The governing board of Clarendon College’s accrediting agency will consider in June whether CC’s Board of Regents has violated as many as four accreditation standards.
Documents obtained by The Clarendon Enterprise through a Public Information Request show that the Southern Association of Colleges & Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) notified the college in February that a complaint had been filed against CC’s Board of Regents alleging repeated violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act and that members of the board had “harassed college employees who were trying to uphold the law and institutional policy.”
“This is a very serious issue,” CC President Robert Riza said this week. “Sanctions from the SACSCOC board can be anything from a monitoring report to a warning to probation to removal from membership. The State of Texas requires us to be a member of the accrediting agency to operate.”
The notice came in a letter from SACSCOC Vice President Chrystal A. Baird, Ph.D., to CC President Robert Riza on February 20.
“A review of the documentation submitted with this complaint has raised questions regarding Clarendon College’s ongoing compliance with four SACSCOC accreditation standards as follows,” Baird wrote.
The complaint, filed by then CC Vice President of External Affairs Ashlee Estlack, followed almost two years of rising tensions between Regents Jerry Woodard and Darlene Spier and members of the college administration.
SACSCOC was specifically interested in the following standards: Governing Board Characteristics, a Core Requirement which speaks to the board not being controlled by a minority of board members; Board/Administrative Distinction; Conflict of Interest; and Board Self-Evaluation.
Governing Board Characteristics
In the first standard, Baird’s letter requested that the college show that it had provided appropriate notice of meetings for the last two years. She also asked for an explanation of two subcommittees of the board that met in 2017 prior to being formally appointed by the board – one a renovation committee (following the purchase of the Charles Deyhle residence) and an audit committee.
“This would appear to be in violation of the board’s policies and bylaws and to provide an opportunity for a minority of the board to have undue authority,” Baird wrote.
In the college’s response, Riza wrote that there had been “a minimal number of irregularities with the posting of agendas” but confirmed that a meeting of the board on February 23, 2017, in which the college purchased the Deyhle house, CC “did not post the meeting with the appropriate time necessary” and that “actions taken in this meeting were later ratified in a regular meeting May 18, 2017.”
Riza told The Clarendon Enterprise that both then Chief of Staff Ashlee Estlack and he as president had told Woodard prior to the February 23, 2017, meeting that buying a house did not meet the requirements to hold an emergency meeting, which would allow the board to meet with less than 72 hours’ notice as required by the Texas Open Meetings Act.
“He said his opinion was the only one that mattered,” Riza said.
Riza’s response to SACSCOC also confirmed that the renovations committee did “engage in conversations with possible vendors and contractors with no official board action being taken to appoint a committee.”
The second committee, the “audit committee,” met in December 2017 prior to that month’s board meeting. Riza stated in his response that typically a meeting with the auditor is held with the president and the board chairman. This time, however, then board chairman Jerry Woodard invited Regents Darlene Spier and Ruth Robinson to attend.
“After the meeting, two members [Woodard and Spier] stayed behind to discuss the results of the audit and personnel they felt were responsible,” Riza wrote. “Mrs. Estlack caught the brunt of this. We had just made a change in the CFO position. The previous CFO resigned August 31, 2017, and our current CFO began November 1, 2017.
Board/Administrative Distinction
Addressing the second standard, Baird wrote that the complainant said a board member verbally critiqued her job performance on different occasions and “had a bank staff person in his employ call the complainant” to make sure her job was done properly.
“This would appear to be over-reach on the part of the board into the administrative duties of the president,” Baird wrote.
In his response, Riza pointed to the December 2017 board meeting, which followed the “audit committee” meeting, where Woodard questioned Estlack repeatedly about the college’s digital marquee and “told her several times to learn to delegate.” Riza further states that before the September 1, 2018, payroll was run, Estlack received a call from Herring Bank “stating they were to make sure that payroll was run correctly over a holiday.”
“The payroll actually was already processed and done correctly,” Riza wrote.
Riza then expanded on the college’s issues with Board/Administration Distinction.
“During meetings through the past two years, I have clearly stated to the Regents that they are to have no contact with faculty and staff,” the president wrote. “I am their only employee and [they] should make any and all comments to me. Since the August meetings of 2018, I have had no vice presidents or other staff at the board meetings with me due to the actions, or inactions, of this group.”
Conflict of Interest
Addressing the third standard, Baird wrote that Estlack had provided transcripts of the July 18, 2018, board meeting where the regents considered the college’s bank depository, which included a bid from Herring Bank where Woodard is the branch president.
“While the board member did recuse himself from the vote on the bid, his participation in the discussion prior to the vote would not appear to be in keeping with the board policies and bylaws,” Baird wrote. “His participation also appears to be at odds with a letter submitted to his fellow board members on February 8, 2018, in which he indicates, “…I recuse myself from any discussion or vote on the contract….”
Baird also raised questions about two other board members who have financial interest in the bank, Robinson and Susie Shields, both of whom did participate in the vote for Herring’s bid.
Responding for the college, Riza wrote that CC has clear policies on conflicts of interest and board ethics.
“Clarendon College has paid thousands of dollars for specific training by our legal firm on this topic,” Riza said. “The topic became a heated discussion point in the spring of 2018 due to changes implemented by SACSCOC and conflicts of interest with the chair position of college boards.”
Riza went on to say that the issue of board members that are shareholders in Herring Bank was brought to the attention of the college attorney and that he was awaiting a response “in regard to any state law violations and validity of the current contract.”
Board Self-Evaluation
Baird finally requested the college address how the board addressed challenges with adherence to board policies and bylaws over the past two years and used its self-evaluation to improve board practice. Riza submitted the board’s self-evaluation forms but said he has never been part of the board’s deliberations on that matter.
Baird closed her February letter by stating SACSCOC policy of what would happen following Clarendon College’s response.
“If there appears to be sufficient evidence of significant non-compliance or if Commission staff are unable to determine compliance, then the President of SACSCOC may decide to take one of the following actions: 1) Authorize a Special Committee to visit the institution; 2) Forward the complaint case directly to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees and its standing committees for review and action; 3) Include the case in an upcoming scheduled visit to the institution; 4) Request additional information; 5) Close the complaint.”
The Latest Response
After receipt of the college’s response to the accrediting agency’s inquiry, SACSCOC President Belle S. Wheelan, Ph.D., wrote the following to Riza on March 29:
“After reviewing the institution’s self-assessment of non-compliance with the aforementioned standards, I am forwarding the complaint, your response and documentation, and all related correspondence to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees and its standing committees for review at its meeting in June 2019.”
The letter goes on to say that CC will be notified within two weeks of the meeting about the action of the SACSCOC board.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.