On September 7, C-FAIRR (Coalition for Accountability, Integrity, Respect, and Responsibility) filed a formal complaint with the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) alleging violations of the accreditor’s policies by Pima County Community College and Arizona’s Open Meeting law by members of the Governing Board.
In the group’s letter to Higher Learning Commission’s president, Dr. Barbara Gellman-Danley, evidence is presented, which the group claims shows “that the history of the College’s lax governance and mismanagement documented by the Commission in 2013 is ongoing.”
“The College continues to disregard the Commission’s accreditation criteria. In addition, serious ongoing issues with the United States Departments of Veterans Affairs and Education in the area of federal financial aid have come to light. All of this delineates an institution, whose practices may have impacted the College’s core educational mission. Clearly, at minimum, the institution should remain on Notice, or be placed back on Probation. C-FAIRR categorically does not support the College being placed on Show Cause. Such an action on the part of the Commission would cause irreparable harm to the only metro community college serving the residents of Pima County,” reads C-FAIRR’s letter.
Former State Senator Luis Gonzales stated, “Unfortunately, Pima Community College continues to violate open meeting laws and prefers to hide information that may prove embarrassing, instead of being truthful and transparent, this posture only serves to give the college more of a bad image in the eyes of the public. Honesty, and transparency is always the best policy, especially for an institution of higher learning, obviously, Pima Community College’s administration continues to travel the path of misinformation and untruthfulness.”
Gonzales has been recruited to run against Board member Martha Durkin. Durkin, who the Tucson Unified School District attorney during the disastrous Mexican American Studies battle, recently retired as the Deputy City Manager for the City of Tucson.
“The Board of Governors violated the Arizona State’s open meeting laws twice; now we learn that the relatively new board members, Hanna and Durkin, who serve on PCC’s Human Resources Advisory Committee, failed to ensure that its agenda items were properly detailed on the committee’s public agenda and its minutes were not properly posted per the open meeting law. How can this keep happening? Is it arrogance? Is it incompetence? I do know that it is not the kind of leadership needed to get the College off sanction! That’s why I am voting for Luis Gonzales for PCC’s board seat in District 5. He has made compliance with Arizona State’s Open Meeting law a part of his platform,” C-FAIRR member George Felix told the ADI.
“I believe it is crazy and ridiculous that the Board is raising resident student tuition, also increasing local taxes and lowering foreign student tuition. This doesn’t make sense at all! We students need to take a stand. It’s time to change the Board,” stated student Heaven Rendon.
“Knowing that the College was placed on probation in 2013, this Chancellor and every Board member currently sitting on PCC’s Board had multiple opportunities to inquire about and verify not only the status of the Aviation Program’s compliance with the Higher Learning Commission’s requirement for off campus offerings but other technical and career programs such as the College’s Public Safety program which is also housed off campus. When the Chancellor began his tenure in 2013 and as each new board member took office, each should have independently requested assurances that all programs were in compliance with accreditation requirements. And, surely, when the College hired its first-ever, Assistance Vice Chancellor for Accreditation, one would have thought that his first order of business would have been to conduct a compliance review to ferret out any accreditation compliance issues immediately. Instead, the College’s Board and administration choose to direct the blame onto others who neglected to discover these problems years ago. That’s not leadership! A new broom is supposed to sweep clean. That’s why I’m voting for Luis Gonzales who is running for PCC’s board seat in District 5. He has documented experience analyzing troubled public entities and exposing mismanagement and corrupt operations,” wrote C-FAIRR member Becky Mendibles.
The complaint reads in part:
Dr. Barbara Gellman-Danley, President
Higher Learning Commission
230 South LaSalle Street, Suite 7-500
Chicago, IL 60604-1411
RE: Violations of Higher Learning Commission Policies by Pima County Community College District
Dear Dr. Gellman-Danley,
In your letter dated March 9, 2015 to Mr. Lee D. Lambert, Chancellor of Pima County Community College District (the College), you notified the College’s Board of Governors and community that the Higher Learning Commission’s (the Commission) Board of Trustees placed the College On Notice in eleven areas, which were considered at risk of non-compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation and Core Components. This letter constitutes a formal complaint of violations by the College of the Commission’s accreditation policies. It provides documentation that the College has not complied with three areas contained in the March 9, 2016 Letter of Notice.
• On Notice area 3: “evidence of a comprehensive assessment of the human resources office, including structure and staff and an antic plan based on the assessment, including goals, metrics, and key performance indicators. The report should also include the outcomes of the recently-established Human Resources Advisory Committee and documentation of progress toward full implementation of the action plan (Core Component 2.A) [emphasis added].”
• On Notice area 8: evidence of the effectiveness of the assessment process for making changes to the teaching and learning process based on learning outcomes, including documentation of the completion of assessment cycles in all programs and of the changes made to improve learning and teaching (Core Component 4.B).
• On Notice area 11: “evidence of implementation of the 2014-2017 Strategic Plan including completion of the campus plan, establishment of key performance indicators to assess progress toward completion and direct linkages to the budgeting process in addition to outcomes achieved to date (Core Component 5.C).
However, in this letter the Commission further stated, “If progress in these areas does not continue or if other compliance issues develop at the College, the evaluation team should carefully consider a recommendation of continued Notice or Probation [emphasis added]” (Exhibit 1).
The evidence presented in this letter demonstrates that the history of the College’s lax governance and mismanagement documented by the Commission in 2013 is ongoing. The College continues to disregard the Commission’s accreditation criteria. In addition, serious ongoing issues with the United States Departments of Veterans Affairs and Education in the area of federal financial aid have come to light. All of this delineates an institution, whose practices may have impacted the College’s core educational mission. Clearly, at minimum, the institution should remain on Notice, or be placed back on Probation. C-FAIRR categorically does not support the College being placed on Show Cause. Such an action on the part of the Commission would cause irreparable harm to the only metro community college serving the residents of Pima County.
At a recent Board of Governors’ Study Session held on August 1, 2016, Mr. Bruce Moses, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Accreditation, presented information that Commission’s academic liaison to the College had contradicted your statement. Slide six of his presentation states unequivocally, “According to Karen Solomon there is no option for Pima to go back on Probation [emphasis in original]” (Exhibit 2). Mr. Moses’ Power Point presentation listed only two possible outcomes for the College: “Pima coming off Notice with Monitoring Reports due in multiple Core Component areas” or “Pima being placed on Show Cause.” His presentation indicates that there is a continued lack of communication between the College’s senior staff and its accrediting agency. Perhaps you recall your letter of August 19, 2015 to Chancellor Lambert where you deemed it necessary to admonish the College in regard to its interpretation of your agency’s accreditation criteria.
Members of the Pima County Community College District (“Pima” or “the College”) community have brought to the Commission’s attention questions about the Commission’s requirements related to the credentials of staff members and concerns about the understanding of these requirements within the Pima administration. We have also received copies of media reports that indicate some inaccurate communications may be coming from Pima relative to this issue. I concluded that it was important for me to write to you to set the record straight in this regard [emphasis added].
A review of the videotape from the August 1st study session confirms that both Assistant Vice Chancellor Moses and Chancellor Lambert confidently reassured Governing Board members that of Dr. Karen Solomon’s official position on behalf of the Higher Learning Commission—the most likely outcome would be the College being taken off Notice with monitoring reports accessible at this link. They appear to have based their high expectations upon: (1) potentially positive results from the Commission’s review of the Pima Community College Notice Report: Evidence of Effectiveness, June 30, 2016 (Notice Report 2016) submitted by the College on June 30, 2016; (2) anticipated findings from the Commission’s peer review team; and (3) a productive follow-up hearing conducted with the Higher Learning Commission’s Institutional Action Council.
C-FAIRR finds that the alleged reassurances by Commission staff to Pima Community College are not in conformance with the official position stated in your March 9, 2015 letter. These statements, or the College’s misinterpretation of the Commission’s position, are highly irregular and prejudicial to the conduct of a fair and impartial Commission peer review process. Pima Community College’s Governing Board should have been apprised of the fact that if sufficient progress had not been made in the eleven areas, then, the Commission’s peer review team may submit a recommendation of continued Notice or may recommend Probation.
C-FAIRR’s letter of complaint is definitely a case in point. It presents evidence that the College has failed to show progress in its overall commitment to openness and transparency with its internal and external constituents. Moreover, its official public documents, including its June 30th report to the Commission, do not present a complete and accurate record of the College’s operations, systems, actions and decisions. The June 30, 2016 report’s section on the strategic planning process is inaccurate and untruthful. There is a widely held belief within the Pima County community that the College is not open and transparent. This opinion is shared by print media and is confirmed by Board members stating that complaints about transparency are the number one complaint they receive from constituents. In 2013, the Commission’s Fact Finding Team found,
Transparency and openness on the part of the Board is not a part of its working ethic, yet PCCD’s core values include “Integrity” and “Accountability.” Openness, transparency, and a willingness to discuss and debate various points of view and opinions must be more readily imbedded in the Board’s culture and operations. Past actions of the Board indicate that secrecy and protection of individuals is more important than transparency and a willingness to deal openly with difficult and sometimes embarrassing situations.
The evidence concerning the lack of transparency on the part of the College’s Board of Governors, the Chancellor, and the senior administration is conclusive. It admits no counter argument. The question is: will the Higher Learning Commission uphold its accreditation criteria, or will the College be allowed to continue to act in an unethical and irresponsible manner as documented by the Commission’s 2013 Fact-Finding Team? It is now clear that the 2010 Site Evaluation Team did not uncover many of the serious issues found by the 2013 Fact Finding Team. In fact, the 2010 Team recommended a 10-year accreditation for the College. The failure to discover the serious issues that existed in 2010, which included sexual harassment, a “dysfunctional” Board of Governors, and hostile workplace environment does not speak well of the Commission’s Peer Review Process.
We must inform you that C-FAIRR has grave concerns regarding the Commission’s ongoing oversight of the Pima County Community College District. Statements attributed to Commission staff raise serious questions concerning enforcement of Commission policies. However, we are hopeful that the Higher Learning Commission will diligently and objectively enforce its accreditation standards relative to Pima Community College in compliance with applicable federal statutes. As you are aware, recent actions by the United States Department of Education concerning the accreditation of post secondary institutions has raised issues with reference to accreditation agencies’ enforcement of their standards. Therefore, it is imperative that the Commission’s actions comport with its regulatory duties and obligations—this will restore public confidence in the fundamental integrity of the Commission’s accreditation processes.
Finally, a new and extremely serious compliance issue has arisen. The College’s current Board of Governors and administration have been as dismissive of serious allegations as was the Flores era Board of Governors. A letter with extensive documentation was sent to the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the Arizona State Attorney General’s Office for appropriate action (Exhibit 3). It specifically addresses the College’s altering of a public record titled, International Student Programs And Services, Pima Community College Business Plan. In addition, it documents the College’s failure to promptly provide this public record in its native format with associated metadata pursuant to an A.R.S. Title 39 public records request. This letter contains substantial evidence of the College’s violation of Higher Learning Commission’s Assumed Practices, Criteria of Accreditation, and two key areas currently listed in the On Notice sanction.
The International Education Program (Strategic Internationalization Plan) is but one example that can be cited as evidence that the College has not changed its ways of doing business. This complaint covers a two-year time period and is illustrative of the College’s failure to provide ongoing ethical and responsible leadership, demonstrate openness and transparency, and to comply with the State of Arizona’s public records and open meeting laws. Compliance issues have developed which violate the following Commission policies:
• Assumed Practice A. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct, 6. “The institution assures that all data it makes public are accurate and complete, including those reporting on student achievement of learning and student persistence, retention, and completion.”
• Assumed Practice C. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement, 6. “Institutional data on assessment of student learning are accurate and address the full range of student who enroll.”
• Assumed Practice C. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement, 7. Institutional data on student retention, persistence, and completion are accurate and address the full range of students who enroll.
• Criterion One, Core Component 1.D, “The institution engages with its identified external constituencies and communities of interest and responds to their needs as its mission and capacity allow.”
• Criterion One, Core Component 3. A, “The institution’s planning and budgeting priorities align with and support the mission.
• Criterion Two, Core Component A., “The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it established and follows policies and processes for fair and ethical behavior on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty and staff.”
• Criterion Two, Core Component 2.A, “The governing board reviews and considers the reasonable and relevant interests of the institution’s internal and external constituencies during its decision-making deliberations.”
• Criterion Five, Core Component 5.B, “The institution’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the institution to fulfill its mission.”
• Criterion Five, Core Component 5.C, “The institution engages in systematic and integrated planning.”
• Criterion Five, Core Component 5.D, “The institution works systematically to improve its performance.
As shown in Exhibit 3, Pima Community College continues its culture of secrecy that was initially exposed to the public in the Higher Learning Commission’s Fact Finding Team Report of 2013. In 2015, the College received the Brick Wall Award given by the Arizona Press Club for, “…the most deceptive government agency or politician in the state…” In presenting this derisive award, the Arizona Press Club stated that, “Pima Community College had promised much but delivered little in the area of openness and transparency [emphasis added]. Under sanction since 2013 for mismanagement and lax governance, the college made a habit of ignoring state laws that protect the public’s right to know—all while proclaiming its commitment to public access” (Arizona Press Club: http://azpressclub.org/brick-wallsledgehammer/).
In a letter dated February 29, 2016, Mr. Daniel C. Barr with the law firm of Perkins Coie in Phoenix, representing the Arizona Daily Star, cited four major deficiencies in the College’s current public records process and shortcomings in its compliance with the open meeting statute. At the May 11, 2016 Board Study Session, new Board members discussed the findings from the College’s Transparency Audit Report prepared and presented by Ms. Lori Cox, Director, Internal Auditor. The recently appointed Board members cited the College’s ongoing lack of openness and transparency and its continued failure to respond to requests for public records as their most often heard criticisms or complaints about the College. In a May 28, 2016 editorial, the Arizona Daily Star concluded,
Arizona public records and public meetings law applied to Pima Community College, yet the institution, which is funded by local taxpayers, has behaved as if its employees and board members, not the law, gets to decide what the public should know [emphasis added]. This practice is unacceptable” (Exhibit 4).
Despite being under some type of Higher Learning Commission sanction for almost four years, evidence continues to conclusively prove that the College has not improved its effort to be more open and transparent in its communications with its employees, the media or the citizens of Pima County. In March 2015, the College was cited a second time for a violation of Arizona’s open meeting statute.
One of the 11 areas listed in the Commission’s formal notification of action letter stated that the College must provide,
[3] evidence of a comprehensive assessment of the human resources office, including structure and staffing and an action plan based on the assessment, including goals, metrics, and key performance indicators. The report should also include the outcomes of the recently-established Human Resources Advisory Committee and documentation of progress toward full implementation of the action plan (Core Component 2.A) (Exhibit 1)
As recently as August 20, 2016, an Arizona Daily Star article noted that two Board members serving on the College’s Human Resources Advisory Committee have ignored Arizona’s open meeting law by not fully detailing agenda notifications and not posting minutes of advisory committee meetings within three days (Exhibit 5). As to the specific work of the advisory committee, the College’s administration neglected to notify the Commission in its Notice Report 2016 of two important failures. First, the administration did not inform the Board members on the committee that the College took over 200 days to fill key administrative positions; other positions, including the Director of Assessment, were unfilled over multiple listings. The Director of Assessment, the eighth key area under Notice, is critical in leading the College’s assessment process for making changes and improvements to the teaching and learning process based on student learning outcomes. Instead, the College’s administration chose to inform the Human Resources Advisory Committee that an average of 46 days was needed to fill a College position.
The Board of Governors and Chancellor continue to engage in the suppression of critical information and key facts, which they deem will embarrass them. This diminishes the ability of the public and accrediting agency to effectively assess and evaluate the Board’s enforcement of its policies. It further diminishes the Board’s ability to assess the level of turnover or current vacancies in its administrative leadership. Consistency in administrative leadership directly affects the College’s ability to effectively implement the myriad of changes in its strategic planning, directions, policies and processes and to confidently ensure that sufficient evidence can be gathered and analyzed to demonstrate progress in the eleven areas on Notice.
In addition to these serious issues, the College is now alleged to have altered a public record and has refused to provide the metadata per a request for public records relative to a five-page versus a six-page International Student Programs and Services Business Plan. When this conduct was brought to the College’s attention, its staff failed to conduct an independent, external investigation into how this occurred and to determine which College employee may have altered an official College record. Altering a public record is a violation of A.R.S. 13-2407 and is a criminal act.
Circumstances regarding this serious allegation of wrongdoing by College staff are detailed inthe Exhibit 3. Suffice it to say that the College provided a six-page business plan to an Arizona Daily Star reporter but sent a five-page copy of the plan to C-FAIRR. A possible motive for the College having altered the document sent to C-FAIRR is outlined in Exhibit 3.
Finally, substantial evidence is provided in this letter of complaint that corroborates the allegation that the College documents provided to the public fail to present a complete and accurate record of the College’s operations. In particular, C-FAIRR draws your attention to the College’s Notice Report 2016 that does not accurately and truthfully record the full circumstances surrounding the development of the Strategic Plan for Internationalization, nor does it link the strategic planning and budgeting processes for the International Student Programs and Services, Pima Community College to the College wide strategic plan. However, the evidence in Exhibit 3 shows that the plan for the International Education Program was solely administrative-driven beginning in early August 2014. It was written primarily by Dr. Lou Albert, former President of the West Campus, and Dr. David Bea, Executive Vice Chancellor for Finance, and was reviewed and approved by Chancellor Lambert.
The International Student Programs and Services Plan formed the basis of the Strategic Internationalization Plan (SIP), though it was not made a part of the public record. It contained the strategic components and metrics that resulted in substantive changes to the College’s operations which “repurposed” long-term employees in the International Education Program to create vacancies in positions eventually approved by the Board. The public was not provided access to this document. The College states in its Notice Report 2016 that, “Since 2014, the College has adopted an integrated planning and effectiveness process that includes operational effectiveness, strategic and operational planning and budgeting processes, all of which are guided by the mission.” The International Student Programs and Services Plan should have been made available to the public for review and input.
As a result of this plan, the College increased resident tuition and lowered international tuition without providing advance information on this change to the internal and external constituencies. By utilizing a closed process the College violated Arizona’s opening meeting and public records statutes. It is also not in compliance with three of the Commission’s Criteria of Accreditation and the 11th item stated in the March 9, 2015 letter placing the College On Notice. The Commission’s accreditation policies have been violated as a result of the College’s omission of the facts about its secretive administrative planning process.
The 11th item in the On Notice letter also addresses linking the planning and budgeting processes (Core Component 5). The Notice Report 2016 indicates that planning and budgeting are now linked through the new strategic planning process, which began early in 2014. It states that current strategic plans have Key Performance Indicators (KPI) as measures of success and effectiveness instead of lists of tasks and activities to be accomplished. The six-page International Student Programs and Services Plan, which included a 3-year staffing model and a 5-year financial and enrollment projection model, called for an infusion of $750,000 new dollars into the current program. It appears that no institutional research was conducted to justify the plan, and it did not contain a component to evaluate instruction in the international program or student learning. This approach reminded some community groups of the infamous noncredit Prep Academy established on the fly in 2012 to accommodate local students who were denied access to credit programs based upon their scores on the COMPASS Placement Test, which was not designed as a College entrance exam. This plan also lacked a teaching and learning evaluation component.
Despite the College experiencing an unprecedented decline in enrollments (28% from 2011), the College’s administration developed a business plan that assured the Board of Governors that a 600% increase in F1 Visa students (1,000 FTSE) would be attained. At approximately $10,000 per full-time out-of-country student tuition and fees, the College expected to offset declining revenues from local student attendees. It is credible to assert that the College’s administration willfully suppressed critical budget and enrollment data contained in the International Student Programs and Services Plan from public view. Had this information been provided to the public it is reasonable to conclude that the College’s stakeholders would have questioned the premise upon which the enrollment and financial projections were based. In addition, prior to the March 9, 2016 meeting, the public was not provided any information concerning the Chancellor’s recommendation to the Board that it approve a lowering of international tuition while raising resident rates. The Board packets prepared for this meeting did not include any information concerning this recommendation.
Drs. Albert and Bea presented the International Student Programs and Services Plan to the Board of Governors on November 17, 2014. However, this six-page plan was only contained in the Board members’ packets. The Power Point presentations by Drs. Albert and Bea did not display page six of the business model, which contained the enrollment and financial projections over a five-year period. To avoid having this item listed on the Board agenda as an Information or Action Item, it was listed under the Chancellor’s report among seven other items that evening. An Arizona Daily Star reporter filed a complaint with the Pima County Attorney’s Office that Pima County Community College District had violated the state’s open meeting law by not including those items on the public agenda. In March 2015, the Pima County Attorney’s Office ruled that the College had, indeed, violated the Arizona State’s open meeting law.
It appears that the catastrophic decline in enrollments and attendant losses in revenues by 2014, were the driving force for the $750,000 infusion into the budget for the International Student Programs and Services Business Plan. However, the College hoped the public and the accrediting body would believe that the development of the high-sounding 2015 strategic plan for internationalization actually drove the College’s budget building process. To further confuse the public, a task force to develop a full strategic plan for internationalization was established by Acting Vice President Dr. Salazar in January 2015, well after the initial development of the key components of the International Student Programs and Services Plan in August of 2014. No mention of the massive infusion of new College dollars into this program was referenced in the draft strategic plan presented to the Board of Governors as an Information Item on June 8, 2016.
While a new model of enrollment projections was presented in the draft Strategic Plan for Internationalization, it was still based upon an overly optimistic 500% increase in international student enrollments over a five-year period that extended well beyond the College’s 2013-2017 time line for its strategic plan. Yet, it is the College’s Strategic Plan from which the Strategic Plan on Internationalization attempts to garner its legitimacy. When requested, the College can only provide enrollments in headcount not in FTSE, which was the only metric cited by the College’s administration to evaluate the effectiveness of its business plan.
Apparently, the College does not have effective processes in place to expeditiously gather, analyze, and report enrollment data (FTSE) for F-1 visa students and other foreign student visa categories participating in credit instruction, a requirement found in Assumed Practice C. 6 & 7, Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement as well as Criterion 4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement, C. 1-4. At this point in time, the public finds it impossible to determine if enrollment projections (FTSE) and revenues for tuition and fees are on target regardless of which plan is referenced or if effective processes to assess and improve student learning for foreign students are occurring.
The Notice Report 2016 does not accurately and truthfully disclose the circumstances surrounding the development and funding of this administratively driven program. No reports have been provided to the Board of Governors or the public on the College’s progress toward meeting the projected enrollment and revenues from tuition & fees upon which the Board based its tacit approval for the authorization for the infusion of an additional $750,000 in College resources.
Finally, we are exceedingly troubled to learn that student enrollments from among county residents are down another 4-5 percent for fall semester, 2016. The College’s Enrollment Strategic Plan has failed to stem the College’s catastrophic loss in enrollments for the past five years (2011-2016). It began with the ill-advised Board of Governor’s decision to change its admissions policy, which in affect changed the College’s mission and the nature and character of its students. This was compounded with another poor public policy decision when the Board set the tuition and fees rates for the 2016-2017 academic year.
The message the College is sending to students and residents of Pima County is undeniable—the Pima County Community College District does not give priority to students from its primary catchment, nor does it care that its students work and live in Tucson, the 6th poorest metropolitan city in the nation. Instead of providing the developmental education courses it provided to this community for over 40 years, the Chancellor and Board of Governors have chosen to focus recruitment efforts on an ill-conceived plan to address declining enrollments by increasing the number of international students. The Mexican American students who have traditionally constituted a significant percentage of the College’s enrollment are now denied access to the only community college in this area. The implication for this ill-starred policy should not be lost in the United States of 2016, when the issue of race is at the forefront of our country’s problems.The College has steadfastly denied access to pertinent enrollment data. However, it is CFAIRR’s contention that a significant portion of the 30 percent enrollment lost in the past 5 years, was primarily comprised of women and minorities (primarily Mexican Americans)—protected classes under federal law.
We are exceedingly troubled that tuition and fees were increased for county residents, except for those 55 years of age and older while tuition and fees for international students were iscounted substantially by comparison for FY 2016-2017. A business in the private or public sector that experiences a 30% loss in its clientele and revenues will find it difficult to keep its doors open for business. No presentation has been made to the taxpayers or the Governing Board about the effectiveness of the rate changes in tuition and fees for 2016-17 on increasing enrollments or College revenues. The Commission’s decision in 2013 to allow the College to change its mission and enrollment policies without application to do so continues to reverberate throughout our community.
C-FAIRR believes that it has made the case that Pima County Community College District continues to demonstrate a lack of genuine commitment to openness and transparency in its public communications with its constituents. The evidence provided in Exhibit 3 and in this correspondence has demonstrated that the College has violated three Assumed Practices, six Components of three Criteria of Accreditation and three key items under Notice. Taken together, these violations demonstrate that the College’s culture of secrecy continues under the current administration and Board.
Their actions buttress an ongoing effort to communicate to constituents a narrative which omits pertinent facts, suppresses embarrassing information, and spins stories to put the College in the best light in order to remove itself from the Commission’s sanction. These fruitless efforts have been exposed, time after time, by frustrated and frightened employees who out of desperation release confidential information to the media or by community advocacy groups who document and challenge unethical and irresponsible behavior by the Board of Governors, Chancellor and senior administrative staff. C-FAIRR simply expects that the College will live up to its mission and commitment to openness and transparency by exhibiting the highest professional and ethical standards expected of leaders in post-secondary education in their oversight of the delivery of quality instructional and student support services for all students in Pima County.
C-FAIRR would appreciate receiving an acknowledgment of the receipt of this letter of complaint by the appropriate Higher Learning Commission staff. Also, we are officially requesting a meeting with the Commission’s peer review team who will be conducting the site visit at Pima Community College this September 26-27, 2016. During the past two visits, CFAIRR has been granted an hour and a half meeting with representatives from the evaluation teams.
Finally, C-FAIRR is still of the opinion that the peer review team will investigate any new compliance issues, which this letter addresses, and may still be able to recommend that the College remain On Notice or be placed on Probation. If the statement from your letter of March 9, 2015 is not accurate, please inform us as to what options the Higher Learning Commission’s peer review team may recommend upon the conclusion of its evaluation this September, 2016.