Board refuses to allow Representative Chevalier to ask certain questions at January  meeting where Board briefed on financial matters; then  refuses to allow him to put the matter about that area on Board Agenda for discussion at February meeting

Paul Chevalier

The Yavapai Community College District Governing Board has decided to clamp down on Representative Paul Chevalier’s efforts to bring into public  view a  more detailed understanding of how the College Administration is spending taxpayer money.  Over the past several meetings Chevalier  has tried in a number of ways to publicly discuss budgetary matters with his questions often being gaveled down as out-of-order or a matter  the Board does not discuss, at least in Public.  He has repeatedly been told to contact the College President rather than have the matter openly discussed during a Board meeting.

An example of the controversy came at the very outset of Tuesday’s meeting. (See video below.) He sought to have an item he had been told he could not publicly discuss at the January  meeting (See January meeting video clip below) and had asked that it be placed on the agenda for open discussion at the February 9 meeting. He had followed his January request with a phone call and letter request to place the matter on the Agenda to the Board Chair. 

Below is the statement he read to the Governing Board on February 9 regarding the Agenda item.   

The Chair ruled the matter was not appropriate for Board public discussion and was supported by a 4-1 vote from the other members of the Governing Board. 

A video clip below contains  the complete discussion about  the issue at the February 9 meeting. It is followed by  a second video clip from the January meeting where the issue was first raised by Mr. Chevalier. 

                           STATEMENT BY MR. PAUL CHEVALIER TO GOVERNING BOARD

February Bd Mtg 1.3 Adoption of Agenda

I move that this agenda not be adopted.  I would like to explain why I am making this motion.  But for me to be able to talk I need a Board member to second my motion so we can have discussion. Seconding the motion does not commit you to vote for it. Will one of you second my motion for discussion? I believe some of you will find my explanation valuable.

Thank you. I will now explain why I made this motion.

At our January budget work session meeting the college presented in the Board packet a glossary of terms it uses. I wished to ask some questions about that glossary so I could understand it better but I was told that as it was not on the agenda I could not ask questions. I thought that since it was in the packet the college presented to the Board I should have been able to ask for an explanation of some of the terms. Our chair said it was not on the agenda.

 I then asked that it be put on the February Board agenda.  I cited Board Policy 3.4.3.3, which states “ any Board member who wishes to put an item on the agenda should so through the Board Chair. If it is a Board Issue it will be placed on the next Board agenda.”

I followed up my oral request with one in writing.

A week later the Board Chair asked me in an e-mail why I wanted to discuss apart of the glossary. I responded to her as follows; “To ask questions about items listed in the glossary so that I am sure I understand them. “

Last week I received the following response from the Chair.

“Paul your proposed questions on this report are not issues our Board would consider or decide. “

On that basis my request was not included in this agenda and therefore the agenda should not be approved.

The Chair’s decision is of grave concern to me.  The Chair appears to believe that if the Board delegates something to the college it is no longer a Board issue.  The Chair stated that something is not a Board issue if the Board would not consider or decide. It.   

The chair is wrong. Let me give you a real life example. A few years ago the former President’s administration fired an employer who brought a lawsuit stating he was fired illegally.  This lawsuit was not brought against the President it was brought against the Board even though the Board had delegated firing of college employees to the College President and it is an issue our Board has never consider or decide.

This lawsuit was lawfully brought against the Board because in fact it is a Board issue. The Arizona Legislature made our Board the one and only governing body of this college. As this lawsuit clearly illustrates our Board cannot escape its governing responsibilities by delegating matters to the college. The law is clear  – our Board remains accountable for anything the college says, writes or does.

You and I individually have a right to put on our Board agenda anything the college does, says or writes. I asked to do this not for the purpose of to take away college delegation, but simply to ask questions and for discussion. The Chair’s decision to deny this to me violates our policy.

 Do I like impeding our going forward with this agenda? Of course not. But I am out of options to right this wrong unless the Chair will now agree to honor my request on the next Board agenda. In that case I will withdraw my motion.  If not, I ask for your support for my motion. I know that may be hard for you. It was hard for me to write this. But if we fail to correct wrongs that is how the public representation gets hurt and eventually democracy dies.