Evaluations of Clarendon College President Robert Riza show stark differences of opinion about his performance among members the Board of Regents, according to documents obtained by The Clarendon Enterprise through a Public Information Request.
All nine regents submitted their ratings of the president for their March 28 meeting, at which time they were scheduled to conduct Riza’s annual evaluation and consider his contract. Instead, the board engaged in almost no discussion and took no action, pushing the subject to this week’s meeting on April 18.
The Enterprise obtained copies of each regent’s evaluation of the president as they scored Riza on a scale of zero to five on 34 criteria in six areas. Zero indicates “not applicable” or “no opportunity to observe,” one indicates “does not meet objectives,” and five is “exemplary performance.”
The newspaper also got copies of the regents’ self-evaluation forms in which they scored themselves and the board on a similar scale in response to 19 criteria.
Regents Ruth Robinson, Jack Moreman, and Dr. Bill Sansing had the highest praise for the president, giving him fours and fives in every criterion with Moreman offering the most positive comments.
“Under Dr. Riza’s direction, we’ve seen new programs developed on all campuses and enrollment has generally increased,” Moreman wrote. “He has helped CC to be known in the area as well as known over the state and knows his way around Austin, Texas. Students entering college while still in high school has been an excellent program.”
Dr. Sansing also offered commendations for Riza having “established solid relationships in our state legislature and Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.”
Both Moreman and Sansing alluded to friction among the regents in their board evaluation forms, with Sansing writing about the three rating he gave the board for administrative support: “Would have given higher marks if not for some discord caused by a small number of board members.”
Moreman was more direct in his comments.
“We of the Board of Regents need to decide to work together and support the president of the college,” Moreman wrote, noting that the board should ask more about finances before approving purchases.
Regents Jerry Woodard and Darlene Spier had the harshest evaluations of the president as well as the most negative comments.
Woodard gave Riza no rating higher than a three and rated 13 criteria at zero, including the president’s efforts with the legislature and coordinating board that Sansing had such high praise for. In his comments, Woodard again criticized Riza on his handling of college finances and said he had received negative comments from the public and the Pampa Foundation.
Woodard also noted an issue with a copier contract from 2017, as he has done in several meetings, and criticized the president for other board and personnel issues.
In his evaluation of the duties and responsibilities of the board, Woodard gave regents zeros, twos, and threes and gave no response at all to “acts as a policy-making body.” He also commented on the regents needing to be more aware about the college’s finances.
Spier also gave the president no rating higher than a three and attached two full pages of typed criticisms of the president to her evaluation form on a range of topics. Spier claims Riza comes to meetings not prepared, questions whether he is involved in the college community, questions the checks and balances of the college, and claims there is a “barrier between the president and the board which has created a lack of trust.”
Spier goes on to question Riza’s handling of personnel and ultimately says her trust in the president as a leader “has diminished.”
“Unfortunately because of his actions and lack of participation with the board, I as a board member, have become very concerned about his ability or desire to be our leader,” Spier writes.
Spier gives the board itself the highest marks on levying taxes and filling vacancies on the board but gives the board twos on financial issues; and on legal issues, she says the board needs to be more “one on one” with seeking legal advice.
Other board members gave more mixed reviews of themselves and the president.
Chairman Tommy Waldrop gave the president mostly threes and fours with a few fives and a couple of twos. His fellow regents he also gave threes, fours, and fives. He made no comments on either evaluation form.
Regent Edwin Campbell gives the president twos, threes, and fours, comments about finances, says the Pampa Foundation needs attention, and praises the president’s efforts in the legislature and with Texas Tech and West Texas A&M. He gives the board mostly twos and threes.
“Personality conflicts with several board members is evident and needs addressing,” Campbell writes. “Lots of positives in our president and can and will be focused on during the upcoming year.”
Susie Shields gives the president mostly twos, threes, and fours and gives the board mostly threes and fours.
“If the board was advised of problems at the time they occur, they could probably work out a solution and avoid conflict,” Shields wrote.
Regent Lon Adams gave the board all threes with the exception of two zeros and gave the president twos and threes. He did not comment on either form.
The board is scheduled to take action on its self-evaluation as well as the president’s evaluation and contract this Thursday, April 18.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.