Dispute centers on whether Chair honored Representative Payne’s good faith agenda requests, as apparently required under Board Policy. Critics claim Chair prefers to discuss broad policy rather than specifically focus on the items brought to her attention by Payne

Third District Representative Toby Payne

Yavapai Community College District Governing Board Chairwoman Deb McCasland is facing renewed criticism for actions that may limit the authority of elected board members and consolidate power among unelected administrators. The criticism arises from her handling of a written request submitted to her on January 19, 2025, by Third District Representative Toby Payne.

In his request, Representative Payne expressed deep concern over the growing tensions within the governing board and between the board and Yavapai Community College administration. He identified several critical areas requiring attention, conversation, and deliberation among board members and outlined three specific items he wished to see added to a future Governing Board agenda.

Despite Payne’s formal request—submitted in accordance with Board Policy 308, which states that agenda items proposed by board members “will” be placed on the agenda—he asserts that Chairwoman McCasland has failed to advance the requested items. Her repeated refusal, says Representative Payne, violates existing Governing Board policy. .

Governing Board Chair Deb McCasland

During the April 2024 Governing Board meeting, Chair McCasland stated that the board would discuss Policy 308 at a future meeting, implying that the discussion was in response to Payne’s January requests. However, during the discussion of McCasland’s suggestion and subsequent motion, Payne clarified that revisiting Policy 308 was not his intention when he initially contacted her and that it did not accurately reflect his request, which focused on specific areas of concern.

Members of the minority on the Governing Board have voiced concerns that the motion by Chair McCasland is essentially a diversionary tactic designed to revise or reinterpret Policy 308 in a way that restricts a board members’ ability to introduce agenda items for discussion. Representative William Kiel questioned whether the proposed discussion of Policy 308 was an attempt to weaken board members’ autonomy in setting the agenda. Both Kiel and Payne opposed the motion to agendize Policy 308, but it ultimately passed with a 3–2 vote.

In response to Payne’s assertion that specific agenda items and board policy had not been properly followed, Chair McCasland sent the following statement to the Sedona Red Rock News:

“If you review the video of the April 22 YCDGB meeting, you will see that the board has voted to place some of the items requested by Member Payne on a future agenda. Some of the items he requested were operational in nature and were forwarded to the president for her review and response. We have followed Policy 308. I believe that Yavapai College is ‘on track.’”

Representative Payne, however, strongly disagrees with Chairwoman McCasland’s assessment.

Kuykendall talks about “hate,” “negativity” and appears to blame Kiel for keeping meetings on zoom

At its March 26 meeting, Third District Yavapai Community College Governing Board member Toby Payne requested that the official minutes of an earlier meeting, now before the Board for approval, accurately reflect Representative Patrick Kuykendall’s comments directed at Board member William Kiel. He specifically asked that the following statement be included in the February minutes. 

Also, at Board business (5)(c) I respectfully request the following be added:  (At 14:54:04.)  Board member Kuykendall said in part that he had seen nothing from Board member Kiel but “negativity and attacks on the Chairman and the president and the threats have got to end.” “Mr. Kiel since day one has made threats and been so disrespectful” and Kuykendall claimed he had never sat on a Board with so much “hate and discontent” coming from a Board member. He went on to ask what could be done legally to Mr. Kiel and claimed the reason the Board members were not holding in-person live meetings is when “somebody mentions firearms and they are unstable, it is a threat.”  Mr. Kiel was not allowed to respond to the allegation by Mr. Kuykendall that he was “unstable” or anything else despite a request from him to be allowed to do so.

During discussion of  Payne’s motion, Mr. Kuykendall said he had “no comment” and that he stood “by his actions.” Mr. Bracety said the motion didn’t “warrant comment.” Chair McCasland said she didn’t think the wording “was exactly accurate.” She also said she “did not approve of putting this into the minutes—the video will show it.” Moreover, she said she recalled the attorney at the meeting stating that the discussion must end because it was not appropriate.

Mr. Kiel commented, “It seems futile, but that is an accurate representation of what occurred during that meeting. I believe I was slandered at that meeting, and I have not yet decided how to proceed with that.”

The motion  was rejected by a 3-2 vote, with Chair Deb McCasland, Patrick Kuykendall, and Steve Bracety voting in favor. Only Representative William Kiel voted in support of Payne.

A video clip of this portion of the meeting may be viewed below:

Payne argued that he asked that a Board issue be placed on the agenda pursuant to Board Policy 308 but the Chair refused to do so – he  sought to have official minutes to reflect that refusal

At the March 26 Yavapai Community College District Governing Board meeting, Third District Representative Toby Payne requested that the formal minutes from the February 18 Board meeting be amended to reflect a concern he originally raised in January. Specifically, Payne asked that the minutes document his January 19 letter to Board Chair Deb McCasland, in which he formally requested that an agenda item be added to discuss potential conflicts between Higher Learning Commission (HLC) requirements and existing Board policy. The HLC accredits the Community College.

Payne’s proposed addition to the minutes read:

“Mr. Payne reported that on January 19 he sent Chair McCasland (Tape 14:42:44) a letter requesting that an agenda item be added to the next Board agenda pursuant to existing Governing Board policy. He also listed proposed actions. He was asking for a discussion regarding HLC alignment, delegation of authority, and overall governance and policy alignment with Board policies. The goal was to see that there is perfect alignment with the various Board policies and the Higher Learning Commission.”

In an interview, Payne explained that his effort stemmed from concerns that current Board policies may be out of step with HLC standards. He asserted that Chair McCasland’s refusal to place the item on the agenda violated Board Policy 308, which he interprets as requiring the Chair to honor such requests.

His motion to amend the minutes was denied in a 3-2 vote. Chair Deb McCasland, Patrick Kuykendall, and Steve Bracety voted against the amendment, while Payne and William Kiel voted in favor.

Payne argued his addition would make the minutes more transparent to the public; Board majority remained mostly silent, with the Chair claiming discussion was unnecessary since the motion concerning entering the executive session was on the meeting videotape

At the March 26 meeting, Third District Yavapai Community College Governing Board member Toby Payne requested that the official minutes accurately reflect what transpired when the Board voted to enter executive session on February 18. He specifically asked that the following statement be included in the February minutes. “I respectfully request the following to be added,” he said:

Mr. Kiel requested that the Board discuss an issue or issues prior to going into executive session.  The Chair did not open the floor for discussion after a second to go into executive session, so Mr. Kiel decided not to attend the executive session.  Mr. Payne stated that he was very concerned about the transparency to the public about why the Board is going into executive session or why the Board is holding a virtual meeting.  He did not attend the executive session.

Mr. Payne’s request to amend the minutes was rejected by a 3-2 vote, with Chair Deb McCasland, Patrick Kuykendall, and Steve Bracety voting in favor. Only Representative William Kiel voted against the motion in support of Payne. The majority members offered few comments before casting their votes. Chair McCasland stated that everything was documented in the meeting video and noted that she had never engaged in a discussion regarding the decision to enter an executive session.

A video clip of this portion of the meeting may be viewed below:

No details were released regarding the exact nature of the embarrassing failure to activate the link

The Yavapai Community College Governing Board unexpectedly rescheduled its zoom meeting set for March 25 to March 26. The change occurred when Board member William Kiel informed the Board’s lawyer on the morning of March 25 that the electronic link to the Board agenda had not been activated on the Board’s website. Because the link was not properly activated, members of the public were unable to access the agenda at least 24 hours before the meeting, as required by law.

Arizona law mandates that Board agendas be made publicly available at least 24 hours prior to a meeting. However, the Board’s lawyer believed that  the March 25 meeting could have proceeded despite the web notification failure because paper copies of the time, place, and summary agenda were properly posted elsewhere. However, she advised the Board to reschedule the meeting to ensure that the public, particularly those relying on the website link, had an opportunity to review the agenda and the topics to be discussed at least 24 hours before the event.

The written explanation offered by the Board lawyer is set out below:

“The Governing Board’s legal counsel learned late on the morning of March 25, 2025 that the link on the College’s website to the District Governing Board’s March 25 meeting agenda was inadvertently not activated until the morning of March 25.  The agenda was posted more than 24 hours in advance, but the link was not made “live” at the time.  Therefore, members of the public attempting to access the meeting agenda from the College’s website could not do so at least 24 hours in advance.

“The College physically posted the meeting agenda more than 24 hours in advance of the March 25 , 2025 meeting.

“The Open Meeting Law allows a governing board to proceed with a public meeting if a ‘technological problem or failure’ prevents the posting of the agenda on the website 24 hours in advance, as long as the agenda was physically posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law.  Although the March 25 District Governing Board meeting could therefore proceed despite the technological agenda posting issue, the Board has been advised to reschedule the meeting to ensure that the public receives adequate notice of the meeting.” 

Developmental projects  for the Verde Campus of over $20 million including major housing, creation of commercial driver training program, important brewing and distilling  project, and future EV hi-tech repair all scrapped despite recommendations from consultants and initial concept approval by Board

OPINION: According to data obtained from Yavapai Community College, the institution has spent over $2 million in consulting fees with SmithGroup, Inc. over the past three years. SmithGroup has been advising the college on capital development projects throughout the district.

Records indicate that the college paid SmithGroup consulting fees of  $364,907 in 2022, $399,738 in 2023, and $1,312,938 in 2024.

In its 2022 master plan, SmithGroup recommended a development strategy for the Verde Campus, which the Governing Board conceptually approved. The plan outlined approximately $20 million in proposed projects, including $9.25 million for student housing, $608,000 for a commercial driver training program, $8.04 million for expanding the fermentation program with craft brewing and distilling, $3.09 million for renovations to Building “M,” and $146,000 for acoustic upgrades to rooms at the Sedona Center.

However, several projects outlined in the plan for the Verde Campus have since been abandoned, including major student housing, the commercial driver training program, and the fermentation and distilling expansion. Additionally, an electric vehicle (EV) project proposed in 2022 as a possibility for the Verde Campus has also been scrapped.

Given these outcomes, Verde Valley residents may reasonably question whether local taxpayers should be footing the bill for much, if any, of the $2 million spent on consulting. Or does the responsibility for the lack of development and refusal to follow the recommendations  lie entirely with the controlling west side voting bloc on the District Governing Board?

Is Zoom being used by Yavapai Community College District Governing Chair as a convenient tool to control and cut off unwanted discussion?

OPINION: In a perplexing display of opacity, the chairperson of Yavapai Community College’s District Governing Board, Ms. Deb McCasland, has repeatedly insisted that unspecified “safety concerns” prevent the Community College’s District Governing Board from holding in-person public meetings. (For example, in-person public meeting on the Verde Campus once scheduled for this month.) Yet, despite weeks passing since announcing there were “safety concerns,” she refuses to elaborate on what these concerns entail or provide any evidence to substantiate them.

Meanwhile, the public sees no signs of any credible threat—no incidents, no warnings, and nothing to suggest that an in-person meeting would pose any risk beyond the ordinary. The absence of a clear explanation has only deepened skepticism, raising questions about whether these so-called safety concerns are legitimate.

This refusal to engage in transparency has left many wondering whether the claim of safety is  merely a convenient pretext to control meetings. By relying on Zoom, the chair can dictate the flow of discussion with a click of a button—muting dissent, cutting off Board members she does not favor, and silencing the public at will.

Moreover, instead of promoting open dialogue and accountability, this approach suggests that the Board’s leadership is more focused on controlling the narrative than fulfilling its responsibility to the community it was elected to serve.