It has come to our attention that NWACC's Director of Nursing, Elaine Halloway, and her nursing staff up and quit half way through the Fall 2012 semester because the Dean of Allied Health, Mary Ross, is impossible to work for and impossible to work with. Mary Ross is a bully who enjoys ganging up on and victimizing individuals who she feels inferior to or who are far more intelligent than she is. The proper psychological term for this type of personality is a "narcissistic hater". If you are not sure what this definition entails, just Google it and more than enough information will pop up.
Because of the internal strife between Dean Ross and Director Halloway, those who are forgotten about are the nursing students who pay for their education and for the salaries of those employed at NWACC. Our understanding is that this past semester was a complete and total disaster.
Additionally, Mary Ross has her prized bully victims who she selects each semester, one from each allied health program. These victims are the brightest shining stars who Dean Ross resents. Consequently, Ross destroys their education, their future careers in the medical industry, as well as their reputations.
We are currently wondering why and how Dean Ross has so much power to carry out her bullying while the CEO's of NWACC turn a blind eye to it and, indeed, condone it. How is it that they continue to allow her to carry on in such a brutal and unprofessional manner? Who is she related to and who is she connected to? We assume she is well connected for her to continue on with her "academic mobbing".
Arkansas tax payers, we pay a millage to NWACC, which means that NWACC not only belongs to the students who pay their way, but to us as well. It is time that we take a stand with this corrupt institution and make some positive changes.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
NWACC Needs an Ombudsperson - The U of A has One
The University of Arkansas has a student Ombudsperson and upon recommending to an NWACC CEO that a student Ombudsperson position be instated for their many aggrieved NWACC students, his response was, "What's that?"
An Ombudsperson, ombudswoman, ombudsman is a third-party representative assigned by a large organization or a government to investigate citizen complaints and suggest solutions. An ombudsman's office was established by the Swedish constitution of 1809. The idea soon spread to other Scandinavian countries and later to New Zealand, Britain, Germany, Israel, and some states or provinces in the U.S., Australia, and Canada. An ombudspersons's responsibility is to receive and investigate complaints and to serve as an independent and impartial arbiter in recommending what may be done to satisfy the complainant and/or mediating to resolve conflicts. Ombudspeople are now used in universities, corporations, municipalities, and institutions such as hospitals.
An Ombudsperson, ombudswoman, ombudsman is a third-party representative assigned by a large organization or a government to investigate citizen complaints and suggest solutions. An ombudsman's office was established by the Swedish constitution of 1809. The idea soon spread to other Scandinavian countries and later to New Zealand, Britain, Germany, Israel, and some states or provinces in the U.S., Australia, and Canada. An ombudspersons's responsibility is to receive and investigate complaints and to serve as an independent and impartial arbiter in recommending what may be done to satisfy the complainant and/or mediating to resolve conflicts. Ombudspeople are now used in universities, corporations, municipalities, and institutions such as hospitals.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
NWACC - Questionable Methods on Fired CFO, Marty Parsons
Photo of Wrongfully Fired NWACC CFO, Marty Parsons (A Good Guy!)
Flogging a ‘dead horse’
Posted: September 15, 2012 at 2:54 a.m.
LITTLE ROCK — Someone asked why I’m supposedly “beating a dead horse” over the firing of former CFO and top administrative executive Marty Parsons at Northwest Arkansas Community College in Bentonville.
It’s a fair question (one I also was asked after four years of writing about the late Janie Ward of Marshall). The issue matters because it involves questionable methods behind management at the state’s largest public community college.
Still, how much more can be said about my perceptions of how poorly the board of trustees treated Parsons by refusing to grant him an appeal, despite its own policy that allows for such a hearing?
Those who’ve followed the Parsons saga know how college President Becky Paneitz fired him on the spot in her office August 1. Ironically, Parsons had been promoted months earlier and even praised in a board meeting just weeks before he was summarily canned.
I’m flogging this mare again because a reader who served nearly three decades in top financial administrative posts identical to Parsons at two Illinois community colleges (one with much larger enrollment than NWACC’s) contacted me. John Murphy from Holiday Island said he was surprised to learn the policy at NWACC was to allow its president complete authority to fire an employee without the board of trustees’ involvement whatsoever. The process that Murphy followed in Illinois was that each school’s elected board was the ultimate arbiter of hirings and firings.
“If a president wanted someone dismissed, the process was to place that person on suspension until the board could weigh the facts and make a final decision whether to dismiss the employee,” particularly when the issue involved a top-level administrator, he said. In other words, for the sake of the institution and its credibility, something of such a serious nature just wasn’t done arbitrarily with his former employers. Under the latest NWACC policy, as I understand it, the college president is given full authority in matters of hiring and firing, even above that of the board which hired her, although the policy does provide for an appeal when a conflict of interest can be shown.
Murphy said he believes that sort of policy also “abrogates the tremendous responsibility of the board when it comes to hiring and firing.” Some label the board’s direct involvement with such employment matters as “micromanaging.” But to me, providing this kind of ultimate oversight-and the backstop of protection it provides everyone-is simply assuming the responsibility of one’s elected position.
A board’s active participation in any public school’s firing practices ensures that one employee’s decision to dismiss another on the spur of the moment must be proved to be justifiable and in the best overall interests of the school. Anything especially unfair or amiss with that reasoning? Why even have an elected board if not to lead and direct in an assertive manner, especially when issues concern the livelihoods and performances of those employed there? From his experience in top college financial positions, the largest percentage of the budgetary expenses at a community college are related to its employees, Murphy added.
I’m far from alone in my opinions on the lack of due process for Parsons. For instance, over at North Arkansas College in my hometown of Harrison, I’m assured the termination policy for someone in Parsons’ top administrative position allows for a hearing before the board, as long as it’s properly requested. On a somewhat related point, it’s also been implied publicly that Parsons’ personnel file might just supposedly perhaps contain material that shows Paneitz had counseled him on previous occasions about what she perceived to be problems with his job performance.
I asked Parsons what his personnel file contains in the HR department that he had acknowledged and signed. He said any purported previous criticism of his performance found in his personnel file was news to him. Then he elaborated: “When Paneitz [and attorneys for Parsons and the school] met on July 25, some items on Paneitz’s memo to my file were discussed, but not all,” he said. “There was no discussion of a performance-improvement plan, or being given 30 days to improve, or a possibility of termination discussion whatsoever. No documents changed hands.
“The first time I actually saw [Paneitz’s] memo to my file was the following week when she handed it to me on August 1. Then she immediately asked for my resignation [which he declined]. There was no discussion of any items listed on her memo. The only thing she said to me was ‘this bad press has to stop. I want your resignation.’ ”
Parsons was formally fired in a letter he received two days later. He said he understood Paneitz’s memo to file was provided to the school’s Human Resources Department sometime after August 1 to be placed in his personnel file. There were no other performance issue-related documents-other than a year-old positive evaluation in his file. “That’s the facts.” he said.
Time to lead this ol’ mare back into the stall, and for the PR staff listed on NWACC’s website to go back to work. November is right around the corner.
———◊———
Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com.
Editorial, Pages 17 on 09/15/2012
Comments
Keep on beating it Mike. The fact that there was not
allowed any due process on this matter is absurd. Panieitz and her
lapdog Board need to remember that they answer to us, the taxpayer,
ultimately. By doing what they did and not letting Parsons speak his
piece, they basically gave the Queen of England her sceptre to rule over
the college however she sees fit with no worry of any silly things like
facts and accountability. I also did some digging myself a little, and
this might be normal in these political musings of higher ed., but I
found out that she actually sends administration out to collect
signatures for new possible board members? Normal, legal, or
not...stacking the board to better suit her desires??? Who knows. She
needs to be held accountable to someone other than herself. Because it
all points to herself and its morale compass being all kinds of out of
whack.
September 15, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.
Although clear conflict of interest was proven by the
college president's fear of media and taxpayer scrutiny over
whistleblower-esque financial disclosures and intense loathing for a man
who sought to better the college, not simply provide her with endless
discretionary funds (not to mention ask any board member in their full
'community leadership' role if they did or did not receive an email from
a former NWACC CFO who entirely corroborated Mr. Parsons' story of
bullying and forced resignation), the appeal was dismissed based on the
board being a strictly policy governance board. Do only slight research
and find that one line item in the memorandum handed to Mr. Parsons at
his termination - which stated Mr. Parsons was told by the president to
not contact the state attorney general - that was actually a written
demand of a board of trustees member, not the president. That sounds
about as close to day-to-day operations as one can get. So it becomes
fairly clear why those closest to the president fought viciously against
the rest of the board hearing an appeal.
The president of the college has surrounded herself with board members that have either behaved unethically and cannot be found out, staff with history of questionable dismissal from employment, staff that have behaved abhorrently while on taxpayer missions AND that she has assisted in rescuing in the name of NWACC. These people have no viable options but to defend her motives while keeping their heads half-down, trampling the best and brightest to save themselves.
When the leading PR relations person writes a defense of this situation, submitting a clear and known lie to a newspaper - yes another CFO was bullied out of his job, one with decades of quality and valued state service, and everyone knows this - what does it say about an institutions leadership? THIS is why these leaders behave the way they do. They can lie in print, in terminations, wearing an NWACC badge and this community stands for it. Donors, public, leaders - pay attention.
The president of the college has surrounded herself with board members that have either behaved unethically and cannot be found out, staff with history of questionable dismissal from employment, staff that have behaved abhorrently while on taxpayer missions AND that she has assisted in rescuing in the name of NWACC. These people have no viable options but to defend her motives while keeping their heads half-down, trampling the best and brightest to save themselves.
When the leading PR relations person writes a defense of this situation, submitting a clear and known lie to a newspaper - yes another CFO was bullied out of his job, one with decades of quality and valued state service, and everyone knows this - what does it say about an institutions leadership? THIS is why these leaders behave the way they do. They can lie in print, in terminations, wearing an NWACC badge and this community stands for it. Donors, public, leaders - pay attention.
September 15, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.
Who's driving the financial ship right now? Enrollment
numbers are down so budgets will more than likely be affected. Folks I'd
keep a watchful eye on unspoken for funds otherwise with current
leadership we'll end up with new presidential drapes and zero for the
students. The side endeavors I hear about in the community (Becky's Book
Club, money raised for student scholarships) how does that line out?
Student fees were just raised recently. Are they being appropriately
dispersed? I'm worried about the financial future of our college. Sounds
like the one sure 'thing' that could have supported this college during
down enrolment was fired by a petulant leader. How is the college in
this dire of straits? Did the budget office not see this coming down the
pike long before Parsons stepped foot in Arkansas?
September 15, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.
Just like to add that I appreciate the fact that folks,
hopefully lots and lots of them, are reading about this and taking time
to offer their own thoughts and comments on the situation. It does
affect a lot of people in many ways. A Board of Trustees is entrusted
with proving honorable, effective and caring leadership for such a
public institution. Otherwise, why even have a board? Just thinking out
loud again today.
September 15, 2012 at 10:56 a.m.
The Board has chosen that good judgement will not
prevail. The Board has determined that protecting one individual has
more importance than their fiduciary responsibility to the college and
students. Contact the State Legislature to request a formal inquiry into fiscal
and personnel mismanagement at NorthWest Arkansas Community College
during this president's tenure as well as questionable practices of the
NWACC Board of Trustees under its current leadership.
State Legislature: http://www.arkansashouse.org/members
State House and Senate for Benton and Washington County: http://www.bbvchamber.com/upload/file...
State Legislature: http://www.arkansashouse.org/members
State House and Senate for Benton and Washington County: http://www.bbvchamber.com/upload/file...
September 15, 2012 at 1:52 p.m.
State House and Senate for Benton and Washington County:
http://www.bbvchamber.com/upload/file
/documents/Copy%20of%202011%20Benton%20and%20Washington%20County%20Legislators.pdf
http://www.bbvchamber.com/upload/file
/documents/Copy%20of%202011%20Benton%20and%20Washington%20County%20Legislators.pdf
September 15, 2012 at 2:48 p.m.
15 Signs Your Workplace Is Dysfunctional - Albert J. Bernstein, PhD
Sign No. 1: Conspicuously posted vision or value statements are filled with vague but important-sounding words like "excellence" and "quality."
Sign No. 2: Bringing up a problem is considered as evidence of a personality defect rather than as an observation of reality.
Sign No. 3: If by chance there are problems, the usual solution is a motivational seminar.
Sign No. 4: Double messages are delivered with a straight face.
Sign No. 5: History is regularly edited to make executive decisions more correct, and correct decisions more executive than they actually were.
Sign No. 6: People are discouraged from putting things in writing.
Sign No. 7: Directions are ambiguous and often vaguely threatening.
Sign No. 8: Internal competition is encouraged and rewarded.
Sign No. 9: Decisions are made at the highest level possible.
Sign No. 10: Delegating means telling somebody to do something, not giving them the power to do it.
Sign No. 11: Management approaches from the latest best-seller are regularly misunderstood to mean what we're doing already is right on the mark.
Sign No. 12: Resources are tightly controlled.
Sign No. 13: You are expected to feel lucky to have a job and know you could lose it if you don't toe the line.
Sign No. 14: Rules are enforced based on who you are rather than what you do.
Sign No. 15: The company fails the Dilbert Test.
Sound familiar anyone?
Sign No. 1: Conspicuously posted vision or value statements are filled with vague but important-sounding words like "excellence" and "quality."
Sign No. 2: Bringing up a problem is considered as evidence of a personality defect rather than as an observation of reality.
Sign No. 3: If by chance there are problems, the usual solution is a motivational seminar.
Sign No. 4: Double messages are delivered with a straight face.
Sign No. 5: History is regularly edited to make executive decisions more correct, and correct decisions more executive than they actually were.
Sign No. 6: People are discouraged from putting things in writing.
Sign No. 7: Directions are ambiguous and often vaguely threatening.
Sign No. 8: Internal competition is encouraged and rewarded.
Sign No. 9: Decisions are made at the highest level possible.
Sign No. 10: Delegating means telling somebody to do something, not giving them the power to do it.
Sign No. 11: Management approaches from the latest best-seller are regularly misunderstood to mean what we're doing already is right on the mark.
Sign No. 12: Resources are tightly controlled.
Sign No. 13: You are expected to feel lucky to have a job and know you could lose it if you don't toe the line.
Sign No. 14: Rules are enforced based on who you are rather than what you do.
Sign No. 15: The company fails the Dilbert Test.
Sound familiar anyone?
September 15, 2012 at 5:36 p.m.
becauseIcare...
Do I understand you correctly that, the NWACC Board of Trustees had knowledge of another CFO who was forced out by Paneitz, and a PR person from the college had that knowledge and supplied false information to the press? It sure appears that pieces of the real story keep surfacing which further implicate NWACC leadership and the Trustees. This whole thing reeks of make it up as you go, revisionist history, and cover up.
Then there is the unnamed editorial author of "Board Right in Denying Appeal Plea" who proclaimed that litigation is the correct resolution to this huge cluster... Blink, blink, just where do you think the money will come from to fund lawyers for the college? Oh yeah, that's right from funds earmarked for other purposes. What a ridiculous, naive, irresponsible statement.
Do I understand you correctly that, the NWACC Board of Trustees had knowledge of another CFO who was forced out by Paneitz, and a PR person from the college had that knowledge and supplied false information to the press? It sure appears that pieces of the real story keep surfacing which further implicate NWACC leadership and the Trustees. This whole thing reeks of make it up as you go, revisionist history, and cover up.
Then there is the unnamed editorial author of "Board Right in Denying Appeal Plea" who proclaimed that litigation is the correct resolution to this huge cluster... Blink, blink, just where do you think the money will come from to fund lawyers for the college? Oh yeah, that's right from funds earmarked for other purposes. What a ridiculous, naive, irresponsible statement.
September 16, 2012 at 1:51 p.m.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
NWACC Enrollment Drops
Enrollment Drop Forces Budget Scrutiny
Posted: September 11, 2012 at 3:32 a.m.
BENTONVILLE — A drop in
enrollment will have NorthWest Arkansas Community College reviewing
spending in the month leading up to its October board meeting. The school’s 2.7 percent drop in credit hours represents an estimated
$785,000 drop in revenue, President Becky Paneitz told board of
trustees members Tuesday. That shortfall cuts into the school’s projected revenue of
$38,929,855. Cost-saving measures will focus on travel, professional
development and filling empty positions, Paneitz told the board. A
revised budget will be brought before the board at its next meeting and
will be implemented immediately after a vote. “We’ll be doing that again in spring after we get our enrollment,” Paneitz told the board, “That’s our new normal.”
Enrollment dropped 230 students to 8,418, a first for the school which has grown steadily for years. The school lost 147 transfer students and 109 returning students, according to preliminary reports. New and continuing student numbers held steady. The school had small increases in the number of high school students enrolled in classes. Those high school numbers are something to build on, Todd Kitchen, vice president for Learner Support Services at NWACC told the board. Changes in financial aid processes may have caused some students not to return, Kitchen said. Areas where there was a loss will be analyzed further. His office is working to retain current students and support first-generation college students and new freshmen, Kitchen said. “We’ve had a lot of good growth in the college. We may have been destined to have a bad semester,” said Joe Spivey, vice-chairman. “Are we doing enough?” he asked Kitchen. The school needs to change its focus to attract instead of accept students, Kitchen said. “We know there is a huge opportunity for growth in online,” Kitchen said.
In other business the NWACC board: Approved a $10,000 contract with Kansas City-based artist Jennifer Libby Fay for a fabric sculpture to hang in the Shewmaker Center For Global Business Development w Reclassified one position and added another under Path to Accelerated Completion and Employment, a federal grant.
Comments
be asking for a milage hike soon......
September 11, 2012 at 6:04 a.m.
"Approved a $10,000 contract with Kansas City-based
artist Jennifer Libby Fay for a fabric sculpture to hang in the
Shewmaker Center For Global Business Development" Was this a necessity?? Here is your first cut!!
September 11, 2012 at 7:44 a.m.
I agree with NWAGuy! Taxpayers don't get to spend that
much money on frivolous things when their budgets are in the red-how
many scholarships could have been provided for $10,000? What is the
school really in business for? Of course it's possible that the $10,000
was donated by someone and designated to be used only for decorative
purposes, but it saddens me to see what the college has become--i
believe that if it set an example of responsible stewardship then
potential donors would also be focused on the same and would want to
donate for things that actually benefit the students. Yes, U of A
wastes money for fancy things--but why must nwacc become like the U of
A? Students need and want a college where they can get small classes,
dedicated faculty focused on teaching instead of research, at an
affordable price. In this article it is stated that the school should
focus on attracting students, rather than accepting students, and try to
increase high school and online enrollment. Then the school should
take a lesson from the playbook of Walmart --keep prices low. When
Walmart tries to be more high end, such as with it's clothing lines, it
doesn't go well; Nwacc needs to recognize what it's core competences are
and exploit those. Trying to be everything to everybody, as it seems
they are doing now, may very well lead to being nothing. Didn't UA-Fort
Smith used to be a community college? The community needs and deserves
a quality, low cost alternative to the other offerings in the area.
September 11, 2012 at 8:21 a.m.
NWACC on Denying Marty Parsons Appeal Plea
Photo of Wrongfully Fired NWACC CFO, Marty Parsons (A Good Guy!)
What service does the NWACC board serve, then, if they continue turning a blind eye to all the corruption, fear, and intimidation perpetrated by the top CEOs at NWACC and leaving them unchecked to carry on? Where is everybody whose job it is to reel these crooks in? If it's not the board, then who is it? The Arkansas Department of Higher Education, then? And where might these people be? Below is the article published to NWA Online concerning Marty Parsons' appeal denial. Truly disgraceful.HOW WE SEE IT: Board Right To Deny Appeal Plea
Posted: September 10, 2012 at 2:56 a.m.
The decision by trustees at NorthWest Arkansas Community
College to reject a request for an appeal hearing for the college’s fired financial officer does little to settle the questions observers
have about the entire situation. But it was the right call. Marty Parsons is the former senior vice president for administrative
services and fi nancial offcer for the college. He was fired Aug. 1 by
the college’s president, Becky Paneitz.
Parsons’ two-year stint in the role came to an end when Paneitz
determined he overstepped his bounds by contacting trustees directly on
issues, including criticism of her. According to Parsons’ personnel records, he had been counseled on a
number of shortcomings and given an opportunity to correct them. By Aug.
1, Paneitz had enough. His request to argue his case to the full board went nowhere. Two
trustees supported the appeal, but six deemed it to be none of their
business. Based on advice from their lawyer, board members steered clear of
second-guessing the only employee who directly reports to them, Paneitz.
Board member Hadley Hindmarsh, in an email, argued for the appeal because of public scrutiny and at least the possibility evidence derived from an appeal could adversely affect the college president. That, she suggested, represented the potential conflict of interest board policy required before an appeal should be granted. Giving Parsons an appeal would have made for a good deal of drama and it might have been very interesting to watch, but the board has established its job isn’t to run the day-to-day aft airs of the institution. They hire a president for that. Institutions such as the community college are seldom well-served by a board wanting to substitute its managerial judgment for that of the leader hired to take care of such matters. No doubt a hearing would have given Parsons a venue to re-assert his criticism of Paneitz. We cannot today suggest he does or doesn’t have any legitimate gripes, but we can recognize a micromanaging board isn’t a workable scenario for the college.
At one point, trustee Mark Lundy, chairman of the Finance Audit Committee, said Parsons did a good job by bringing some financial matters to light. “He really raised the expectation that there should be sunlight in the finance (department),” Lundy said. “I think he really moved us ahead on some things.” But Lundy voted against the appeal because he knows the right thing to do is for the board to entrust the president with decision-making authority on personnel matters. If the board doesn’t like what that leader has done, the board can always respond with clear, policy-oriented direction or by picking someone else to serve as president.
The board should pay close attention to what’s happening within the college and give clear direction to its president to carry out what’s necessary to meet students’ needs. But if the board considers it kosher to step into the president’s shoes regularly, there will be relatively few qualified candidates ready to take the post when Paneitz retires next year. The lawsuit will probably come, but that will place the matter exactly where such a dispute should be: in an impartial judicial hearing.
Marty Parsons
Board member Hadley Hindmarsh, in an email, argued for the appeal because of public scrutiny and at least the possibility evidence derived from an appeal could adversely affect the college president. That, she suggested, represented the potential conflict of interest board policy required before an appeal should be granted. Giving Parsons an appeal would have made for a good deal of drama and it might have been very interesting to watch, but the board has established its job isn’t to run the day-to-day aft airs of the institution. They hire a president for that. Institutions such as the community college are seldom well-served by a board wanting to substitute its managerial judgment for that of the leader hired to take care of such matters. No doubt a hearing would have given Parsons a venue to re-assert his criticism of Paneitz. We cannot today suggest he does or doesn’t have any legitimate gripes, but we can recognize a micromanaging board isn’t a workable scenario for the college.
At one point, trustee Mark Lundy, chairman of the Finance Audit Committee, said Parsons did a good job by bringing some financial matters to light. “He really raised the expectation that there should be sunlight in the finance (department),” Lundy said. “I think he really moved us ahead on some things.” But Lundy voted against the appeal because he knows the right thing to do is for the board to entrust the president with decision-making authority on personnel matters. If the board doesn’t like what that leader has done, the board can always respond with clear, policy-oriented direction or by picking someone else to serve as president.
The board should pay close attention to what’s happening within the college and give clear direction to its president to carry out what’s necessary to meet students’ needs. But if the board considers it kosher to step into the president’s shoes regularly, there will be relatively few qualified candidates ready to take the post when Paneitz retires next year. The lawsuit will probably come, but that will place the matter exactly where such a dispute should be: in an impartial judicial hearing.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 09/10/2012
(Advertisement)
Comments:
"This unsigned opinion piece is the lamest attempt at devil's advocated faux 'realism' I've seen in my 50+ years and falls directly on par with what I would expect from the want-to-be spin doctors at our local community college. The Northwest Arkansas community can read and has read the official documents attached to the Parsons termination. Parsons was not counseled on issues and given 30 days. The memorandum was handed to him just after he refused to sign the typical resignation document (yes, another past CFO has confirmed same treatment at bullied 'resignation') and was consequently fired. There should be no appeal for appeal. That's non-sensical. Hearing the facts of Parsons wrongful termination is a rightful action of anyone with a boss. If a decision is made based on fear of floodgates for appeals opening at the hands of Paneitz's former direct reports, there's an issue. If this is in student/taxpayer best interest, the APPROPRIATE avenue was to manage the problem (Paneitz) not drag the institution into it. Great job. I would bet the farm this shallow oped came as a direct result of a plea from community college leaders. Again, lame."
"This unsigned opinion piece is the lamest attempt at devil's advocated faux 'realism' I've seen in my 50+ years and falls directly on par with what I would expect from the want-to-be spin doctors at our local community college. The Northwest Arkansas community can read and has read the official documents attached to the Parsons termination. Parsons was not counseled on issues and given 30 days. The memorandum was handed to him just after he refused to sign the typical resignation document (yes, another past CFO has confirmed same treatment at bullied 'resignation') and was consequently fired. There should be no appeal for appeal. That's non-sensical. Hearing the facts of Parsons wrongful termination is a rightful action of anyone with a boss. If a decision is made based on fear of floodgates for appeals opening at the hands of Paneitz's former direct reports, there's an issue. If this is in student/taxpayer best interest, the APPROPRIATE avenue was to manage the problem (Paneitz) not drag the institution into it. Great job. I would bet the farm this shallow oped came as a direct result of a plea from community college leaders. Again, lame."
September 10, 2012 at 6:38 a.m.
"I have been reading about this issue in your paper since
it began. I don't think the board considering Marty Parsons' appeal
would rise to the level of a "micromanaging board". As you state the
board's job is to hire a president to manage the day to day affairs of
the college; you miss the point, however, in thinking that Marty
Parsons' situation is a day to day affair. He was not a secretary or a
janitor, he was the senior vice president for administrative services
and the financial officer of the college. Since it is the
responsibility of the board to hire a president, it seems it should also
be the responsibility of the board to evaluate the president's
performance, and determine if the president is acting in the best
interests of the college. Stating that a lawsuit is the place where
such matters should be seems like a reckless and irresponsible
conclusion. Lawsuits benefit lawyers more than anyone else usually. It
is a sad day when an organization's entire plan to deal with an issue
such as this is to turn it into a lawsuit; there is almost always a
waste of resources when a lawsuit is involved, and should only be
resorted to when there is no other option. I guess I am confused about
what the board's role actually is then? There have been, in the past,
considerable funds spent at this college to provide dedicated meeting
space for the board--space was actually converted from
revenue-generating classrooms to a meeting room for the board; why? What
is the board's purpose and where would someone in Marty Parsons'
position go if he believes there are unresolved issues with the
president's performance or how his personnel matters are being handled?
Is there no one who has followed Enron, WorldCom, and our country's
most recent financial crisis enough to realize that endorsing an
organizational structure that has no checks or balances on powerful
managers can be very dangerous. I can't imagine that the most
efficient, ideal outcome can be a lawsuit. Maybe the school should
convert the board's meeting space back to classrooms so it can generate
some more revenue to cover the cost of the lawsuit. If the editorial
staff thinks that potential presidential candidates will give pause to a
board that would have granted (or even considered, by reviewing the
evidence) this appeal, think what a presidential candidate will think
when the school is involved with a lawsuit of this nature instead! I
don't really see how this matter could be considered a regular matter
subject to the risk of micromanagement? Also, it was the only remedy
offered per the college's policies and procedures. Why is it even
offered as the next step in the personnel policies if it is not the
board's role? I think the board just doesn't want to be involved
because this community is very intertwined and its members possibly
worry about repercussions to their own livelihoods? Not sure. But I
guarantee a lawsuit will cost everybody money."
September 10, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.
"Sounds like the president doesn't want the financial matters to be transparent."
September 10, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
"I haven't seen where his personnel records have been
released for public review for anyone to state that he was counseled.
If that is in fact true, where is the documentation or another
official at the University who can support those claims? NWACC is
truly the only place I have ever heard of where the President has full
control over all employees with no accountability for her actions. Is
her to plan to leave the college in such disarray that going forward
everyone's opinion will be that she was irreplaceable? All of the
taxpayers should be concerned."
September 10, 2012 at 10:53 a.m.
"OoH, Please, ME ME ME! ... let me be the first to step
up and pay more for the college's lawyers to welcome a completely
avoidable lawsuit. Can this STINK get any worse??? What an awful
system of fear, and intimidation we have in place at NWACC. I believe
that I am not alone in demanding that our elected board do more than
just show up at staged meetings... that they will hear the cries for
accountability and transparency and re-write whatever policy that allows
this president to make wreckless decisions - unchallenged."
September 10, 2012 at 3:07 p.m.
"I can't offer anything new to what has been said by
others comments, but I can't sit still either after reading this
article, which sure seems to have spin doctor involvement. This whole
situation is an outrage! In no case, in an institution that uses public
money, should one individual be the sole authority. This is the sort
of thing that went on in the past and we, as southerners, are still
trying to change that perception. Aren't we past the "good ol' boy"
practices of the past? As stated before, "If the board doesn’t like
what that leader has done, the board can always respond with clear,
policy-oriented direction or by picking someone else to serve as
president." But how can these issues be brought to light when apparently
there is no mechanism to communicate with the board to present concerns
or irregularities? The board needs to act NOW to remove Becky Paneitz
and put a "checks and balances" system in place. No one's professional
or financial future should be subjected to the whim of one person."
September 10, 2012 at 3:34 p.m.
"Board WRONG to deny appeal plea. I feel let down by the
recent happenings at NWACC. I'm concerned for the future of our
college. I hope that everyone in our community is aware that all nine
trustee positions are up for election this November 6, 2012. "Six
deemed it to be none of their business". Waiting ever-so patiently for
the truth to come out."
September 10, 2012 at 9:16 p.m.
"I think the college is a great provider to the community
despite its leadership. Translation: I do not believe its top leadership
has a thing to do with its success. I believe they more than likely
battle every day to push initiatives through and accomplish goals for
the students, faculty and staff. This situation makes me wonder what the top leader has on a few keep
officials to keep their support of her so blind and emphatic. There's a
story there. Mark my words. Find the most vocal staunch supporters at
the top and start there."
September 11, 2012 at 5:41 a.m.
"Before making such a bold statement as "Board Right
to Deny Appeal Plea", perhaps the public interest would have been better
served by determining if the NWACC Board of Trustees has operated
outside their policy governance model in other decision making. If that
has occurred, wouldn't that render the theme of this editorial a moot
point? Let's help you get started... Example 1: Enrollment Drop Forces Budget Scrutiny"
By Amye Buckley
Posted: September 11, 2012 at 3:32 a.m.
"w Reclassified one position and added another under Path to Accelerated Completion and Employment, a federal grant." How is "reclassified one position" policy governance?"
By Amye Buckley
Posted: September 11, 2012 at 3:32 a.m.
"w Reclassified one position and added another under Path to Accelerated Completion and Employment, a federal grant." How is "reclassified one position" policy governance?"
September 11, 2012 at 9:16 a.m.
Friday, August 31, 2012
NWACC's Fired CFO, Parsons, Denied Appeal
So now, Marty Parsons is left with one option and that is to sue. Arkansas tax payers will be paying for that.
![]( "MrLowell")
![]( "SeriouslyOutraged")
![]( "Vickie55")
![]( "becauseicare")
![]( "Dellmann")
![]( "NwaccFail")
![]( "jddendinger")
NWACC board won't hear Parsons appeal
By Teresa Moss
Posted: August 31, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
A
termination appeal request for Marty Parsons was denied by the
NorthWest Arkansas Community College Board of Trustees on Friday.
Parsons,
former senior vice president for administrative services and chief
financial officer at the college, was fired by Becky Paneitz, president,
Aug. 1.
“His
next option will be to file a lawsuit,” Brandon Cate, Parsons’ lawyer,
said following the hearing. “We disagree and we are disappointed with
the decision. We feel that Mr. Parsons was entitled to an appeal by the
board.”
Trustees
voted 2-6 against the motion to give Parsons an appeal. Johnny Haney
and Mike Shupe voted in favor. Alex Vasquez, Joe Spivey, Randy Lawson,
Mark Lundy, Joan Clifford and Ric Clifford voted against. Hadley
Hindmarsh was absent. She previously stated that she had a flight
scheduled prior to learning of the meeting.
Trustees heard from Cate along with Marshall Ney, the college’s attorney, prior to deciding on the motion.
“My
recommendation is that the request for an appeal be denied,” Ney said.
“Any appeal to the board of trustees must contain specific evidence, not
just opinion.”
Ney
said Parsons and his attorney failed to provide evidence proving that
Paneitz had a conflict of interest when firing Parsons.
College
policy states the board will only hear termination appeals if the
college president has a conflict of interest when firing an employee. It
goes on to state that evidence must be provided.
Comments
To
report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal"
link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.
This
is a sad day in NWA... Thank you for reporting the way the board voted
and congrats to Mike Shupe and Johnny Haney for standing up to this
president - the ONLY 2 that will get my support. The rest of you are sad
little followers and should follow your Queen Becky right out the door.
I'm sure this is far from over, and the evidence will find its way out,
but in the mean time we've lost a valuable leader at NWACC who, unlike
the majority of the Board, didn't cower to the almighty dictator's
manipulative orders. For the next CFO we pay to ship in : Please be
aware that your job is really only to enhance this presidents legacy, at
whatever cost to the tax payers.
Posted by: MrLowell
August 31, 2012 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
And,
yet again, the majority of the Board did not serve taxpayers' - and
ultimately the students' - interest. Thank you to Mr. Shupe and Mr.
Haney for standing up for what is right. Not sure what "evidence" Ney is
calling for (isn't he the college attorney - not the BofT attorney?!?)
since it is a complete conflict of interest that he was even in the room
for this meeting and all points were outlined in Cate's letter(s).
NWACC has created their own public relations nightmare with this situation. Parents should seriously consider sending their children into an environment with such corrupt leadership.
NWACC has created their own public relations nightmare with this situation. Parents should seriously consider sending their children into an environment with such corrupt leadership.
Posted by: SeriouslyOutraged
August 31, 2012 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
There
have been several CFO's terminated within the last few years. As a
total outsider who knows nothing of the situation, this seems very
strange. Perhaps there is some type of coverup for fiscal wrongdoing.
And as soon as the CFO gets a little suspicious, he gets terminated?
Posted by: Vickie55
August 31, 2012 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Disappointing.
And for those board members that fell for the tag team legalese
bullying by your chair and the president/board/college attorney, shame
on you. You've lost this taxpayers respect. And the community college
has lost a student.
Posted by: becauseicare
August 31, 2012 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I
personally do not know any of the people involved in this situation,
but the more I read the more I think there is a tremendous need for
transparency here. Hopefully an in-depth investigation into what is
really going on, and what has led to all the furor.
Posted by: Dellmann
August 31, 2012 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Now
we know how people blunder and fail their way up the ladder: due to the
unwavering support of unethical, unconscionable people like themselves.
Shame on the 6 members of the BoT who allowed themselves to get sucked
into Paneitz's corruption and refused Parsons the right to an appeal.
People...
compare the memo to the appeal letter. THAT doesn't give the Board
enough pause to grant an appeal? Seriously? The meeting was
manipulated from start to finish. When board members attempted to speak
to discuss options, they were immediately silenced by the board chair.
This is ridiculous!
Keep fighting Mr. Parsons, this community supports YOU.
Posted by: NwaccFail
August 31, 2012 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
From
Citywire: "Ney said the board could change its policy but he advised
the trustees to keep consistent with the existing policy as it is stated
until it can be changed in a proper venue."
Ney
represents the college, the president AND the board of trustees. Now
that, my friends, is evidence of conflict of interest. Talk about
financial advantage. The case continues, cha-ching for Ney. Is the board
really this manipulable?
From
Citywire: "When he served on the Bentonville School Board, conflict of
interest was defined when someone makes a decision that gives them a
personal financial advantage, or if that person assists a relative in
gaining an inappropriate advantage."
Parsons
appeared to be challenging college spending and bringing to light past
indiscretions on fines/penalties (aka doing his job). How is that not a
financial concern of the president? Terminating Parsons eliminated a
barrier of scrutiny on her well-known spending habits. Sounds like
textbook 'personal financial advantage' to this resident.
Posted by: jddendinger
August 31, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NWACC Board to Hear Fired CFO's Appeal Request
Photo of Wrongfully Fired NWACC CFO, Marty Parsons (A Good Guy!)
College Board To Hear Request
By Teresa Moss
Posted: August 29, 2012 at 8:44 p.m.
BENTONVILLE — NorthWest Arkansas Community College trustees on Friday will review whether to give Marty Parsons an appeal hearing.
The meeting will be held at 7 a.m. in the trustees’ boardroom on the third floor of Burns Hall.
Parsons,
former senior vice president for administrative services and chief
financial officer at the college, was fired by Becky Paneitz, president,
Aug. 1.
Marty Parsons
A
letter asking for an appeal was hand-delivered to college officials
Aug. 9 by Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow, the law firm
representing Parsons. Another hand-delivered letter requesting a
response was sent by the law firm Monday.
“To
date, I have not received an acknowledgment of the appeal or any other
communication from NWACC concerning the appeal,” wrote Brandon Cate,
Parsons’ attorney. “If I do not hear back from NWACC within 10 days, I
will assume that NWACC does not intend to recognize Mr. Parsons’ appeal
and I will recommend that he move forward with his plan to pursue
litigation for NWACC’s wrongful termination of his employment.”
A
response from the college’s attorney Marshall Ney, of Mitchell,
Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, was sent to Cate on Tuesday.
That
letters states Parsons would be provided an “informal audience” before
Paneitz on Friday. Ney said Wednesday he received notice from Cate a
meeting with Paneitz wasn’t needed.
The trustees instead will meet with Parsons, then decide on giving him an appeal.
Cate was contacted by Northwest Arkansas Newspapers, but didn’t respond by press time.
Several college trustees said Wednesday they want more information regarding Parsons’ firing.
“I
do not have any facts to comment on Mr. Parsons’ appeal because they
have not been shared with me,” Trustee Mike Shupe said. “It is
disconcerting for the college, for the employees, for the students and
for the administration. It is a frustrating thing. I support Mr.
Parsons’ petition to appeal. I am very much concerned about Parsons. I’m
concerned about our college. I’m concerned about the publicity. I think
it will work itself out, but I’m afraid it will not be beautiful. It
will be messy.”
Hadley Hindmarsh, trustee, also said she had a lack of facts regarding the situation.
“I
would like to see more information,” Hindmarsh said. “Ultimately, our
duty as trustees is to our community and our stakeholders and
taxpayers.”
Johnny Haney, trustee, agreed with Hindmarsh and Shupe.
“I
have asked our board chair for additional information so that we can
discuss as a board this entire issue with some facts before us,” Haney
said.
Trustees
Joe Spivey and Ric Clifford wouldn’t comment about Parsons’ appeal, but
said the college should follow policies in place when a request for an
appeal is made.
College
policy states an employee can appeal to the board if the employee can
prove the president had a conflict of interest when firing them.
WEB WATCH
To review documents on Marty Parsons’ termination and appeal visit nwaonline.com
A
memorandum signed by Paneitz in Parsons’ personnel file a week prior to
his firing states he was counseled on issues including insubordination,
failure to complete the college budget in a timely manner,
inappropriate language and low morale in his department.
The
letter requesting an appeal states Parsons’ was unable to address the
items mentioned in the memorandum prior to his firing. It states he was
given the memorandum the same day he was fired.
Parsons is one of five chief financial officers the college has employed since Paneitz started as president in 2003.
Steve
Pelphrey was chief financial officer when Paneitz started, according to
Wyley Elliott, college vice president for public relations and
development.
Pelphrey
started at the college in 1999 and left in 2005. The college has had
four others hold the top financial position since then.
Comments
And
the circus continues. NWACC is in dire need of a housecleaning from the
Board of Trustees on down. As a taxpayer, I'm concerned and
disappointed in the lack of oversight by the BOT and leadership by
Paneitz.
Posted by: arkietraveler
August 30, 2012 at 5:36 a.m.
There are oracles among the citizens of NWA! The predictions of many have
occurred. Paneitz and minion attempted to circumvent the Parsons appeal
process from the offset. Paneitz offered to provide Parsons an "informal
audience" before..... herself. This farce has now entered the realm of surreal.
The Letter of Appeal went to the appropriate authority, the NWACC Board of
Trustees.
occurred. Paneitz and minion attempted to circumvent the Parsons appeal
process from the offset. Paneitz offered to provide Parsons an "informal
audience" before..... herself. This farce has now entered the realm of surreal.
The Letter of Appeal went to the appropriate authority, the NWACC Board of
Trustees.
Questions anew:
1. How was Paneitz allowed to insinuate herself into the process?
2. Mr. Ney is the attorney for NWACC (Paneitz). Who is the Attorney for the
Board of Trustees? Surely there must be another law firm.
3. If not, how will Parsons receive an unbiased Appeal resolution if the person
who fired Parsons and the body to hear the Appeal are receiving legal guidance
from the same attorney?
4. The Trustees will meet with Parsons on Friday, to "review" whether to give
him an Appeal? Paneitz presented her Memo as justification in firing Parsons to
the press. Why is Parsons not receiving an IMMEDIATE Appeal to respond to those
allegations?
5. Board members seem genuinely concerned regarding Parsons termination. So the
final and enduring question remains:
1. How was Paneitz allowed to insinuate herself into the process?
2. Mr. Ney is the attorney for NWACC (Paneitz). Who is the Attorney for the
Board of Trustees? Surely there must be another law firm.
3. If not, how will Parsons receive an unbiased Appeal resolution if the person
who fired Parsons and the body to hear the Appeal are receiving legal guidance
from the same attorney?
4. The Trustees will meet with Parsons on Friday, to "review" whether to give
him an Appeal? Paneitz presented her Memo as justification in firing Parsons to
the press. Why is Parsons not receiving an IMMEDIATE Appeal to respond to those
allegations?
5. Board members seem genuinely concerned regarding Parsons termination. So the
final and enduring question remains:
WHO is the puppet master?
Posted by: Legal919
August 30, 2012 at 7:38 a.m.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)