News

The Clarendon College Ranch Horse Team recently competed at the American Stock Horse Association National Collegiate Championship in Sweetwater, Texas, and finished the show as the Reserve National Champion Stock Horse Team of Division II.

Gracie Paul, a sophomore from Coldwater, Kan., finished as the Reserve National Champion in the Limited Non-Pro Division and also received the Collegiate trainer award for that division.

Other members contributing were London Lowery, a freshman from Pampa; Ben Alden, a Freshman from Joliet, Mont.; and Wyatt Dushay, a sophomore from Clarendon.

The Ranch Horse team is now preparing to host a Ranch Horse Association of America show at the Clarendon College Livestock and Equine Center on May 4. This will be the last show held before the RHAA Finals in Abilene, TX May 9-11. Two Ranch Horse Team members, Jakob Dees and Gracie Paul, along with coach Gatlin Duncan have already nailed down a spot in the RHAA finals.

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.

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.

Early balloting starts Monday, April 22, for voters in Howardwick, Clarendon, and the Clarendon school district.

Howardwick citizens will be selecting a new mayor as four people seek to succeed Mayor Greta Byars, who is not seeking re-election. Those candidates are Alderman Brice Hawley, Tony Clemishire, Coy Cooper, and Jeramy “J.D.” Kindle.

Also on the Howardwick ballot, five people are running for two positions on the city council. Alderman Johnny Floyd is joined on the ballot by Beverly McCaskill, Erica Mills, Tammy Jordan, and Jerry Mullanax.

Four candidates are also seeking three positions on the Clarendon CISD Board of Trustees. Incumbents Robin Ellis, Chuck Robertson, and Will Thompson are joined on the ballot by challenger Zack Robinson. The top three candidates will be elected to that board.

Clarendon citizens have no candidates to choose from but are being asked to decide a sales tax question. If voters give their approval, the ballot measure would redirect the city’s current 0.5 percent sales tax that is dedicated to property tax reduction and reallocate that with a 0.25 percent sales tax going exclusively to street maintenance and 0.25 percent sales tax going to the city’s general revenue. The city’s overall sales tax rate of 2.0 percent will not change regardless of the election outcome.

Clarendon and public school voters will cast ballots at the Donley County Courthouse Annex, and Howardwick citizens will vote at their City Hall.

Early balloting continues through April 30. Election Day will be Saturday, May 4.