Deeply troubling—if not outright alarming—to witness how Yavapai Community College District 1 Governing Board Representative William Kiel was treated during the May 27 public budget hearing
Robert E. Oliphant
Opinion: It was deeply troubling—if not outright alarming—to witness how Yavapai Community College District 1 Governing Board Representative William Kiel was treated during the May 27 public budget hearing. Rather than an open exchange about questions involving $120 million in the mostly taxpayer funded budget the Board was being asked to approve, the meeting resembled something like a scripted stage production—where the Chair appeared determined to silence meaningful inquiry and bend the process to her will.
From the outset of the meeting, Chair Deb McCasland unilaterally imposed a five-minute time limit on Board members wishing to raise questions and discuss the budget. This arbitrary cap was never discussed or approved by the full Board—yet Ms. McCasland was determined to enforce the limit with the vigilance of a sentry guarding the walls against unwelcome scrutiny.”
Mr. Kiel, rightly concerned about the limitation, voiced his objection and asked for more time. McCasland offered a vague concession: perhaps there would be a second round of questions “if time allowed.” Unsurprisingly, she later declared there was no need for a second round, thereby eliminating any further opportunity for scrutiny of the budget.
Mr. Kiel at meeting showing time left to speak on stopwatch.
As Kiel pressed forward during his allotted minutes—armed with a stopwatch, no less—McCasland repeatedly interrupted him, declaring his time had expired. Kiel protested, and the Governing Board’s attorney intervened in his defense, affirming that time remained. Even then, McCasland continued to cut him off, only to be overruled by the attorney once again.
This was no mere misunderstanding. It resembled a calculated effort to muzzle a Board member charged with asking hard questions on behalf of the public. The imagery was striking: one lone voice attempting to speak truth in a room determined to turn down the volume.
Equally disconcerting was Mr. Kiel’s assertion that he had reached out prior to the meeting to the College’s Vice President of Finance and Administration for help with budget questions, only to be ignored. When this was raised, College President Dr. Lisa Rhine interjected, denying receipt of such a request. However, Kiel clarified that the request had been sent to the Board Chair. McCasland vaguely acknowledged the request was made at a previous meeting but offered no explanation as to why it was not acted upon. The tone, in my judgment, from both the Chair and the President, in that moment, could only be described as dismissive—if not somewhat overtly hostile.
That a duly elected Board member would be treated in such a fashion—during a public meeting about how to spend $120 million in public funds—should alarm every citizen of Yavapai County. What we witnessed was not transparency. It was a power play—an attempt to micromanage discourse and limit oversight. For some, it bordered on a suppression of free speech. For others, it was simply a disgrace.
In either case, it was a poor performance from those entrusted to lead. Public institutions are not private kingdoms. When dialogue is silenced and accountability sidestepped, it’s not just one Board member who suffers. It’s the public trust that takes the blow.