President Rhine shows who is “boss” of College Governing Board by dragging her feet following January 16 meeting where Board voted 4-1 to begin live streaming all of its meetings as soon as possible

Editor: Robert E. Oliphant

Editorial: The Yavapai Community College Governing Board claims as its single employee, Dr. Lisa Rhine, the institution’s President. However, it has become increasingly suspect that Dr. Rhine is less than enthusiastic about adhering to Board decisions, especially when those may conflict with her personal views or those of the College executives.

In a concerning turn of events, Dr. Rhine has emerged as a formidable opponent for making video recordings of Governing Board meetings readily and easily accessible to the public. For example, following the January 16 meeting, she used her personal email to lobby Board members against making the video of that meeting readily available to the public. Her lobbying resulted in a dramatic change in the decade-long practice of openness practiced by the Governing Board. In the past, the Board posted  a videotape of Board meetings to its website two or three days after they occurred. That practice was stopped in January by Dr. Rhine!

The Community College President’s decision to alter public access to the videotape of Board proceedings suggests a deep-seated fear of  accountability. Videos may, for example,  provoke serious public scrutiny into the allocation throughout the County of the College’s substantial budget, which now exceeds more than a hundred million dollars.

Dr. Rhine may also be  especially keen to avoid taxpayer inquiries into the expenditure of public funds on a county-wide scale in areas such as land purchase and new or renovated facility construction. Blocking easy access to the videotape of Board meetings and not posting draft minutes on the Board’s website helps serve this objective.

This aversion to transparency was exemplified by the institution of a new policy regarding any Board meetings.  There will no longer be a post on the Governing Board’s website of a draft of the Board’s written minutes or a videotape of the proceeding shortly after the meeting.

The procedure instituted by Dr. Rhine to prevent the public from gaining information that once was readily available to the public is clumsy: She created a lengthy process of obtaining information about a meeting only by first making a formal written Public Document request in accordance with state law. A resident must complete the request on the College’s form and then send it to the correct College address. After that it will be sent to an unknown person for review and possible action.

The determination President Rhine has about keeping information from the public is also exemplified by her foot-dragging on implementing the Governing Board’s decision to live-stream all Board meetings. Recall the Board voted at its January 16 meeting to have all meetings streamed.  However, there was no live-streaming of the February 13 workshop.

It is noteworthy that the February 13 workshop session was one of the most important yearly Board meetings for County taxpayers. The reason is that priorities, assumptions, and other matters related to the College’s hundred million dollar budget are discussed in great detail at this session.

President Rhine’s  attack on transparency has, at best,  forced County residents into a convoluted maze of bureaucratic procedures to access basic information about their Community College and how and where their property taxes are being spent. This undermines the principles of open governance and places an undue burden on residents seeking simple insight into public affairs.

Why should residents face such obstacles when attempting to obtain information from a public education institution when it is so easily and readily available? This conduct establishes a troubling precedent, particularly for students, unless they wish to emulate authoritarian leadership styles. For taxpayers within Yavapai County, it leaves them in ignorance regarding the inner workings of their community College and how and where their money is being spent.

At the November 26 meeting, local residents were sent from the large, comfortable meeting room to stand huddled in an adjacent hallway or to sit outside in the cold because four Board members would not move to smaller space to hold secret executive meeting of unknown length before starting posted workshop and business agenda

Robert E. Oliphant

EDITORIAL:  The experience at the November 26 Yavapai Community College Governing Board meeting left many local residents attending it questioning the lack of a better plan for accommodating them when the Board meets in secret executive session.

The meeting had just begun when the Chair announced the executive session. Surprisingly, and to some attendees’ dismay, the four-member Board in the room (a fifth on zoom) chose to stay in the large meeting room, leaving dozens of residents to either wait for the regular meeting to resume by standing in the hallway or wander about the Verde Valley Campus with no idea of how long the secret executive session would last. Meanwhile, the four Governing Board members remained seated comfortably in the main meeting room, opting not to relocate to another space in the building or to an adjacent one for their secret executive meeting.

After about an hour or so with no indication of the secret meeting’s duration, many frustrated residents left.

This situation could have been easily avoided with proper planning and adequate consideration for those local residents who took time from their busy schedules to attend. For example, the secret meeting could have been moved on the agenda to the end of the workshop and business meeting. Or, it could have been held separately in the morning hours before the announced Workshop and Business meeting. 

Alternatively, the four members of the Board could have demonstrated concern for the local Sedona/Verde Valley residents by moving to a space in Building “M” or ‘to an adjacent classroom building, if Building “M” had no available rooms. The residents would at least had chairs to sit on rather than stand in the hallway outside the meeting room or sit outside in the cold.

Poorly maintained maintenance road separates neighbors and park,  may face future sewer environmental issues | Board and College should have listened to Paul Chevalier who represented the District where the Verde Valley Campus is located when the issue came up for brief discussion last year, not ignore him

Editor: Robert E. Oliphant

EDITORIAL:  The decision to construct a small 10-space trailer park on the Yavapai Community College’s Verde Campus, right next to the backyards of Clarkdale homeowners, is nothing short of a colossal blunder. This is particularly concerning because the only barrier separating the private homes’ backyards from the trailer park located a few feet away is the College’s poorly maintained maintenance road.

Already, this decision has compelled some neighbors to take matters into their own hands by putting up a substantial metal privacy/security fence to create a barrier between themselves and the trailer park. As apparent from  photos contained in a previous Blog post, construction of the fence must have caused neighbors to expend a lot of extra money to guarantee security and privacy because of the College’s location decision.   (Click here to see earlier Blog story and photos of fence.) 

What’s even more baffling about the location decision is the fact that there are an estimated whopping 50-60 acres of undeveloped land owned by the College immediately adjacent to the main Campus buildings. These vast, unused expanses were readily available for the creation of a small trailer park. Opting to place the trailer park in a location away from the back yards of Clarkdale neighbors would have not only shown respect for the neighborhood but also provided a location with significantly fewer potential problems.

One cannot help but question whether the planners gave any serious thought to the choice of location and the myriad challenges that come with locating a trailer park in such close proximity to a residential neighborhood. Can the College reasonably expect anything but a chorus of future complaints about noise, putrid smells coming from the large septic system, lighting, dogs barking, and litter strewn about the ground stemming from this decision? In addition to these concerns, some residents are already beginning to view the results of the extra-frugal investment in constructing the current trailer park as a Campus eyesore.

During his tenure as the District Governing Board representative, Mr. Paul Chevalier cautioned both the Board and the College executives against proceeding with this particular endeavor. Regrettably, his warning fell on deaf ears.

What’s even more disheartening is that not only were Mr. Chevalier’s concerns disregarded, but the College initiated construction of the park in March 2022 without his involvement or even his awareness. Astonishingly, the matter was never subjected to a specific budgetary vote by the Governing Board. This oversight failure occurred as the executives based in Prescott, who hold sway over all decisions affecting the Verde Valley Campus, deemed the construction cost associated with building the park inconsequential and unworthy of a detailed discussion or a specific vote.

Yet another potential future problem has been spawned by the incredibly ill-advised decision to construct a substantial septic system for use in disposing of waste coming from the trailer park. It would have been far more prudent to consider connecting to Cottonwood’s convenient sewer system, or even directly connecting with the main Cottonwood sewer plant, which is located  is a mere mile or so from the border of the Campus property.  

The planners ought to have been acutely aware of the environmental situation of the eleven thousand inhabitants of the Verde Villages, and that portions of the Verde Villages almost abut the College’s property. In response to their own concerns, the Verde Villages residents have convened a committee to deliberate on the fate of their hundreds of home and business septic systems. They’ve received expert advice indicating that while they may not currently be in violation of the Clean Water Act of 1972, it’s not a question of “if” but “when” they will be. Experts have underscored that the Environmental Protection Agency is deeply concerned about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, durable chemicals that degrade extremely slowly and are present in the effluent associated with septic systems.

The College’s septic tanks dug into the ground for the trailer park will only exacerbate the ongoing concerns in this area related to groundwater pollution.

It’s natural for Sedona/Verde Valley residents to wonder whether the Community College executives genuinely care about their area or if their primary focus is on the annual excess tax revenue generated by property owners in Sedona and the Verde Valley that can used on Prescott/Prescott Valley projects. The establishment of this tiny trailer park for students and faculty is just one of the decisions that raise doubts about the College’s commitment to Sedona and the Verde Valley. If anything, it highlights the urgent need for total  local engagement, control, and decision-making when it comes to the residents of Sedona, the Verde Valley, and the Yavapai Community College Verde Valley Campus and Sedona Center.

Instead of fearing public scrutiny because it honestly shares detailed lawful information about decisions and projects in the District, it should embrace it as an opportunity for growth and improvement

Editor: Robert Oliphant Commentary

EDITORIAL: In an age where transparency and open dialogue are increasingly becoming cornerstones of effective governance and public trust, one ponders what is happening at Yavapai Community College. While touting the values of openness, community engagement, and collaboration, it appears Yavapai Community College has become paranoid when it comes to sharing any specifics about its  operations and decision-making processes with the residents of the County who support it.

It seems to me that this closed-door approach to institutional governance is counterintuitive to its educational mandate and  also potentially harmful to the very fabric of academic freedom and community trust.

The Irony of Withholding Information:  Education, at its core, is about the dissemination of knowledge. Yavapai Community College is supposed to foster curiosity, encourage questions, and cultivate critical thinking. So, when it chooses to operate in secrecy, a stark contradiction arises. How can it instruct students the value of transparency, accountability, and democratic processes while simultaneously withholding as much information as possible about the inner workings of its educational environment from the public? It is hardly acting as a role model students should emulate.

Eroding Trust:  Trust is a fragile commodity, and once lost, it’s not easily regained. That should be a lesson learned over the past half century in the treatment afforded residents of  Sedona and the Verde Valley.  By keeping its cards so close to its chest, Yavapai Community College creates a climate of skepticism and doubt. Parents, students, and the broader community on the east side of Minus Mountain question what it has to hide. Without transparency, unfounded rumors, often based on misinformation, can gain traction, further muddying the waters and eroding the trust that it needs to operate effectively.

The Fear Factor: You might ask: “Why has Yavapai Community College chosen  this path of opacity?  Are the  executives operating the College trying to protect trade secrets, as a corporation might?” That seems unlikely. More plausibly, the executives fear a public backlash over unpopular decisions, possess concerns over competition between the five Districts in the County, or it has accepted an  institutional culture that has historically valued secrecy over public transparency.

While these concerns are understandable to a certain extent, the solution isn’t to retreat further into the shadows. In the long run, such behavior only exacerbates its problems.

The Need for a New Approach:  Yavapai Community College is not a mere corporate entity driven by profit. It is a center of learning, growth, and community building. It has  a responsibility to its students, to society at large, and Yavapai County residents in particular. Thus, it’s crucial that the College operates with a level of transparency befitting its role.

Instead of fearing public scrutiny because of sharing information, it should embrace it as an opportunity for growth and improvement. Feedback from the community can lead to better decision-making and a more inclusive approach to governance. It’s time for Yavapai Community College  to step out from the shadows of secrecy and engage openly with the public it serves. A culture of secrecy has no place in the realm of education. The future of the College and  the trust it should command depends on its willingness to operate with transparency, integrity, and openness.

Verde Valley/Sedona Residents taken by surprise as a variety of multi-million dollar projects for  west side of County continue to be pulled from taxpayer hat by College execs while east side of County ignored

Robert Oliphant, Editor

EDITORIAL: The Yavapai Community College executives began laying the groundwork during the September 19 Board meeting for another multi-million dollar construction project on the Prescott side of Mingus mountain.  This project would consist of a 40 apartment complex on 1.15 acres it just purchased near the Career and Technical Education Center.  The College’s rhetoric during the meeting left little doubt to most listeners that the goal is to obtain swift approval for the project at the next budget opportunity.

The College’s unveiling of the possible multi-million-dollar apartment complex for CTEC comes as yet another surprising development for County residents. Recall the sudden last minute  insertion of $10 million into the 2023-24 budget to accommodate a 20,000 foot expansion of CTEC—it already covers around 108,000 square feet.  Then the August surprise announcement that the College was quickly moving forward with preliminary plans to construct a 30,000 square foot Health Science Center in Prescott Valley at a cost of at least $20 million. 

In addition to these surprises, we know the College is currently allocating around $15 million to convert the Prescott Campus library into Digital Learning Commons. Moreover, it is in the process of developing a housing complex of manufactured homes near Prescott Valley for west side faculty, which will no doubt cost millions. 

In stark contrast, the Community College’s allocation of resources and concern for housing and amenities on the Verde Valley Campus and Sedona Center is minimal at best. It scrapped  the Master plan provision based on need and research, approved in concept by the Governing Board in November 2022,  to invest $9.25 million in  decent student housing on the Verde Valley Campus. 

It is worth noting that the $9.25 million Verde Valley/Sedona campus housing project was labeled a priority in November 2022 and sold as such to local politicians by College representatives in a special meeting held months earlier in March 2022. Despite the Master plan and rhetoric associated with it, within a few weeks of the November presentation it appears the College stepped away from it in favor of cheap, inexpensive temporary housing fixes for the Verde Valley Campus/Sedona Center.  Here are some concrete examples to illustrate this shift.

The first example is the decision to construct a crude 10 vehicle trailer park on the Verde Valley Campus. Starting last March, with notice to no one including the Third District representative, the College issued a contract, drafted a plan, and put a bulldozer to work on on the project.  Grading began on some unused desert land on its Verde Valley Campus adjacent to the vineyard that is a block or more from the main Campus facilities. There are neither sidewalks nor well-developed walking paths between the trailer park and teaching facilities.  Over the summer it installed a basic septic system plus water and electric lines, poured a small cement slab for each trailer, and proudly proclaimed in August the availability of a ten vehicle trailer lot for faculty and students.

By any measure, this is a minimalist trailer park. It offers little relief from the blistering summer heat because it lacks shade trees or a permanent structure for cooling, student gatherings, food, or refreshments. Security measures appear inadequate, outdoor lighting is nonexistent, regulations are few and far between, and perhaps most astonishingly, the trailer park entrance is merely 50 – 75 feet away from the backyards of Clarkdale residents. Access to the trailer park is via a poorly constructed, single-lane trail-type road where nightly visits from coyotes and Mohave rattlesnakes are far from uncommon, making for a rather unconventional coexistence with trailers of varying ages, makes, sizes, and conditions.

The second example  involved cutting a deal during the summer of 2023 with a Prescott Valley developer who was building a large apartment complex in Cottonwood about two miles from the Verde Valley Campus. The College agreed to reserve ten apartments for faculty and students and then rent them out.

This apartment project has already failed. Despite its best efforts beginning in the summer, the scheme failed to attract either faculty or students to rent them from the College for the fall semester. Apparently, although not entirely clear, the developer let the College out of any cost associated with its reserve agreement for the fall semester. The project will be shuttered next year unless there are takers in January 2024.

One couldn’t help but smile as the College executives presented their case for the CTEC apartments at the September Board meeting. They attempted to tantalize the Governing Board  with the prospect of partnering with a company with international headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark, known by the acronym “COBOD” (Construct Buildings on Demand). This company aspires to sell 40 state-of-the-art 3D cement printing machines annually in the United States. The pitch to the Board by the College centered on the notion that Yavapai could serve as the ideal training ground for individuals who invest in these printers.

According to the sales pitch delivered on Tuesday, the COBOD trainees would require accommodation for a semester or possibly shorter periods. Thus, the subtle yet discernible suggestion to the Board that there is an essential need for housing these individuals near CTEC because this is a destination program. The destination claim  is a familiar one that has been previously disregarded on numerous occasions in the case of the vineyard and culinary projects at the Verde Valley Campus and the Sedona Center respectively.

To further persuade the Governing Board, the College execs trotted out a graph showing that the potential student housing demand for CTEC-like-courses was already at 42.  It was estimated that COBOD would add another ten people to this list.

One can’t help but ponder whether this entire endeavor was surreptitiously conceived in the offices of Yavapai Community College executives based in Prescott many months ago and  intentionally kept hidden from the County’s residents. This approach now  appears to be the commonly accepted modus operandi of the executives running this publicly funded educational institution. 

They understand full well that without awareness by County residents of how they are spending taxpayer funds there is little or no accountability. After all, as someone has said, “accountability ascends amidst awareness.” 

A short essay by Robert Oliphant

Introduction:

Editor: Robert Oliphant

In a democratic society, officials, such as those members elected or appointed to the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board, play a vital role in representing the interests and concerns of the public. One crucial aspect of this responsibility is to ask meaningful and relevant questions when presented with important items presented by the Community College President and her staff. Failing to do so can have profound effects on the citizens of Yavapai County, impacting transparency, accountability, decision-making, and public trust. In this  short essay I explore the consequences of such failures by the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board, which failures appear obvious to a close observer, and emphasize the importance of these politicians actively engaging with their constituents and the executives who run Yavapai Community College.

Transparency and Accountability:

When Yavapai Community College District Governing Board members  neglect to ask significant questions about an item presented to them during a business meeting by the Yavapai President or her staff, as they do so often, it hampers the transparency and accountability that are vital to a functioning democracy. The Board members are accountable to the people they serve, and by not questioning the details and implications of an item presented to them by the Community College executives, they fail to fulfill their oversight role. A concern with this behavior by Board members in this regard is that the lack of scrutiny can lead to potential abuses of power, corruption, and, just as important,  the erosion of public trust in the system set up to govern the Community college.

Impaired Decision-Making:

Significant decisions often require a thorough understanding of the complexities involved. By not asking pertinent questions, Yavapai Community College District Governing Board members miss the opportunity to gather essential information, perspectives, and expert opinions. As a result, decision-making processes can become compromised, potentially leading to flawed policies, inadequate resource allocation, and missed opportunities for improvement. Ultimately, this failure to ask important questions diminishes the quality and effectiveness of governance, negatively impacting the  well-being of the residents of Yavapai County.

Public Trust and Confidence:

Public trust in the members of the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board  is essential for the functioning of a democratic society. When the members fail to ask significant questions, it creates an impression of complacency, negligence, or a lack of genuine concern for the public’s interests. This can erode public trust and confidence in the oversight system as a whole. The public expects their elected or temporary appointed District Governing Board representatives to be diligent, knowledgeable, and engaged. When they fall short of these expectations, it can lead to disillusionment, apathy, and a diminished sense of civic participation.

Missed Opportunities for Public Input:

Asking important questions allows the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board to engage in meaningful dialogue and seek public input on critical issues. When they fail to do so, they miss the opportunity to involve the public in decision-making processes. The public’s diverse perspectives, experiences, and expertise can provide valuable insights and ensure that policies reflect the needs and aspirations of the broader population. Without these perspectives, decisions risk being disconnected from the realities of the public, further undermining democratic principles.

Conclusion:

The failure of members of the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board  to ask significant questions about items presented by unelected officials in the guise of the College President and her staff  has far-reaching consequences for the public. It diminishes transparency, weakens accountability, impairs decision-making, and erodes public trust. Members of the Governing Board should recognize their responsibility to be diligent, inquisitive, and engaged representatives of the people. By actively asking important questions, they can foster transparency, ensure accountability, make informed decisions, and strengthen public trust in the democratic process. Only through such proactive engagement can the Board members themselves effectively address the complex challenges facing the residents of Yavapai County  and create policies that genuinely serve their interest.

Reasons vary but they include: (1) Concerns with transparency and financial accountability to  Third District residents because budget is presented in unfamiliar form unlike that used by cities and towns on the east side of Mingus Mountain; (2) Half century of inequitable focus and expenditure of millions of Third District taxpayer dollars on developing Prescott Campus to the detriment of Third District residents; (3) Refusal to seriously consider creating Administrative College for Third District thus maintaining iron-fisted control with Prescott based executives; (4) Refusal to develop music and performing arts programs for east side residents; (5) Inequitable development of sports and cultural programs in the Third District that to the extreme benefit essentially only residents of Prescott and Prescott Valley; (6) Refusal to reform the Governing Board to provide its members (and public) with regular detailed information about District-wide operations and development.

OPINION. Since June 2013, when Third District Representative Robert Oliphant voted “no” on increasing the Yavapai County primary property tax rate, the three representatives who followed him have all also voted “no” when it came to increasing the property tax rate to support the Community College.  What are some of the reasons that explain this consistent opposition to increasing Sedona/Verde Valley  tax rates?  The following is a list of a few of those reasons:

1. Repeatedly, Third District representatives have asked for greater financial transparency including a demand that the Community College provide an annual accounting to the Third District about the exact amount of revenue it provides the Community College through the District’s contribution via state and federal revenue, County primary taxes, secondary property taxes,  and new construction taxes.  It has only vaguely and very reluctantly provided some partial information.  In addition, the District Representatives have asked the College to provide an estimate of the tuition and government grants it receives because of the enrolled students in Sedona and the Verde Valley.  It has received no information about that. And then, an understandable detailed financial explanation of what revenue received was reinvested in the Third District.
2. The College has been asked in the name of transparency to adopt a budget format that is similar to that used by almost all cities and towns in the County, which is highly transparent. It refuses to do so, and its budget remains less than transparent to the average citizen in the Third District.
3. For a half century, the Community College has been developing a robust music education program on the Prescott Campus. It has done little to nothing to develop music programs on the Verde Campus or the Sedona Center.  Similarly, it has spent the significant resources to create and develop a performing arts program on the Prescott Campus but nowhere else.  Somewhere around 500 or more students attend the Performing Arts classes on the Prescott Campus annually; there are none on the Verde Campus or at the Sedona Center.  This has occurred despite the continual efforts of the Third District Representatives asking the College to address these issues.
4. Third District Representatives have evinced concerns about the centralization of all major decision-making in Prescott based executives. The College has made it clear it will never allow the Verde Valley/Sedona District to have a major voice in operating the east side facilities; the total veto power over major decisions for Sedona and the Verde Campus are tightly retained in the hands of the executives headquarters on the Prescott campus. And supported by a majority of Governing Board members all of whom are from the west side of the County.
5. Third District representatives efforts to improve community college development on the east side of the County have been thwarted by the west-county voting bloc on the Governing Board despite the fact that for more than a half century the Community College has used Third District revenue to develop programs and projects that are almost exclusively aimed at residents of Prescott and Prescott Valley.  Facilities exclusive to the west side of the County include: (1) Building a professional tennis court complex for Prescott residents—the College has no tennis team. (2) Building and maintaining an indoor swimming pool and wading/rehab facility for Prescott residents, especially the elderly – the College has no swim team.  (3) Since 1988, using Third District primary and secondary property taxes to build, support, and renovate at a cost of millions of dollars the Performing Arts Center, which is realistically a facility attracting and accessible only to persons on the West side of the County. (4) Spending millions of Third District taxpayer money over the years in developing a sports program with eight teams and  athletic fields, gymnasium, and all accoutrements with teams realistically only playing games and matches on the west side of the County.
6. Third District Representatives have learned that the District now produces at least $2 million a year in tax revenue that is not spent in the District by the College, which they deem unfair. In the past, the Third District as provided many more millions of dollars anually that went into developing the Prescott Campus and other facilities on the west side of the County.
7. After more than a half century, Third District Representatives were finally able to persuade Prescott-based executives to construct a Career and Technical Education Center on the Verde Campus. However, a small 10,000 square foot facility was constructed that hardly compares with the 110,000 square foot facility on the west side of the County.  Worse, development on the Verde Campus CTE facility is hampered because of the absence of a full-time Dean at the Verde Campus who would spend all of his or her time working with local businesses in the District on a daily basis recruiting students and leaning about local CTE needs.  Again, the development of CTE is hampered by the absolute control exerted by Prescott-based executives whose focus is on the west side of the County.
8. Third District representatives have been concerned with the loss of full-time faculty on the Verde Campus and at the Sedona Center. Many were cut in 2010 and 2011 and were never replaced. However, the sports programs such as basketball that were cut back in 2010 and 2011 have been recently reinstated and expanded, i.e., men’s basketball, women’s basketball, women’s soccer.
9. Third District Representatives have been concerned with the refusal of the Prescott-based executives to consider building student residence halls on the Verde Campus or elsewhere to initiate serious development on the east side of the County and as a practical matter make the east county facilities destination centers to assist in growing student enrollment. Student residence halls, which pay for themselves, can also help alleviate the need for students in the Verde Valley and Sedona to seek expensive private housing if they intend to attend the Community College on the east side of the mountain.
10.  Third District Reps have expressed concern with the mechanics of how the public hearings involving tax rate increases, which are required by law, are held. For example: (1) The public hearings are only held on the Prescott Campus.  There could at least be zoom facilities created at various sites around the County so all County residents would have reasonable easy access to the hearing. (2) Prior to the May hearing in Prescott regarding increasing the tax rate, there are no presentations by College officials to the residents on the east side of the County about the need for the tax rate increase and no open forums in the Third District where the residents’ views can be expressed. (3) Rejection of the committee system entirely by the Governing Board.