Deb McCasland was reelected as chairwoman of the Yavapai Community College Governing Board by a 3-2 vote on Jan. 14 after systematically shutting down newly-elected board member Bill Kiel’s efforts to discuss her qualifications.

District 1 representative Kiel nominated District 3 representative Toby Payne for the chairmanship, while District 5 representative Steve Bracety nominated McCasland, from District 2. District 3 includes Sedona, Cottonwood, Clarkdale and Cornville, while District 2 covers Camp Verde, Mayer, Dewey and the outskirts of Prescott.

“I believe that you are the most qualified person for this position,” Bracety said, while District 4 representative Patrick Kuykendall cited knowing McCasland’s ethics as a reason to support her.

“I have received awards nationally as an outstanding trustee,” McCasland said in support of her own nomination.

“I support [YCC President] Dr. [Lisa] Rhine and what Dr. Rhine has done with this college,” Payne said on his own behalf.

“When I was campaigning for this position, I met with a lot of people, and a repeating issue that came up was District 3 is not in general, from what I heard, not real pleased with their treatment by this board and by the college as far as division of funds,” Kiel said. “I think that having a representative from District 3 as board chair would show goodwill to this community that right now is feeling unsatisfied. Secondly, for at least 15 years, nobody from District 3 has ever been board chair, and I think that that sets a pretty poor precedent.”

Kiel Questions McCasland

“There’s a question I’ve got,” Kiel continued. “At the last board meeting — ”

“We’re talking about the election,” McCasland interrupted.

“Yes, and right now I want to talk about an interaction between you and I —” Kiel began.

“That is not important,” McCasland said.

“It is relevant to this,” Kiel said. “At the last board meeting 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 —”

“OK, we’re moving on now,” board attorney Lynne Adams interrupted.

“That’s out of line,” McCasland said, talking over Adams. “You’re out of line.”

“You can make your statement but you’re not asking her questions,” Adams said.

“This is why Mr. Payne’s being nominated,” McCasland said.

“So I don’t understand why you told me that you doubted we could have a positive and professional relationship,” Kiel proceeded. “I sent you on 12-18 — ”

“You’re out of order,” McCasland said.

“This goes to why I —” Kiel said.

“Let’s focus on Mr. Payne and why you think he’s appropriate as opposed to denigrating your fellow board members,” Adams said.

“On 12-18 and 12-22, and last Sunday, I emailed Ms. McCasland and asked her for —” was as far as Kiel got before being cut off again.

“Focus on why Mr. Payne is appropriate. We do not need to denigrate the current chair,” Adams said.

“I’m not denigrating it, I’m just saying that the current chair is not doing what is required of board policy —” Kiel tried once more.

“Then you’re done,” Adams said. “Focus on Mr. Payne, he’s got a lot of positive qualities. I’m sure we could talk about that instead of talking about what you believe Ms. McCasland’s negative qualities are.”

“We are ready for a vote,” McCasland then said, and was reelected by a 3-2 vote, with Payne and Kiel opposed.

“I win,” McCasland remarked afterward, and then declared she would continue to serve as the board’s spokeswoman, a position that she said did not require a vote by the board.

Board Policy

The board members then experienced a get-to-know-oneanother exercise led by a Florida consultant, Ken Burke.

“You have no authority to change anything at the college,” Burke subsequently said. “You are one of five trustees here and you can contact the president.”

Arizona Revised Statutes §15-1444 provides that authority to govern the college resides with the board and that only specific and limited portions of that authority may be delegated to the president. “Powers and duties that are granted to a governing board cannot be delegated to staff or subordinates unless specifically authorized by legislation or unless such powers and duties are purely ministerial and do not involve the exercise of discretion,” Adams herself wrote on behalf of YCC in a 2006 letter to the Attorney General’s Office. The AG declined to issue an opinion at the time.

Burke then said Rhine is an employee of the board whose job is “to carry out the policies of the board.” He also claimed that individual board members cannot request information from their employees as individuals and may only request reports from their subordinates as a board decision.

“State statute trumps board policy,” Adams said. “You can have rules that you impose upon yourself that are more restrictive than statute, but you can’t violate state statute with your policies.”

Constitutionality

Kiel also raised the issue of the constitutionality of YCC’s recent policy changes.

“That board members cannot speak to employees or staff of the college seems to be in violation of the First Amendment,” Kiel said. “Members of the public have the right to present their grievances to their elected representatives, which we are … It seems to be contradictory to the oath that we all took.”

Burke assured the board members that they were “protected” by operating in accordance with the board lawyer’s advice that the new silencing policy is legal.

“We have said in this policy that your job can be in jeopardy if you speak to a board member, to your elected official,” Kiel continued.

“That’s correct,” Rhine said.

“We all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution,” Kiel said. “I’m having difficulty with the aspect that they’re saying our constituents can’t speak with us … The college as a whole could be in peril.”

He added that “it certainly doesn’t look good for the public that we’re suppressing free speech, which we are … Somebody could sue us, and could prevail.”

“They shouldn’t go to you, they should go to their supervisor,” Rhine said. “It undermines my authority when a board member is speaking with any of our employees.”

Former board president David Borowsky argued that the only appropriate route for the public to bring matters before the board would be to present to the entire board in a public comment session and claimed the policy would only prevent “board members seeking out issues within the college.”

“All the meetings I sat on, you never once interrupted my predecessor,” Kiel told McCasland. “And you’ve done it five times so far this time.”