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.
The way NWACC treated Marty Parsons isn't new. This is how they treat anyone who raises questions to them about their corrupt practices.
ReplyDelete