that this policy undermines the elected Board member’s role as representatives of Yavapai County taxpayers. It also reflects a troubling lack of trust in Board members and imposes what some see as an inappropriate or at least “chilling” restraint on free speech. The College disagrees.

Of interest, the letter written by McCasland briefly referenced Board Policy 401, a restatement of an existing policy that has not attracted notable controversy. By contrast, the ongoing public discussions and commentary have focused on Policy 310 and its implications.

Moreover, McCasland appeared determined to remind employees that President Rhine wielded nearly unchecked authority over them and anything classified by her as “operations.” However, McCasland’s remarks appeared to veer off course at times. She seemed to vaguely insinuate that the “misinformation” she mentioned in her letter was somehow tied to criticism of the staff’s exceptional work. Consider her statement:

“Despite what you may read in illegitimate blogs and websites, on social media, or from unsourced and opinionated ‘news’ organizations, your work is unmatched and life-changing. I would encourage you to disregard anything that alludes otherwise. Do not even entertain it.”

Yet, The Blog has found no recent articles publicly critical of staff. This statement, then, resembles what some might call a “red herring”—an attempt to mislead or distract. The fact is that recent commentary has been directed at the College’s executive leadership, particularly the troubling fixation on secrecy, suppression of free speech, and various financial and procurement practices.

In sum, Chair McCasland’ s decision to broadly dismiss criticism as “false information” without examples or context undermines her letter’s credibility. Instead of fostering transparency and addressing valid concerns, the letter appears to deflect attention away from legitimate issues while failing to provide clarity or constructive guidance.

The letter forwarded  to staff and others by the president is found immediately below: