Editorial: Integrity critical to CC board

Integrity. People either have it, or they don’t, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that at least two members of the Clarendon College Board of Regents simply do not.

The Enterprise’s coverage of the February meeting of the regents gave readers another close look at the dysfunctional relationship between CC President Robert Riza and two members of the board. That article was followed up on this page with the longest editorial this publication has ever seen, delving into two years of internal and public conflict at Clarendon College between the administration and Regents Jerry Woodard and Darlene Spier.

Three weeks ago, it seemed that the tension was poised to boil over as regents were scheduled to take up the president’s contract and evaluation at their March meeting. Then nothing happened. There was little discussion when the topic came up, Woodard gallantly declared that the president, who had not seen his evaluations, should be given time to review them and come back with a plan to address them.

Of course, the president would have seen them before that meeting if the board had followed established protocol and delivered their evaluations to the administration building and let the administration compile them. The egos of Woodard and Spier being what they are, however, that did not happen. Spier as board secretary compiled them herself. Presumably the college staff is too incompetent to do such a complicated task and only Spier, a former 30-plus year college secretary, can do it right.

But what’s the root of all this discontent? Why are these folks acting this way?

Only they know what’s in their hearts, but it seems there may be several reasons. For Spier, it might be a search for relevance or trying to find her place in retirement. She was on her way out the door as Riza came to town. He looked to the future; she looked to the past. It never would have worked if she had stayed employed at the college, and she rode off into the sunset. Then a vacancy came up, and the board foolishly appointed her to take it.

Now she spends her time trying to fit the square peg of Clarendon College present into the round hole of Clarendon College past. The financial reports look different. Investments are done differently. This president is different. They aren’t wrong, but they sure aren’t the way it used to be, and she can’t handle it.

Add to that her penchant for being hypercritical of employees and you have a situation where nobody can do anything to please her. In her evaluation of the president, she gave Riza a two (indicating needs improvement or sometimes meets objectives) on the matter of meeting the requirements of the appropriate accrediting associations. In fact, Clarendon College is fully accredited due to Riza’s leadership, but it is the action of the board itself that is now under the accrediting agency’s microscope.

Then there is Woodard, who in 2016 as chairman of the board said:

“The board is very pleased with our college president [Dr. Riza] and the direction that he is taking the college. We are seeing improvements in all programs and aspects of the college for our general students and for our workforce programs, and we believe we can continue to broaden and capitalize those improvements under this president. He is genuinely interested in our community and the communities the college serves.”

And again in 2017 as chairman he said:

“The board appreciates the direction the College has taken under the leadership of Dr. Riza. His ability to think outside of the box to place the college in a preferred position and to provide opportunities to students that wouldn’t otherwise be reached and benefit the College itself in its future progression.”

Quickly after that last statement, things went south. Woodard, as chairman, called an illegal meeting of the board to buy the Dehyle house. He was told he couldn’t do it. He didn’t like that. He said only his opinion mattered. Later, the board violated college policy and state law with a “renovations committee” that met before it was officially appointed and then it was composed of a majority of the board with final authority when it was appointed. Both those actions had to be “fixed” once this newspaper found out about them.

By summer 2017, members of the administration privately started joking about who should wear a target to the board meetings. Someone was going to get drilled either by Woodard or Spier. Someone was going to get treated like they were incompetent.

The board got open meetings training in the spring of 2017, and Woodard said the rules were open to interpretation. He later called another improper meeting of an “audit committee” in December of that year. No such committee had ever been appointed, but that didn’t stop him.

In 2018, when the college’s accrediting body ruled that college board chairs can’t have a financial conflict of interest, Woodard balked at the letter sent by Dr. Christal Baird, the Vice President of the Southern Association of Colleges & Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), telling him he would have to step down as chairman. “Who is this woman?” he asked and then said the letter “was just her opinion.”

After the college spent money on attorney fees to find out that SACSCOC’s opinion was correct, Woodard stepped down as chairman; and from then forward, he has made life hell for the president and his administration. The former chairman and the board secretary now make it their mission supposedly to “do their due diligence” in terms of finances, but it comes across as more of a witch hunt and an attempt by the board to micromanage the college’s daily affairs.

Woodard again tried to get an audit committee together last fall to give the auditor “some direction” but balked when Chairman Tommy Waldrop told him the college’s attorney said such a committee would have to follow the Open Meetings Act, post an agenda 72 hours before meeting, and meet in public.

“Who is this attorney,” Woodard asked and then again commented that it was an opinion.

Given Woodard’s views on state open meetings laws and SACSCOC and college policies, one wonders if his views of bank regulations are equally fluid and open to interpretation.

Looking at their evaluations of the president, it is obvious that Woodard and Spier are tag-teaming their efforts to attack the president. “The board” has asked for this. “The board” has a problem with that. “The board” needs. “The board” wants. Here’s a news flash for Woodard and Spier: Two people are not “the board.” The majority of the board seems to support the president and it’s clear that criticisms that came from other board members’ evaluations were nurtured by the ongoing comments of Woodard and Spier.

Woodard and Spier ask the most random questions that no administrator can predict, and then Spier writes in her evaluation that the president isn’t prepared for meetings.

Woodard and Spier ask repeatedly for “explanations” about the same financial issues, but even though the answers don’t change, they don’t accept them.

Woodard continually brings up the copier contract that was canceled and cost the college $30,000. It’s an issue from 2017. It was brought up when it happened. He didn’t have an issue with it… until he wasn’t the board chair anymore.

Woodard in his evaluation gives the president zeroes on several categories (indicating “not applicable” or “no opportunity to observe”). Riza says Woodard has never given him zeroes in the past and all the other board members found those items applicable and/or observable. One wonders if the powers that be at Herring Bank give Woodard poor evaluations for not being able to observe him all the time.

Spier claims in her evaluation that she wants what’s best for employees, but her actions say otherwise, interfering with promotions and preventing staff from effectively doing what they’ve always done, such as typing board minutes and compiling evaluation forms.

But now things have gone to a whole new level. SACSCOC has gotten involved, and that’s something you never want to happen if you’re a college or university. The agency is looking into whether members of the board of regents have violated four standards of accreditation, including one Core Requirement.

SACSCOC sets the principles by which all colleges and universities in this state and several others operate. Something may be a matter of opinion to one board member, but SACSCOC’s opinion is the only one that matters if you intend to keep your college open for business.

The agency’s website says:
SACSCOC expects integrity to govern the operation of institutions and for institutions to make reasonable and responsible decisions consistent with the spirit of integrity in all matters. … Failure of an institution to adhere to the integrity principle may result in a loss of accreditation or candidacy.

It is pathetic that two regents have allowed their hurt egos and self-righteousness to bring Clarendon College to this point. They alone are now a threat to not just what Dr. Riza has built but what everyone at Clarendon College has worked for. Through their actions and their vindictiveness, they have demonstrated a lack of that most basic quality that cannot be replaced… integrity.