A shroud of secrecy has enveloped Pima County Community College in recent days and at the Wednesday night Governing Board meeting the public had an opportunity to express their distrust and displeasure.
Mario Gonzales, of the citizen’s group C-FAIRR, accused Chancellor “through his staff” and the “complicit Board” of having “successfully threatened, intimidated, traumatized, bullied, and physiologically abused the College’s Student Services staff. According to Gonzales, the leadership has also done the same to employees in other department as well as some faculty members.
Gonzales warned the Board that, “All of these are serious HLC criterion violations. All occurred under the pretext that the HLC mandated the actions that led to these abuses.”
Less than a year ago, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) removed the College from probation and placed it “on notice.” The College was placed on notice because the array of “necessary changes to come into compliance” made by the College were “too new to demonstrate sustained evidence of success.” The “on notice” designation required close monitoring by the HLC to ensure that the changes were “effectively implemented in the long-term.”
Gonzales told the Board that on August 16, 2015 C-FAIRR had asked the Board to look into what they believed were irregular hiring practices specifically related to two Student Specialists, who were denied an opportunity to be promoted. The group never received a response. Once again, “In a letter dated September 24, 2015, we asked that you and the Chancellor conduct an investigation on the allegations brought forth by the Board’s faculty representative with regard to faculty concerns. As of today, you have not responded,” stated Gonzales.
“These and other serious criterion violations, were ongoing while you, the Board, granted the Chancellor a three year contract extension, a couple of months ago and a month later gave him a glowing evaluation,” said Gonzales. “Your evaluation of the Chancellor should have included input from faculty, staff and community members. If this had occurred, faculty concerns could have been addressed before bringing them to a public forum.”
Gonzales then alleged that on November 2, 2015, Governing Board member Dr. Sylvia Lee, and Chancellor Lee Lambert called a Special Study Session of the Governing Board “to berate, intimidate, and castigate the leadership of the faculty senate and the Pima Community College Education Association (PCCEA). PCCEA is the faculty’s union. While representing approximately half of the teachers, it has been proactive in holding the Chancellor’s feet to the fire.
PCCCEA is currently conducting a survey, scheduled to end in ten days, that includes a question as to whether faculty members support holding vote of confidence on the Chancellor.
Gonzales described the November 2 meeting as the “worst exhibition of lack of professionalism I have ever witnessed. Dr. Lee appeared agitated, angry and in attack mode while addressing Ana Jimenez and Kimlisa Salazar all because of what she perceived as an affront to the Chancellor based on whether a faculty senate survey should include the question of confidence for the Chancellor.”
In an affidavit dated November 3, former State Senator Luis Gonzales attested:
Chairwoman Lee opened the meeting by stating that she had personnel feelings and concerns about the content of the survey and read out loud a proposed memorandum addressing this topic. Ms. Lee stated several times during her presentation that she was offering her personal opinion so it leads one to believe that she was the individual who penned the proposed memorandum and was the one responsible for the placing this item on the Agenda.
The proposed memorandum was placed up on the screen so it was easy to read and ascertain the tone of the memorandum, so the intent and its purpose was clear. The language was a clear admonishment of the faculty for not informing the chancellor of the questions in the survey; in particular, the faculty question asking for commentary on whether the faculty should have a confidence vote on the Chancellor. It was clear from the onset that Ms. Lee was visibly upset and angry about the content of the above mentioned question and called it unprofessional conduct, unprecedented and inappropriate.
Ms. Lee then called on a faculty member, Ms. Ana Jimenez forward to testify on the matter and proceeded to utilize an unprofessional demeanor and hostile tone of voice with Ms. Jimenez. In my opinion, it was an appalling display of unprofessional conduct by an elected official that was tantamount to attempting to not only diminish a faculty member in public but also a clear attempt to intimidate the faculty as a whole with the hope of diffusing the effect of the survey that had already been sent out. Ms. Lee insisted that the Faculty should have had dialogue with the Administration and the board before sending out the survey. What was truly unbecoming of the Chairwoman as this testimony was being presented was that she all of a sudden, abruptly lashed out a member of the audience and ordered her to come forward to participate because the Chairwoman felt that the member of the audience was being in the Chairwoman’s words, “disrespectful”. The Member of the audience was Ms. Carol Ann Gorsuch a frequent attendee at board meetings and a member of a community organization that has been keenly involved in Pima Community College matters (POAC: Pima Open Admissions Coalition). I was sitting directly across from Ms. Gorsuch approximately 15 feet away and at no time did I see her display any disrespect towards any member of the board.
I have been involved in Public service for more than 40 years, including 4 terms as an Arizona State Senator, a City Manager for two Arizona Cities and a Tribal Governmental public official for multiple Tribal Governments. I must admit that I have never witnessed such a paranoiac, disgraceful, disrespectful and unprofessional public performance by a public official against a member of the public or of an employee of the very institution that the elected official purports to lead and represent.
The astonishing thing to me is that the Chairwoman attempted to use her position as a governing board member to intimidate individuals who by policy have a right to free and unfettered speech. In the case of faculty, it is called Academic Freedom; and no member of a governing body of an institution of higher learning has any authority to thwart it. In fact they have an obligation to embrace it. Perhaps even more appalling is that the CEO (Chancellor) sitting at the table made no effort what-‐so-‐ever to reverse the hostile line of questioning being employed by the Chairwoman. In effect, by his acquiescence, he condoned it.
It is incomprehensible to me that a public body would call a study session specifically to discuss a matter that clearly does not belong in such a forum. It has been my experiences that study sessions are utilized to gather information on pending important matters in order to later follow up with informed actions by the body on those pending matters. Personal vendettas have no place in official public meetings. In my opinion, this is very poor governance and sends out the message that employees are not valued, have no voice in matters of the institution, that if you disagree, you will be vilified publicly and that fear and intimidation is common place at Pima Community College. It is worth noting that this very activity was condemned by the accreditation agency (HLC) when Pima community College was placed on probation. This statement is intended to document this issue as I experienced it on November 2nd, 2015 to the best of my recollection.
Mario Gonzales says that “outrageous display of unprofessional, petty, bullying tactics should not be swept under the carpet” by the Board. Gonzales called on the other Board members to admonish Lee and Lambert.
For her part Lee argued that the Board should prevent a no confidence vote in order to avoid risking remaining “on notice.”
Gonzales noted that squashing the faculty group and preventing communication could actually put the College in greater risk of losing the “on notice” status and being placed under probation again.
Gonzales told the Board that its “symbiotic relationship with the chancellor and their siege mentality has to stop immediately. There’s also a need to stop seeing anyone that questions the chancellor and the board as “the opposition.”