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 )