About everything that can be done to discourage citizen attendance at District Governing Board meetings is being done by the College and the Board, which explains apathy and disinterest

Editor: Robert E. Oliphant

OPINION:  During the March meeting of the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board, Chair Deb McCasland rightfully pointed out the sparse attendance of local residents at these gatherings. Her observation sheds light on a prevalent issue in contemporary society: the apathy of citizens towards civic engagement. However, several factors contribute to this phenomenon, especially when it comes to the Community College District Governing Board.

Lack of Media Notice for Board Meetings: One significant factor contributing to apathy is the lack of media notice regarding Board meetings. Unlike some governmental bodies in Yavapai County, the Board does not publish its agenda in local newspapers in advance of its meetings. Nor does it announce its agenda and any issues of importance that will be discussed on local radio stations. Citizens discover agenda items only when the agenda is posted on the Board website, which is usually one day before the meeting. This notice failure deprives citizens of crucial information about important issues to be discussed before a meeting, resulting in County residents being uninformed and disengaged.

 Abandonment of Local Television Coverage: Another example is how local television coverage of Board meetings has been abandoned. Prior to 2020-2021, Verde Valley Broadcasting televised Board meetings. Those meetings were shown on local television channels later in the week. However, without explanation, this practice was discontinued.

Reluctance Regarding Televised Board Meetings: A notable factor contributing to the apathy of citizens toward the Yavapai Community College District Governing Board is the apparent reluctance of College President Dr. Lisa Rhine to provide County residents with information about the College’s activities via televised Board meetings. In an unexpected twist for a higher education institution, Rhine expressed opposition to live-streaming coverage of Board meetings in January 2024. Her perspective was that the videos primarily served to assist staff in preparing accurate minutes. However, she believed that if made public, they could potentially be used to defame the College. Consequently, she advocated keeping them under cover. Despite Rhine’s stance, as of February 2024, the Board voted in favor of and has implemented live streaming of its meetings—a significant step toward transparency.

 Reluctance of College PR department to answer resident questions:  The Community College has a fairly large public relations department.  However, it has adopted a practice of not answering questions put to it by some residents or by avoiding direct answers in other instances.  This aids the College in keeping the public in the dark about its operations, thus fostering apathy.

 Lack of Interaction Between the Board and the Public: Another contributing factor to citizen apathy regarding the Governing Board lies in the limited interaction between Board members and the public. Some Board representatives have candidly admitted feeling ill-informed about the College, which prevents them from effectively discussing the College with their constituents. The lack of information  may explain why elected representatives rarely engage with civic groups and organizations to discuss matters related to the College, which only adds to apathy.

 Barriers to Public Discussion by Elected Representatives: Most residents are probably unaware of the absolute barrier existing for elected Governing Board members when it comes to discussing College operations. The College has strongly advocated strict limitations on Board representatives discussing “operations.” Operations make up about 95% of what the College does.  The representatives  fell for the College advocacy and adopted a policy preventing them from discussing any Community College action deemed an “operation.”  As a result of this restrictive policy, the elected representatives have tied their hands in terms of what they can say to the public. (So much for the First Amendment.) This no doubt contributes in a big way to the prevailing apathy surrounding the District Governing Board meetings. 

Lack of detailed monthly reports from the Community College president: A major failure on the part of the Governing Board is to request a detailed monthly report from the President regarding operations at each campus and center.  If the Board were concerned about reducing apathy and providing constituents with information, such reporting would be at the top of its agenda.  Residents in Prescott Valley, Chino Valley, Sedona, Cottonwood, and other areas remain largely uninformed about the operations of the Community College at their local centers or campuses. The Board’s failure to ensure transparent communication on a regular basis about operations leaves citizens in the dark. Why should they not know what is unfolding in their educational community?

Perhaps the Board members are grappling with distinguishing between requesting monthly operations reports and interfering with day-to-day activities. It is crucial to recognize that regular reporting does not equate to micromanagement. Instead, it empowers the community by providing insight into College operations.

Presently, the only available operations information stems from data accompanying proposed budgets. However, this falls short of the comprehensive understanding needed for informed decision-making.  By advocating for detailed monthly reports from each campus and center, the Board can bridge the information gap, foster transparency, and actively engage residents in the College’s vital affairs.

Limited access to Board representatives: Constituents in Yavapai County have limited access to their elected Governing Board members, as they lack local offices and staff. Communication is primarily through the Board website, where emails often go unanswered. This detachment from local communities throughout the County fosters a sense of disconnection and alienation among citizens, further reducing their motivation to participate in Governing Board meetings.

Does College prefer apathy? Interestingly, it may be that the Community College executives  may actually  prefer citizen apathy when it comes to the Verde Valley and other more rural areas of the County. Citizen apathy may serve as a convenient means of maintaining the status quo and preserving the College’s control over what it wants to do without outside resident interference of any kind. By discouraging active citizen engagement, the Community College operates with less scrutiny and accountability, advancing its agendas without significant opposition or oversight. Therefore, the College’s behavior  may subtly perpetuate conditions conducive to citizen apathy, such as limited media coverage, minimal community involvement, lack of reporting, and uninspiring civic programs outside Prescott.

In conclusion, there are major barriers that have been erected by the College and the District Governing Board to allow the free and open transmission of information to the public.  Unless these issues are addressed, apathy will remain high and citizen knowledge about the College will remain low. Maybe that is just what the College and the Governing Board want. If so, their behavior is a self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to apathy.