jill boyle response to august 31 092509

8/13/2019 Jill Boyle Response to August 31 092509

1/40

Response to August 31The facts

Jill Landesberg-Boyle

ABSTRACT

The contents herein are a response to the allegations presented in a publicforum without the opportunity for response.


2/40

RESPONSE TO AUGUST 31

I have heard it said, the truth does not stand a chance against a well-documented lie. I believe what the Board, and the public, saw on August 31st,

a display of emotion without an examination of the facts.Some background is worthwhile. In mid-July, the dormitory board voted 5-4

to negotiate with a local bidder. The national companys proposal was $2 Million less,meaning about $200 less a month for students, had a 30 year ground lease as opposed to75 years, a lower occupancy requirement (90% vs. 96%) and even generated up to $5million in profits to the college to support the academic mission. The rationale forrejecting a bid that was $2 million lower and would cost the college $5 million inpotential revenue losses, was based purely on conjecture; perhaps the national companymight incur costs prior to securing its financing.

The college secured documentation indicating otherwise, thereby showing beyonda reasonable doubt that the national company was a more sensible proposition. Withindays, Mr. Jim Hendrik, who was to be helping the college with the dormitory project,visited my house and asked my company if there was any chance I might change mymind and stop advocating for the national company. He asked if we had a goodnegotiator and when asked why, replied that he would hate for Jill to be like Moses,bring everyone to the promise land and then have to see it from, say, Philadelphia.

On June 22, 2009, Mr. Hendrik documented that he reviewed and read studentsuites letter had a brief discussion with the college president, and then states he metwith Randy Charles and Lydia Esteneoz, et al, re: Faculty/staff unrest. Hisdocumentation continues: Telephone call to Chairman Scales re: same. Meeting withBoard Chair Scales re: Re-evaluation of housing proposal in light of student suiteswaiver letter. He does not document that on that same night 15 employees, gathered by

Lydia and Randy, meet with Chairman Scales to lodge complaints against the president.In a radio interview Mr. Hendrik said he didnt want the Board to be caughtoff guard as they were in the Monroe County School District Matter as if the

president had been notified of a crime, had avoided acting, and no one hadreported the incident. In fact, these same employees had been upset withchanges at the college for some time and Chairman Scales had himself hadchastised them at a board meeting for their resistance to change and theirhostile campaign against the president.

The next day, Mr. Hendrik documents:

Consultations with Provost, L. Estenoz et al, re: faculty/staff unrest;Telephone call Chair Scales re: same. Telephone call Board member K.

Bassett, and email William DeVane re: Same. Consultations with Provost,L.Estenoz, et al, re: faculty/staff unrest; Telephone CallChairman Scales,re: same.


3/40

3

It is curious that a call was made to Chairman Scales, then to Trustee Bassett, and thenagain to Chairman Scales. According to Trustee Bassett. According to Trustee Bassett,Lydia Estenoz and Randy Charles did not initially divulge that there was at least oneother person in the room (and possibly more as JH documented et al). Trustee Bassett,recognizing she was being listened to on a speakerphone, asked who was in the room

with the two of them. Only then was it revealed that Jim Hendrik was listening to theconversation. A surprised Trustee Bassett asked why Mr. Hendrik was in the room andwas told that the three of them happened to be talking and thought it would be a goodidea to call her. , When she stated she was on spoken with Chairman Scales. And if theyhad already called Chairman Scales, why would they call another trustee? And why notthe anticipated incoming chairman, Spencer Slate? Given the activities that unfolded inthe next few days, the culmination of which was Chairman Scales communicating to thepresident that she would be terminated at the next board meeting (August 5

th), it appears

likely their motivation was to determine where Trustee Bassett might vote on such a .Chairman Scales would need two other votes and they would not likely come fromTrustees Slate. On the other hand, Trustee Bassetts empathy for unhappy staff was well-

known; she had been in constant contact with them over the course of the new presidentstenure. The third vote would have to come from whoever might be named to the board.It is unclear if it was known who the two new Trustees were going to be on

Tuesday, 7/22/09. At least one of the new trustees did get notified days before the newswent public on Thursday, 7/24/09, so it is conceivable that the Chairman was aware ofAntoinette Martins appointment. Her intended vote could have easily beencommunicated through contact with Lydia Estenoz, her close friend, or either brotherFKCC employee Michael McPherson or Mayor Morgan Mcpherson. Morgan had beenprivy to a conversation with the president about Michael and had reason to believe thathis job was not safe. He himself has reportedly told at least one person that he isprotecting (his) brothers job.

If the Chair believed he could secure three votes for termination, it would explainMr. Hendriks documentation on 7/24/09 and, in particular the comment: discuss scopeof problem and potential consequences. Two telephone calls to Chairman Scales re:

same.I left for Orlando on Thursday, 7/24. While there I had a telephone conversation

with Mr. Hendrik who conveyed to me that there was faculty/staff unrest he used theword insurgency and suggested I resign from my position. He refused to tell me whoprovided this information to him. He then nonchalantly asked if I had read the Keynoterarticle that day and then pointed out that it was reporting an alleged Sunshine Lawinvestigation against me. I was struck when he carefully, almost too nonchalantly, madesure to mention that this matter was a criminalinvestigation.

I called Dr. Charles, who told me he did not know of any unrest. I asked him totalk to Ms. Estenoz, knowing that she and I had argued before I left and knowing that shemight be upset with me (in fact, it is interesting to note that according to Mr. Hendrikstime sheet, within minutes after our last argument, she and Dr. Charles were againmeeting with Mr. Hendrik about growing unrest).

Two days later the Attorney for the Board summoned me to meet with the BoardChair the next morning, the day of the August 5thBoard Meeting. I was told to prepare tobe offered a severance agreement and if I did not accept, I would be fired at the Board


4/40

Meeting that night. In the meeting I had with the Chairman Scales, on his last day aschair, he affirmed that sentiment and told me You cant win this one. He clearlyconveyed a sense of confidence in the outcome of a vote.

Meanwhile, the provost was busy assuring staff this was a done deal - thepresident would be terminated at the meeting. He told others to get out of town in an

attempt to ensure no one would speak on my behalf. At the meeting, Ms. Estenoz brokethe ice, stating there were morale problems and concerns about our FTE; she had takenthe liberty of bringing this to the States Attorney. She had a different interpretation ofthe FTE regulations, she explained. Perhaps her legal expertise could be attributed to herconversation about over-reporting FTE that Mr. Hendrik documented in his timesheets.

Lydia Estenoz has stated in mediation that three board members told her tospeak out at the board meeting and talk about morale problems and her(uninformed) opinion of the FTE. 1

The die was cast. Unhappy employees who had been told their boss would befired if they showed their discontent (after all, there were two new Trustees and it wasincumbent upon them to make it look authentic). They yelled and chanted with abandon,

heartened by the knowledge that if they supported the provost, he would be namedinterim president. That did not happen. In fact, the few faculty members I gathered priorto the meeting expressed their feelings that the meeting was a set up. The board then set afollow-up meeting for August 31st. These grievance procedures are completely outsideof established board policy, but nonetheless, the surprise attack had caught everyone offguard and so following procedural due process was not the first thing on most peoplesminds.

Employees believed they could act with impunity and, their behaviorseemed to affirm this, for it is difficult to believe that without such assurances:

Ex-Employees who had not been to a board meeting since they wereemployed would be there with their families

Current Employees would be accompanied by their families Employees would chant and taunt the president loudly and without

any regard to civility or decorum.When I was not terminated, employees become increasingly agitated they hadjust acted with extreme antagonism towards the president and, as the infamousblog started communicating, they were afraid they had lost at least one of the

1Bear in mind, that for two years detractors have been trying to find a way to poke a hole inthe record enrollment numbers at FKCC. At first it was said to be completely bogus. Then

detractors pointed out that the bulk of growth was not headcount, but credit hour production

(in the first year there was a great deal of truth to that, but that just affirmed that had the prioradministration attended to the class schedule, they, too, could have posted gains). Then, they

hit upon the idea of tearing away at how FTE is calculated. This is a very complicated process,and as Dr. Holdnak from the Division of CCs has said, it is a case by case process.

Nonetheless, there was something they could get a toehold in and they went for it with gusto!

John Kehoe, Lydia Estenoz, Randy Charles, David Monroe, worked with me as we wentthrough each students individual records for hours on end, to determine that there was a

question about 2.2FTE (and that we had also underreported 1.9 FTE).


5/40

5

three trustee votes upon which they were counting. Anxiety was observedamong employees who had yelled and chanted at the president. Employeessuch as Cheryl Malsheimer, Michael McPherson, and Bryan Gilchrist, all of whohad attended the meeting (two of whom brought family members), wereoverheard at work planning where their next meeting would be held to give

them and their friends a chance to re-group.The coordinated introductions provided (I am not nameless, faceless, or

disgruntled), was a sure attempt to come out in full force so that they succeededin their agenda to get the president terminated at this point, one would safelyassume that once s/he had yelled at his/her boss in public, there was no roomfor a second failed attempt to get the president fired. Erika MacWilliamsrebuffed attempts for the administrative staff to collect the speaking cards and,instead, had all of those she knew would speak against the President hand theircards to her. She then waited until it seemed audience members had given intheir cards, before providing her stack, in one neat package, to Mr. DeVane. By

doing this, she and her friends determined the order of appearance (startingwith the provost) and ensured a potent, nonstop trail of aggrieved parties forthe first hour and a half. Those employees did not follow the rules manyspeaking more than three minutes even when told to stop. Many who came outto support the president left due to time constraints. When those who didspeak for the president (the majority of speakers, in fact) were at the podium,there were interruptions and yelling from the first speakers. Suzy Parks wouldraise her glass and jingle the ice in it to interrupt them.

Throughout the litany, Trustee Bassett repeatedly shot disdainful glancesand scowls in my direction, communicating clearly her thoughts on the

outcome. Indeed, in subsequent conversations she did not want to hear what Ihad to say, expressing only her wish to hear me to accept the charges offer a fullapology. I was never asked for the truth and it wouldnt have mattered if I hadbeen - it was clear at least three believed each story. Their public comments atthe end of the trial left few in doubt of the outcome. One trustee referred tothe twenty employees as abused.

As a curious aside, here we are after the decision and yet, the blog is stillactive. It is robust with employees and ex-employees jubilantly poking at theircolleagues and the president, as they impugn the dignity of the College. Thebloggers have been given a copy of the agreement I made with the Trustees in

good faith, and have posted it. I wonder, if the polarization at the college is allabout me, why do the employees continue their attempts to divide theircolleagues and embarrass the College?

As for me, I remain convinced that the truth is critically important to most.The truth should especially have a place of importance at an institution ofhigher education. Towards that goal, I wish to provide the Board of Trustees

with some information about the allegations brought to the August 31st


6/40

Grievance Meeting to clear my name of any allegations of wrongdoing, aprivilege heretofore not provided.

Had these issues been handled through an appropriate grievance process, Imay have had a chance to provide the facts, bring forth witnesses, and producedocumentation to substantiate the facts. In other words, if provided any

semblance of due process, perhaps the community would not be watching thecollege with such skepticism about what has just unfolded. In fact, perhapspublic confidence in the College no, in leadership in the Florida Keys

would not be so jeopardized as it is today.

RANDY CHARLES

Randy Charles described a paralyzing amount of micromanagement withoutproviding a single example. Perhaps what he refers as micromanagement is

follow up because as he has not completed tasks assigned to him. Theseinclude:

a. Our accreditation process--addressing compliance certification,faculty credentialing, and the QEP plan (which should have two yearsof data)

b. Reviewing the course schedule to ensure classes are offeredstrategically,

c. Working with faculty to create a process for continuing contracts.

His failure to complete assigned tasks has been documented in his annual

performance review and his probationary review. I urge you to ask JoanneDinkel for a copy.

Randy has been given much autonomy for example he determinedterminations of faculty on his own and was provided complete control over thecourse schedule. It soon became apparent, though, that, in hindsight, I did nothold him as accountable as I should have. I will provide email documentationthat I asked for his attention to these important tasks, if necessary.

(ATTACHED).My greatest concern continues to be his unwillingness to hold Erika

MacWilliams accountable for beginning our SACS process. Over the course of

the year, Randy himself has repeatedly expressed fear about FKCC not beingprepared for SACS. I agreed and we set aside funds to hire a more seasonedaccreditation director, but allowed funds to remain for Erika to be retained. Wediscussed the more seasoned person mentoring Erika and, given our late start, Ifelt it would be beneficial to have two people in place. (NOTE: as Erika stated atthe August 31stmeeting, Randy told her this position was being brought in so that shecould be fired this is completely untrue. In fact, I asked Randy to have a professional


7/40

7

development conversation with Erika pointing out her areas of growth and assuringher that she had a job). I also offered to go back through all the emails I had sentfollowing up on Erikas progress and to compile those into a single documentfor him to work with Erika on. I did this and can attach that list (ATTACH).

We also decided to send a team to attend the SACS conference (Dec. 2008).

There our fears were confirmed as we met with many professionals fromaround the country who were surprised that we had not yet begun to preparefor our January 2012 visit. Randy was to begin the search process for the moreseasoned accreditation person immediately upon our return to campus. Todate, he has not hired anyone and, to my knowledge, stopped collectingresumes and interviewing.

Accreditation has been an area I have been very vocal about addressing.I have expressed grave concerns in Erikas competency. I have not seenevidence that her level of knowledge is as expert as it should be for a leadaccreditation director. I have pointed out numerous examples to Randy of cases

where Erika provided inaccurate information to the college about the process,the timeline, and the documentation that we are already behind in collecting.For example, when Erika prepared our request for a substantive change inprogram offerings (hospitality), she was not aware a prospectus had toaccompany the request. The Executive Director of SACS wrote back directly tome and chastised us for not knowing to include a prospectus. This letter is onfile. (ATTACH) Last year, when we were working with consultant DebbieMason, we asked Erika to prepare an analysis of data on four institutional areasof concern. Despite repeated requests to her and Randy, she did not providethese documents. In the end, neither Erika nor her supervisor produced the

reports the president did. I clearly discussed my disappointment with Randywho said to me he thought the problem was Erika did not possess the skill levelto create an analysis such as what was requested (ATTACHED). Erika also hasdifficulty communicating clearly (something I believe Bob Norton can attest toas he had expressed some concerns last year during the faculty case). Randy hassaid he has had a hard time understanding her, despite spending hours withher even setting aside a day -long retreat for the two of them.

Despite my constant follow-up with Randy, he does not seem to wanttohold Erika accountable. I have asked him about this and he says he does not

know why. The problem has been ongoing as documented in his annual

performance evaluation.Several months ago, I asked Randy to start on the Quality Enhancement

Program (QEP) a major research report that takes an issue at the college, suchas math passage rates, and shows how data was collected, an intervention was

planned and implemented, and then provides the results. This is a veryinvolved project - usually a two-year research project, and one that must besubmitted prior to the onset of the accreditation visit. Randy said Erika


8/40

insisted the QEP is not due until after the on-site committee visit in January2012. I corrected him -it must be completed and in the reviewers possessionprior to the visit, We MUST start this process now as this is already fall 2009.

Randy did initially begin a search for the accreditation position wecreated. He told me that he had set up a phone interview with Cheryl, Erika

and himself for a candidate, and Cheryl ran out of the room crying, I cant dothis! This is Erikas job! He has still not hired anyone and has not interviewedanyone since this incident, several months ago.

Around March, I asked Randy to meet with Susanne Woods, a formerprovost with impeccable credentials including having been a tenured-facultymember at Brown University. I asked Randy to hire Dr. Woods as a consultantto compile our Compliance Certificate, which must be in to our accreditationagency 15 months prior to our process (which begins with an off-site review infall 2011 and an on-site visit in January 2012). The Compliance Certificationprocess is extensive and requires that the college engage in an internal

evaluation study that measures how it fares on each of the accreditationprinciples outlined by SACS. Although he spoke with Susanne and agreedthat she was more than qualified to help us in this capacity, he did not act to

initiate her hiring. I stepped in after a few weeks passed without his attendingto this matter and asked the business office to initiate a contract with Dr.

Woods for 20 hours per week (around April, 2009). Frankly, my anxiety was toogreat to let the matter continue unresolved.

Dr. Woods can attest to how much I have pushed SACS accreditation ina letter to the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor (ATTACHED). She canaffirm how worried I have been that we have lost yet another year because

Erika has not completed assigned tasks. A wealth of documentation exists onhow I have tried to move Erika and Randy forward on this very important task.They have never responded to her requests for thoughts and/or feedback on theprocess. I have been the only respondant to her inquiries.

I asked Randy to attend the August SACS conference and suggested hegather a team of faculty to accompany him and Erika. He did not.Furthermore, he cancelled his trip at the last minute and sent his secretary withErika. I took issue with this for a variety of reasons. One was that he was notattending and he had acknowledged to me on several occasions that he did notunderstand the accreditation process. I also objected to him sending his

administrative assistant instead of the Curriculum Chair. Finally, given themany documented leaks and the internal problems that existed, I did not wantJillian to be drawn into the destructive dynamics at play within theorganization. I knew that Erika MacWilliams was extremely unhappy in herposition and that she had gathered many colleagues to spend hours lamentingabout the administration. It was not in Jillians best interest to be influenced ina way that would entangle her in negative dynamics. Randy became angry with


9/40

9

me and said, Jillian is too smart for that! As is clear now, Jillian has, indeed,become a part of this dynamic. Not just because of her attending theconference, but because Randy reinforced the possibility of her becoming

jaded by telling (as was shared in meetings and on August 31st) that thepresident did not want her to attend the conference, did not trust her, and was

thinking of terminating her. Now, there is no doubt that Jillian, a greatemployee who just wanted to do her job, has been pulled into the underbelly ofdynamics that Randy actively exacerbated when he was hired to do just theopposite.

Randy Charles also spoke of fear and paranoia. This strikes me asparticularly interesting on two levels. First, what the paranoia he hasattributed to me is based on my sense that some employees were bandingtogether in an attempt to sabotage the college as a means of terminating myemployment. I doubt there is anyone among us who would deny that I havebeen the target of the most mean-spirited, public attack imaginable. It is a

well-known fact that employees were orchestrating efforts to get me terminatedsince the very beginning of my presidency. My awareness of this, and of theactions that some employees have undertaken is not paranoia - rather it is an

acknowledgement of the facts.! Two outside technology consultants have both affirmed that we have

serious issues within our IT Department and that three anonymousemails that were sent (a) originated from our server and (b) had tohave been created by someone with the administrative code to ourserver, i.e. the director of IT and/or the assistant director of IT.Furthermore, we know that my emails have been stolen from my

computer and that other emails have been sent under Dr. Kehoesname without his involvement.

! The director of IT was told to provide the Administrative Code to hisdirect supervisor, David Monroe, and he refused to do so for severaldays (enough time to cover any traces of which person actually sentthe anonymous email. On Friday afternoon, when David physically

went to Bryan Gilchrists office to ask for the code, Bryan said he waslate to a 4pm meeting (it was 4:02pm). Soon after, he was seendrinking with Randy Charles, Gavin McKiernen, and ErikaMacWilliams at Beachside Tavern.

! Human Resource records have been stolen from colleges files andbecame public.

! Christina Pichardo has documented phone calls with SuzanneRunnels and/or her husband Mike Driscoll, and then the presidentreceives inside information about those phone calls (ATTACHED).

! Ex-employees such as Sharon Toppino regularly come on campusand spend long hours in current employees offices.


10/40

! Conversations that are held in Presidents Cabinet find their way onto the blog.

In each of these instances, and in many similarly questionable circumstances,the college is undermined by posted attacks directed to any employee whosupports the president, by needless mountains of research to fulfill public

records requests, and by creating an atmosphere where colleagues cannot trusteach other. I, and others, were trying to find substantive evidence to bring anend to this hostile climate, but, before that could be done, some of the verypeople who we have reason to believe engaged in this behavior, weresummoned to a meeting with the then chair of the board, Ed Scales, who wastold that this behavior was merely my paranoia. Unfortunately, manyemployees and even students have been deeply wounded in this situation, asthey have been called retarded or even threatened. In fact, one of the ITConsultants received a voice mail on his telephone that was a recording ofsomeone disguising their voice and saying Stay out of FKCCs computing

issues. I would contend that there is a deep issue of hostile behavior and thatrather than minimize the president for trying to ascertain the source of theproblem, Randy might have better served the college by trying to stop the

behavior than by exacerbating problems by inaccurately communicating thepresidents communications and even making-up lies to create a sense of fearamong employees (i.e. telling employees the reason why he did not complete asingle evaluation was because in each and every case the president was going towrite all over them negative comments.

This brings me to the second level of my dismay. While Randy Charleswas alleging that the president was paranoid he actively participated in

creating a fear of paranoia in employees. As was seen on August 31st, in nearlyall cases where employees alleged they were called names by the president or

were told something disturbing, they stated they had heard that from theirsupervisor, i.e. Randy Charles, not directly from the president. A fewemployees left simply omitted any information about where they had heard theinformation and simply presented it as if they were in a room, face-to-face withthe president, and had been called a name. As they stated: the presidentcalled me presenting the information as if they were face to face with thepresident and she engaged in name-calling. I adamantly deny any such thingoccurred. If we were to go back and question those employees, I believe we

would determine the source of those rumors was Randy Charles. We have alsoheard from employees, like Brittany Snyder, who, at the August 5thBoardMeeting said, My supervisor couldnt do my evaluation because the president

would write all over it. When I subsequently asked Randy why he would saysomething like that he denied that he had said it, instead stating that Brittanymust have misunderstood something he said. However, at a subsequentmediation meeting (witnessed by a trustee), Jillian Manzer asked me if I had


11/40

11

said I was going to fire her. I was shocked beyond belief I think the world ofJillian and have said so to both her and Randy Charles. I asked her who wouldtell her a thing like that? She stated, My supervisor (Randy Charles). At thatpoint, I stated that it was hard for me to accept responsibility for doing thingsthat I had not done and had not even known was being said. I mentioned how

shocked I was when I had heard Brittanys comments about her evaluation, atwhich point Gavin McKiernon stated, He told all of us that.

BRITTANY SNYDER

Brittany Snyder is an interim employee who has filed a grievancebecause she is not in a permanent position. I believe this is importantinformation as it speaks to her motivation. Just over a year ago, Brittany was afinalist for a position of business faculty position. I would encourage you tointerview those who sat on her committee. Michael McPherson put the

committee together and he assigned several of Brittanys good friends: ErikaMacWilliams, Bryan Gilchrist, and himself. Only a single faculty member wasasked to join the committee- Sharon Farrell. Two community members werealso part of the committee (one was Anne OBannion, now a trustee). RandyCharles was also up for the position and at the end, the committeerecommended Brittany. Sharon came to me to voice concerns about how thecommittee had been run she felt it had operated in a bias way to benefit

Brittany getting the job she indicated that unlike the other candidates,Brittany had not done a teaching demonstration. I was also concerned becauseat the time we were trying to plan for a baccalaureate program in business, this

requires a person with a doctorate in business must teach a requiredpercentage of the courses (per SACS). Dr. Kehoe called SACS to confer and

they were firm that if we wanted to have the four-year program, we should hirea person with a doctorate in the field. Brittany called me at home and beggedme to put her in the position as an interim. She said that she would recruitenough students that we would be able to afford to hire a second person andthat person could have the doctorate. Additionally, Erika and Michael hadargued that she was in a doctorate program. I told Brittany I thought the worldof her and even though this was going to be problematic relative pursuing theinstitutional strategic plan, I would allow her to take the job as an interim.

Later in the year, Erika brought in a friend of hers who is also an accreditationconsultant. In a large meeting where Brittany was present, the consultantreiterated that we needed a person with a doctorate. Brittany was very upsetand I heard she had been crying. I called her and told her not to worry- we

would find a way to work this out. I kept her in the interim position and evenallowed for her to continue as an interim this year. Nonetheless, Brittany hassomehow gotten the idea that I am trying to get rid of her (from comments she


12/40

made on August 5th, it appears that Randy Charles has given her this idea) andher status as interim has added to her anxiety.

Brittany stated that I wanted to eliminate Suzanne Runnels job after shecomplained about sexual harassment. The fact of the matter, as Ms. Snyderknows very well, is that we were facing serious budget constraints that year and

that all positions were under scrutiny. There was never any relation to a sexualharassment complaint. In fact, I was not even aware that Suzanne had made acomplaint because that complaint was raised to a board member at a meeting(a year and a half ago) at which I was not present. I only became aware of thatafter someone else who was at the meeting told me that was said, although I didnot know who said it or what it referred to. I immediately asked the BoardMember who was present about it, in front of the HR Director. She said that itcame up but she would not tell me who said it because she wanted to protectthe confidentiality of the employees who had met with her. I stated that if there

was a sexual harassment issue the organization had an obligation to investigate.

I was told that as the conversation evolved, the employee had said the activity inquestion was not something she saw as sexual harassment, but rather acomment that she felt was inappropriate. The Trustee again told me it was not

an issue the person wanted to pursue and that it was not something that rose tothe level of sexual harassment. I was not told who the parties involved were northe circumstances.

In August of 2008, Mr. Driscoll filed a public record request for the ElisaLevy notes. In the Elisa Levy meeting (March, 2008), I was asked to leave theroom while small groups discussed issues and put them on newsprint. One ofthe groups listed Gender based comments on the part of the Provost. Again,

there was no mention of who made the comment nor was any specificityprovided about the substance of the comments. The facilitator had stressedconfidentiality; Ms. Levy had assured employees their individual comments

would be kept confidential unless they themselves wanted to state to the largergroup that a written comment had been theirs. That had not happened in thiscase. The term sexual harassment was never used and it was never stated thatthe comments had been pervasive or hostile.

After Mr. Driscoll received a copy of the report, he sent it to the Divisionof CCs and alleged his wife was the victim of sexual harassment. It was onlythen that I connected this with what was raised with the Trustee (outside of my

presence) and concluded that it was most likely Suzanne who had made theallegation.

At a subsequent Board Meeting, Mr. Driscoll accused me of notaddressing sexual harassment. At that time I reiterated what I have reiteratedherein. The Board Member recalled the situation differently than do I,indicating that she did tell me the details about the incident. Joanne Dinkeland I conferred after that Board Meeting and Joanne stated that her


13/40

13

recollection was the same as mine at the time we had not been given anynames or details and were told that employee stated she did not see thecomment as sexual harassment nor did she want to file anything with HR.Regardless, of the different recollections, it is important to note that theTrustee did tell Suzanne that if she was a victim of sexual harassment that she

should report it to Human Resources. She did not ever file any complaint withHuman Resources or with any one else at the institution.As an interesting note,the Board member did follow up with Suzanne Runnels several months ago, and wastold that the issue was not about the provost at the time but about a different staffmember.I believe the Trustee will attest to that. This is important because it indicates adifferent story than what was documented at the Elisa Levy meeting.

Brittany Snyder also alleged that she was asked to give a degree to a

student who had not earned it. This is not true. The student in question hadnever been advised correctly, had managed to go through semester aftersemester with waivers for math classes that she needed to graduate. She had

not been properly advised by financial aid about the concept of satisfactoryacademic progress a term that requires students to complete their degrees

within federal timelines and with satisfactory grades. As a result, each semestershe would go to advising and, because of scheduling problems due to the lackof class times/choices, she would receive a waiver from the advisors.

The student was a young, African American mother of three, namedLakeisha. She had been signed up for distance learning classes that fit herschedule, even if they did not fit her curriculum requirements. Moredisturbing, as a remedial student, those were not the best option for herlearning level. She was never told that she would eventually run out of

financial support and would end up having invested time and money inrandomly chosen classes that might have fit her time requirements at that pointin her life, but did not work together towards a degree. Nor was she told that ifshe did not register for math in a timely way, that she would come up againsther time limits, and never have completed even her remedial math, much lessthe math required for the business degree she wanted.

In fact, when I learned this, I did some research into how many of ourstudents were being allowed to get into the same situation. I then changed theprocess and provided a clear directive to the Academic Advising Departmentthat students must take math upon entering their degree program. This is to

ensure that students do take math at the start of their program so that we wouldnot continue to churn students through the system, taking their money, usingall their financial aid, and not having the means to graduate because a lack ofcourses. Math is a gateway class. It is imperative that students do not put itoff failing math is one of the most certain predictors for student attrition fromcollege. In fact, a year ago I had compiled statistics on the rate of our students

who do not pass math and how that correlates to failing to complete a degree


14/40

program. (I actually had asked the Institutional Research Department andRandy Charles to put this information together, but they were unable orunwilling to do so.)

In the case of Lakeisha, she had ended up with no certificate or degreeto show for her time in college because the classes she was allowed to take did

not seem to follow any curricular pathway. While it was clear that she wouldnot qualify for an associate degree, I asked Brittany if we could find a certificateprogram for which Lakeisha had the necessary requirements.

I had heard many other issues of students being improperly advised andI understood that advising was an area that in the coming year we would haveto review. The advisors felt that changing the way they advised students was acriticism of them. I have heard, particularly from Suzy Parks, that they resentthat students run to the president and it makes them feel they did something

wrong. In fact, during mediation this issue came up and I assured Suzy that isnot my intent and that in each and every student case, I always involve those

employees involved.Similarly, in this case I involved Randy, Brittany, Susan Urban, and Suzy

Parks (the advisor). However, they felt differently and argued that the student

did not deserve a chance to go through school. They argued that she was justusing financial aid for living expenses and that she was not serious about heracademic program. I listened to both sides of the situation, theirs and thestudents side. I spoke at length with Lakeisha, pulling Randy and others intothe conversation. I even had conversations with the students mother. Ireviewed our process of allowing students to bypass math class until they ranout of financial aid, and I was alarmed. I was even told by the director of

advising that the former VP of Student Affairs, Sharon Toppino, had startedthis practice by directing advisors to waive math and just get the students inenrolled in something. I took steps to ensure that the student would bemonitored - I had the student sign an agreement that she would check in everyother week with a counselor throughout the semester so that her progresscould be monitored. Doing so allowed us to identify this at-risk student and gether ongoing support through a grant program (with Carrie Groomes-Davis) sothat she could get back on track academically and be monitored regularly by acounselor. Nonetheless, the four employees in question felt that the studentdid not deserve our help and they were quite annoyed at me for stepping in

to make sure that she got the help she would not have otherwise received. Ifollowed up at the end of the day with Randy, who was agitated with me. Iexpressed my feeling that he was too focused on creating loyalty withemployees at the expense of resolving long-standing barriers that negativelyimpacted the quality of the educational experience. I also asked him about whatI believed was an assumption that the young mother was using financial aidsolely as an income source. He acknowledged he had doubts about the


15/40

15

students motives although he also acknowledged that the student had been ill-advised.

CHERYL MALSHEIMERCheryl Malsheimer gave an emotional recount of being called in to work

on a weekend (before Spring opening), omitting that it was the weekend beforewe opened and I had been alerted to a major problem with the courseschedule. During the previous semester, Randy Charles and CherylMalsheimer were working on the class schedule. I asked Randy each weekduring individual meetings and even in passing, if the schedule was comingalong. I was admittedly becoming worried because the deadline for it to befinished had come and gone. Each time he would tell me they were working onit and had it under control. I did not want to micromanage and so I would tell

him, as long as you have the issues under control. However, in the finalanalysis, the course schedule was not distributed in time for most students tosign up for classes before they left for the Holidays. Therefore, we did not havea good handle on our student counts for the spring. I watched the enrollmentnumbers over the holidays and was increasingly worried that they were lowerthan where they should be compared to the prior years benchmark.

Close to the start of the semester, I received a phone call from Gary

Martin. Gary informed me that he was checking on the Marathon and CoralShores classes and that they were not showing up in the online schedule andhad not been listed in the printed schedule. As we later discovered, the old

class schedule had been rolled over and the new classes had been entered ontop of the old classes this caused the computer program to indiscriminately

bump classes out if they conflicted with another scheduled class. This hadbeen the source of the registration problems, and subsequent low enrollmentnumbers. I then learned that right before the break, Cheryls office had sentout letters to students telling them they could not register for classes because ofa hold her office had placed on the students records. I found this outbecause my husband received such a letter. He was a student that took divingclasses, not a degree-seeking student, but because he had not submittedtranscripts, he was blocked from enrolling in an advanced scuba class. When I

researched it further, it turned out that hundreds of students had beensimilarly blocked from registering for a variety of different types of holds.

Next I learned that all the phones and computers on campus had beentaken out of commission the painters had left them unplugged, with all theoffice furniture from the main floor of the administration building, in thecenter of the lobby.


16/40

Complicating matters, Monday was to be the first day staff were back oncampus and the first day of classes.

I did reach Randy and Cheryl and at one point, when I was talking toCheryl about the problems we were facing the weekend before school opened,she said that Randy was in her office with her. I asked her to put me on

speakerphone and I told them that I was on my way into work and I wantedthem to come up with a solution to fix this critical situation that had resultedfrom the lack of oversight with the course schedule. I was frustrated and I amsure that came across in my voice.

As a part of the solution, we called those employees we could reach andasked them to come back to campus and meet about how we could get thecampus in shape for Monday and get the phones back up and running. I havenotes of that meeting (ATTACH). I did ask Cheryl to if any of her staffmembers were available to answer the phones and, she said she had someone

who probably would be interested in making the money; NOTE: Cheryl

omitted in her account that the person was paid overtime to come in andanswer the phones. She also omitted in her account that after things weregetting back in order that day, I went to see her in her office to spend time

talking to her and to apologize for being abrupt in my phone call to her. Shesaid to me that she did not think she could be the person to lead herdepartment because she was just good at routine work, not at being proactiveor at problem-solving. She stated that she understood, in hindsight, how manybarriers she had created for the enrollment process, and she did not know howshe could have missed them at the time. She affirmed her understanding ofhow the processes she had put into place were creating problems in our

enrollment management situation. I told her I had faith in her and I did notbelieve that she was not creative or a problem-solver. I encouraged her to seeherself in more esteem. I was very supportive of her and told her that

whenever she needed to talk to me, she could. We spoke for some time, and Iassured her that I had confidence in her leadership ability.

KARLA MALSHEIMER

Karla Malsheimer, an hourly employee and daughter of CherylMalsheimer, told how she was being moved out of her private office and thatdoing so was violating ADA provisions. She was asked to move because we had

added another advisor to the department (Nicole Girrard) and we could notjustify having an administrative assistant in a private office when there were notenough private officers for advisors.

A second interesting piece of information is that the hourly employeewas moved into her position in advising because she complained of beingabused as faculty secretary. I granted her request to be moved into the job of


17/40

17

her choice, and, in so doing, provided the Advising Department with anothersupport position.

Karla also mentioned that she called me about a problem with theschedule. That is true. She called me at home when I was out sick one day. She

was highly agitated about the class schedule and said that she was having

problems that she needed to share with me. I told her that I was ill but that ifshe needed to see me, she could come by my house. I did answer the door inthe bathrobe. I listened to her issues and frustrations and there were someproblems that, indeed, needed to be corrected. It is quite possible that in myown frustration, and not feeling well to begin with, I could have said somethinglike I cant trust anyone! probably to refer to the fact that the course schedulehad been delegated to people and I was being called, on a day when I was homeill, to fix a problem that I should not have been involved in to begin with.

SUZY PARKSSuzy Parks brought to the floor a complaint about dual enrollment and

alleged that I was asking her to be non-compliant with the law. The truth isthat Suzy has, for two years, complained about changing dual enrollment.

When I came on board initially, I received emails from school board membersand calls from parents about the Band Camp program. Suzy Parks was theperson in charge of helping high school students register for band camp and

other dual enrollment classes. However, I received complaints about how shehandled her duties.

Furthermore, there were issues with band camp in particular, because

she believed that those classes should not be counted as vocational classes(Band camp is a program where high school students take summer classes in

music, culinary skills, set design, and other similar programs). There are higherhigh school GPA requirements for college-geared classes (such as math) thanthere are for vocational classes. Complicating matters, I learned upon myarrival to FKCC that we had no one set requirement for either vocationalclasses orcollege classes. In fact, our requirements were set by each individualinstructor, typically at levels significantly higher than what is even required toqualify for Bright Futures. The legislation that authorizes dual enrollmentexplicitly states the goal is to optimize access. We moved to standardize the

guidelines and align them with the legislation. Also, because of ongoingcomplaints from parents, I moved Suzy Parks into a position as an advisor. Idid not negatively impact her salary. I put Gary Martin into the position of viceprovost. This has been a sticking point with Suzy (and with the entire advisingdepartment) ever since. For two years, she has tried to unreasonably limitaccess to dual enrollment classes. Indeed, this issue had just come up a few

weeks ago where she had failed to acknowledge the SAT scores of about 25


18/40

high school students who were taking a d/e class. She bumped them out of theclass and Gary Martin had to take the extra steps to get them back into theclasses.

Suzy She also referred to secret shoppers. This idea was discussed at aPresidents Cabinet meeting with her supervisor, the director of academic

advising and with the director of enrollment. What we decided, after muchdiscussion, was to tell the student services employees about the secret shoppersahead of time before we actually hired any so that they would be aware ofthe program and not feel that the program was implemented without theirknowledge. As it turned out, we never did actually get to hire secret shoppers.

What is important here is that there are problems in student services that havecome to my attention and the attention of many others. We were trying to finda way to better understand the issues so that we could work with the staff onimproving our services and, ultimately, our enrollment.

TINA PICHARDOTina Pilchard0 claimed in her allegation that I cornered employees and

interrogated them after she got her promotion. This is absolutely not true. I waswell aware of her applying for the promotion and had no involvement in thesearch committee whatsoever, other than signing the paperwork once therecommendation was made. She is correct that there was an incident whereHR asked her about the disappearance of some files; she, like other employees

who had access to the records, were all asked questions as the college consultedour labor attorneys and followed the advice of counsel.

She also indicated being spied on. Unfortunately, in a recent mediation

session, a member of the IT department, Michael Cruz, divulged that he hadbeen asked to pull her phone records, thereby divulging confidential

information. The information has been forwarded to Board Members and isattached.

SUSAN URBAN

Susan Urban had no background in student affairs, financial aid, orregulatory requirements when she was hired. I set aside funds to bringconsultants down to Key West for several weeks to train her. Susan stated that I

have no care for regulatory requirements which is particularly disturbing tohear I have spoken on regulatory requirements in higher education atnational conventions and last year presented with the General Counsel forBrown University. In fact, I have shown Susan where to find the regulatoryrequirements for federal financial aid (34 CFR 668). The truth of the matter isthat Susan often points to regulations in isolation to show why she cant help a


19/40

19

student. (ATTACHED) then have to research the matter myself to show herthat there are ways in which you can help a student.

I brought a student to her named Jorge who was having problemsgetting financial aid. He was treated rudely in my presence. I followed up withSusan and have emails that track our conversation. There are opportunities for

an institutions financial aid director to make decisions based on circumstancesas long as they are documented and within the parameters of the guidelines.Susan resisted this.

At one point in time we discussed Satisfactory Academic Progress,which she said the former director wasnt tracking or enforcing. I told her that Iwas supportive of making sure we followed the guidelines. I directed her andCheryl that they involve the department heads in the discussions about SAP sothat they could review their program requirements and make sure that theprocess was seamless. I also told her that since we had already started thesemester, she needed to communicate to students who were in jeopardy of

losing aid. I told her to bring them in and work with them so that they wereprepared the following semester when they would not get their aid. I did not

want the rug pulled out from under students who had already enrolled and

were taking classes. I didnt think it was fair to pull their financial aid withoutwarning after they had made decisions to be in school that semester based oninformation we provided them relative financial aid. I went so far as to call

Washington, D.C. to talk to the US Dept of Education to ensure ourcompliance with regulatory requirements. Susan left my office and within a

week I had students crying in my office and department heads calling mebecause they, too, were dealing with students. One student had been told to go

enroll at St. Leos. I called Susan Urban, Cheryl Malsheimer, Bill Chalfant andDawn Cline (diving department) to talk about their students who had beenimpacted. I asked Susan if she remembered me telling her to involve the deptheads and to not pull students aid without any warning. She did. I asked her

why she did not do as I had directed her to do. She did not have a satisfactoryanswer. I told her not following a directive is insubordinate. Later I askedCheryl Malsheimer (her supervisor) to document the incident. Cheryl refused.Rather than document Cheryl and cause more hurt feelings, I decided that I

would have Susan report directly to me.During Susans probation evaluation I documented my concerns. I was

going to extend her probation and she was very unhappy about that. At thetime, we were trying to determine who student services should report to and

while the executive team all thought an ideal situation would be to bring in astudent affairs professional from the outside, during budget discussions itbecame apparent that this would not be viable.

Against the recommendations of Randy, John and Joanne, I promotedLydia. I knew I would have to train her in student affairs matters, but I also


20/40

thought that she could help to lead the student services area into a less resistantposition. I have since learned, that, in fact, she began to identify with theirresistance to change and to aggravate the situation by wanting to provide themeverything they asked for.

In the case of Susan, I wanted to consider moving Susan out of the

director position and hiring a new director who had a background in financialaid and understood the regulations and how to increase the number of students

who accessed financial aid (our benchmark numbers are low for a school of ourtype). Lydia disagreed and so I went with Lydias recommendation and tookSusan off probation.

SHERRY BOYER

Sherry Boyer spoke of her job changing and in a constant yo-yo becauseof turnover. In fact, there has been absolutely no turnover in IT during the

past year. Sherrys job changed only because she was hired as a webmaster.But, after numerous attempts to get a new website up and running, and monthsand months of waiting, John Kehoe, Lydia Estenoz, and I made the decision tohire an outside firm to design and implement the new website. By all accounts,Sherry was not happy with this decision because she felt it was a personalaffront. Sherrys job was changed since she was not doing the website. The jobchange, suggested by Bryan Gilchrist, her direct supervisor, was done to assist

Gavin (distance learning) when Julie Bailey left. Bryan was adamant that we didnot need to replace Julie Bailey and that Sherry could provide the neededsupport for Gavin.

It is also important to understand that while Sherry did not bring this up onAugust 31st, she has been very upset by the fact that Bryan Gilchrist

recommended her for the network position but, in consultation with DavidMonroe and John Kehoe, we decided to give the position to an outside person

with more experience. Dave Monroe has an extensive background innetworking and he is now over the IT Department. Sherry filed a grievanceabout this situation and has also brought this up in mediation sessions. Shefeels that the president is responsible for her not getting the promotion.

PENNI WISEPenni Wise alleged that I had directed the Nursing Director to abort the

investigation into cheating. I have documentation and a letter from a studentthat shows otherwise. ATTACHED.


21/40

21

IGNORING THE LAW

Advising has actively fought me on dual enrollment saying that the law wont allowchanges I pushed to implement. When I came here, each instructor was allowed todetermine what scores d/e students needed in order to get into a class. I had severalcommunications from school board members and from parents complaining about the

obstacles their students encountered. I did a bit of research and discovered that in nearlyall cases, our standards were higher than nearly any other community college in the state,and, certainly, far above the state set requirements. I changed that and, yet, the sameemployees who say they embrace change, have fought me on that to this day. A focus onobstacles, not opportunities.

I also came under fire when I wanted to change the TOEFL scores to encourage moreinternational students. We had no EAP program at the college and our score requirementswere the highest in our system. I asked staff to research the other schools and adopt notthe lowest, but the median scores of the system. However, even the other night, we heardhow I had evidently disregarded policy and law when I simply asked us to align our

standards with other schools. Obstacles.

One passionate employee angrily told how I was making her move out of her office inviolation of the Americans with Disability Law. This is an hourly employee who servesas an assistant to the director of advising. A small part of her job duties is meeting withstudents with disabilities to get their paperwork in order so that we can relay to theinstructors what accommodations they need. Now let me give you some background.This is an employee who previously worked as the secretary to the faculty. She came tome and begged me to move her because she said she was being abused by one of thefaculty. I created an extra position in advising services where she asked to be placed and moved her. The director had an extra office and she has enjoyed being one of very

few hourly employees who have their own offices. However, when we added anotheradvisor just recently, there was no office for that person. I knew it was going to causeproblems, but I had to make the difficult decision to move the advisor into the office andmove the hourly employee to a desk outside of her supervisors office. I asked that whenshe was dealing with students requesting accommodations, she use one of the adjacentconference rooms. There was no violation of the law. Obstacles not opportunities.

RETALIATION

There were numerous allegations about retaliation but not a singledocumented case of retaliation exists. In one case Steven Parker attributed ademotion he received (a reclassification that kept his salary the same but movedhim into a lower range) to his friendship with someone who came to the Boardmeetings to speak out against me. I went to speak to Steven about this. I visited


22/40

him in his department and asked why he was upset. He explained he had beendemoted around the time one of his friends had come to a board meeting tospeak against me. He was sure the two events were related. I was surprised Isign mountains of paperwork and, in the case of reclassifications simply ensurethe supervisor and human resources approved the action. Nonetheless, within

an organization where the word retaliation has become such a rallying cry, Iunderstand how he concluded that I had a hand in the matter. Steven alsotalked about Debbie Leonard calling and asking about his account; the fact ofthe matter is that this incident happened as we were going through the FTEone-by-one to double check numbers. In the process, we discovered cases

where employees had outstanding balances. Steven happened to be one ofmany people called that day. Debbie Leonard, David Monroe, Jesse Perl off,and even Lydia can verify this.

At the grievance meeting feelings of trepidation were expressed and Ibelieved the issue was that HR was seen as an arm of the president. However,

this employee shared a completely different perspective. He had gone toHuman Resources in confidence to talk about his demotion, but his confidence

was not honored. His supervisor was informed. As far as he was concerned, I

wasnt the issue at all.

NAME CALLING

There were also allegations made about what I allegedly said often

those were phrased as Dr. Boyle called me as if the employee had first handknowledge. Yet, other employees acknowledged that they had heard suchinformation from their supervisor They did not say who that supervisor was,

but in case after case, it was Randy Charles. Randy Charles also told employeesthat he could not do a single evaluation because the president would write all

over it as Brittany Smith and others have said publically. The fact of thematter is that this was never said to him. In fact, if one were to pull Dr.Kehoes employees evaluations of the business office, purchasing, IT andothers, they would see that did no such thing. Why would I do this in the caseof Randy Charless employees?

CONCLUSIONFor two years, I have been the object of some of the most vicious, malicious verbalattacks imaginable as individuals with personal agendas have gathered to oust me fromthe college. I went to the Key West Police, the Sheriffs Office and the States AttorneyOffice and pleaded for help. They explained that they could not subpoena any records,because these (word) danced right up to the criminal line, without going over it.


23/40

23

Most of us found their tactics so distasteful, so sophomoric, that we thought it best toignore them. Now these individuals are finally showing their faces. They continue tohurl insults, rumors, and innuendos. Most of the roughly 25 (all but two staff, notfaculty) employees who spoke at open meeting repeated rumors and misinformation theywere told by others. Others misrepresented facts or lied by omission. Others engaged

in outright slander by stating that I had delusions of paranoia and conspiracy.

ParanoiaParanoia was a common theme. I had only been on the island a matter of weeks when Iheard from dozens of people that my vice presidents were telling everyone I had abipolar disorder. That soon turned into narcissistic personality disorder then moodswings and now paranoia. I have endured two years of malicious emails, blogs, letters,and rumors that thousands of people have seen. We all know about the Jan Perez emails,the Pat Perez emails, and the many other pseudonyms that have evolved. These emailsare sent almost weekly and, at times, multiple emails are sent in a single week. Theemails go to newspapers all over the country, every former employer and supervisor, the

Los Angeles Jewish Community, college presidents throughout the state and even thecountry. I have asked staff for a written document and then, ten minutes later, I havereceived a public records request for that same report. I have had my emails stolen offmy computer and an independent outside technology firm has said that it is almostcertainly a breach occurring within my own Institutional Technology department. I thinka reasonable person under those circumstances would have some hesitancy to place toomuch trust in others.

RetaliationA second charge that was repeatedly raised was a charge of retaliation. Have staff beenasked to be accountable for their job duties. Absolutely. Have they been asked to provideexcellent student services? Yes they have. If someone does not do their job, are they heldaccountable? Indeed they are. And if they continuously focus on obstacles, notopportunities, are they challenged to rethink their assumptions. Yes. That is notretaliationthat is accountability.

One employee said that she disagreed with me and I told her if you dont like ittheres the door. What she didnt say was that she had yelled at me twice in the pastweek to the point where I had to ask her to stop yelling at me. She also didnt note thatshe had just received a promotion and a $20,000 raise to lead student services and thecharge she had been given was to move them from a culture of obstacles to one ofopportunities. She had been asked to work with them to improve their processes and tomove them in the direction that we had set for the institution. She had instead beenreinforcing their resistance to change. That day we were disagreeing about a directive Ihad given her that she was not following. Yes, I told her that if she didnt like thedirection, she could leave. That was at about 3:30PM; according to Mr. Hendrikscommunity service report, she and the provost were meeting with Mr. Hendricks by4:10pm and placing a call to Ed Scales about faculty/staff unrest.

Now counter that with the faculty perspective. I sat in mediation with the faculty wherethe focus was not on me, it was on the board. Two faculty members shared that they


24/40

came back to FKCC because of the exciting changes going on here with the newleadership. Others were clear to point out that none of them were asked if there was amorale problem. And yet another pointed out that the person who was in charge of thefaculty, that is, the provost, had not asked them if there was a problem. The person incharge of the academic quality of the institution was completely out of touch with the

faculty when he began reporting that there was extensive faculty unrest.

Abusive Behavior

A third theme in what the Citizen noted appeared to be an orchestrated attempt atdefaming the president was a charge of abuse. Employees described that I called themnames, or said that they couldnt sit with their friends without being put on a hit list.However, what they didnt say was who told them those horrible rumors. When ourmediator was here, he said he had never been anywhere where the organization ran sopervasively on rumors and innuendos. What shocked me was that two days prior, atrustee and I sat and heard employees talk about one person in particular who was

spreading those rumors. One administrative assistant tearfully asked if I was going to fireher it was someone I have great admiration for and when I heard this I was shocked. Iassured her I thought the world of her and had not said such a thing. She told me that hersupervisor had told her this. Yet, at the open meeting, she and others who had describedsimilar experiences went to the podium and ascribed those words to me. That is whyTrustee OBannion noted at the conclusion that she had heard with her own ears acompletely different story just two days prior. I dont know why that is, although severalpeople in academic affairs have said that they were told to keep their heads down becausethe decision was already made. They told me they were told that by the provost.

It is worth juxtaposing the allegations of retaliation and hostile work place

against the facts. I promoted many staff, gave raises and equity boosts (even tothose who claim an atmosphere of retaliation), and when asked for a favor byany employee, I typically said yes. Whether hosting a Girl Scout troop on

campus, allowing a friends wedding in the Maxwell Environmental Center, oroffering free or reduced space to numerous community organizations in need ofspace. And while some employees talked about being told a year ago that they

were going to be fired, none were. Indeed, they have received substantial raises.Health benefits were extended to partners and subsidies for family plans were

created when health care became too expensive for many staff to afford. Nearlyall budget requests for new furniture or instructional equipment were met.

It is also worth juxtaposing my work environment I have been the victim ofinnumerable anonymous hate mail, have been threatened, have been told that Icould lose my housing allowance (in fact it took three board meetings to get itcontinued). I have been yelled at by the Chair of the Board at a public meetingand publically rebuked by three board members on August 31st, even beforethey had ever heard the facts from my side. I have asked the Chair of the Boardfor an investigation by the board into the anonymous smear campaign I have


25/40

25

suffered but, instead, have only been threatened with investigations into mewhen allegations are made. As a senior faculty member noted:

Dr. Boyle has faced years of real, not imagined or paranoid,

opposition. The organized opposition began even before shebecame president, has been aired in the press, on their blogsites, and in meetings with board members. Oddly, the sameclique which has opposed Dr. Boyle and resisted student

centered reforms, claim that something is amiss in any curiosityDr. Boyle might have about the history and extent of theiropposition.

Serious charges and slanders have been lodged, withoutadequate format for rebuttal or other trappings of due process.

Many falsehoods were flaunted in front of media, and aired as

truth. The FKCC College Board of Trustees could investigate tofind any similar examples of an organized group of malcontentsgaining a forum to publicly slander and undermine a collegepresident.

The Chair of the Board has befriended and mentored the provost and invitedhim to settings where the next speaker of the house is present, while notinviting the president to partake in those same settings. In fact, Ed and Randy

have been seen hanging out with a variety of political leaders Ron Saunders,

Dean Cannon, Mario DeGinnero, Morgan McPherson.

The Chair of the Board has then taken phone calls from his protge RandyCharles who tells him, coincidentally at the same time that Morgans sister is

appointed, that now is the time to strike.

I do have high expectations, and I may not be as complimentary as I should be,

but I am not abusive. The fact that those who engage in the most abusive andvile attacks have co-opted the word "abuser" and "retaliation" from their ownmethods, and applied it to me, is the most appalling offense of all.

I don't have to do this the game is over - but no matter how much I tell myselfthat it is not even worth the hours of work and research, I can not help but feelcompelled to reveal the facts.

You see, when someone has an opportunity to be presented with the caseagainst them (the person and the specifics), they may be able to fill in thepieces. However, in the case of trustees meeting without the "defendant" in the


26/40

room, there is no truth. After two years, those trustees are already tainted andsimply want to feel affirmation that they are right" in their decisions. It is thatself-assurance, that allows them to rationalize that they have made the bestdecision for the college.

The truth is, at the end of a witch hunt, you may have burned the symbol, butthe problems remain...if you dont believe me, just log on towww.savefkcc.com.


27/40

27

APPENDIX

July 20,

2009

Consultant gives further explanation on the types of financing employed by each bidder,

shares insights on conversations she has had with each and makes a recommendation on the

type of financing that would be most beneficial to the College. After thoroughly reviewing

both types of proposed financing, she proposed tax-exempt financing as the method most

beneficial to the College in that it represents lower costs to the students, more flexibility, and a

cash flow to the College. She also stated that the partners do not wish to substitute teammembers and that given the structure of each proposal, neither would be very adept at

adopting the strategy of the other. A member of the audience who also has served in aconsulting capacity stated that, in a conversation with Mr.Spottswood, a partner with Wood

Partners, the latter individual stated that if given the opportunity to obtain tax-exempt

financing, the College should jump at the chance. Wood Partners had still not produced a

viable pro forma.

Despite the information from the consultant in the audience along with the evidence andtestimony presented by the financing expert supporting the financing approach advocated by

Student Suites, the Board decided to extend an invitation to Wood Partners to discuss with

them at greater length its proposal.

DSO also directed College Board of Trustees to be asked questions Did they want the

College to manage Student Housing? and Did they wish to obtain a profit from housing?

Does the BOT care?

(DOES THE BOARD CARE IF THE COLLEGE GAINS FINANCIAL RESOURCES BACK

FROM THE HOUSING VENTURE? WE HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO CARE.)

7/20/09,

Monday

Aft

DSO

meeting

Expert recommends National Company. Ed brings up a question of bond financing what ifSS doesnt get financing and if they start incurring costs, the college would have to pay

$200,000 maybe $400,000. Moves for Woods.

Jill comments on other agenda and that she was told that if she doesnt go with Spottswood,

then .Ed jumps out of his chair and yells at her to silence her. The members of the DSO who

voted for Spottswood also yell at her.

7/20/09

DSO

MEETIN

G

Jim H. documentation: Call M. Bailey: provide update and discuss issues to be decided at

todays Board meeting. (M.Bailey had been a vote in favor of SS) Attend and assist DSO

meeting. Tel Dr. B (following meeting).

7/21 -

Tuesday

Jim H. Documentation Call Ed Scales re: basis for decision by Island Living Board (and

reconciliation of conflicting views. Consultation w/Dr. B. re: same.

July 22,

2009Received letter from Student Suites attesting to the fact that FKCC is in no danger ofbeing stuck with any fees if they accepted our proposal and we could not find the

financing. Jill gets letter from SS to Hendricks and Ed Scales showing that what Edpresumed and presented to the Board of DSO was inaccurate.

7/22 -

WEDNES

DAY

Jim H. Receive and read Student Suites letter re: waiver of liability for preliminary

expenses to be incurred in dorm design; brief discussions w Dr. B and DL same.

CONSULTATIONS W/PROVOST, L. ESTENOZ, ET AL, RE: FACULTY/STAFF

UNREST; TEL. CALL CHAIRMAN SCALES RE: SAME.

Meeting with Bd. Chair Scales re: Re-evaluation of housing proposal in light of studentsuites waiver letter.

According to Lydia: Jim and Ed met with Lydia and Randy also that night.

7/23/09 -

TUESDA

Y

JH Documentation:

Receive and read Dr. Ks email, attaching copy of issues for Student Housing memo re:

Woods proposal. Discussion w//Dr. Kehoe re: same.


28/40

Consultations w/Provost, L. Estenoz, et al, re: faculty/staff unrest; Tel.call/Chair Scales re:

same.

Tel Call Board member K. Bassett, and Email Wm DeVane re: same.

---according to Kim, Randy and Lydia do not divulge that Jim is in the room listening in

until Kim asks who is in the room.

Consultations w/Provost, L.Estenoz, et al, re: faculty/staff unrest; Tell call-Chairman

Scales, re: same.

Discussion with DL rescheduling Board meeting to meet State deadline for submission(soJim knew when Board Meeting would be).

7/24/09 JH Documentation: Tell call Wm DeVane re: staff and faculty unrest; discuss cope ofproblem and potential consequences. 2 Tel Calls/ Chair Scales re: same. Te call-M. Bailey

(housing Board) re: comments made at Mondays Board meeting and potentialreconsideration based on SS letter. Tel/call Wm Devane re: his inquiries concerning staff

unrest.

7/25?/09

FRIDAY

after the

meeting

MEETING WITH SPOTTSWOOD IN THE MORNING Meeting at Beachside with Robert

Spottswood, Kirsten Kraig, Jim Hendrik, Jill

Why doesnt he document this meeting in his probation record like he does the

other meetings?

7/25?/09 -

FRIDAY

Friday (after the DSO Meeting where Jill mentioned Spottswood) EVENING -

Jim Hendrick comes to visit Jills husband and Asks if Jill will change my mind on the

dormitory deal; Asks if I have a good lawyer/negotiator; Says it would be a shame for Jill to

be like Moses, bring the people to the promised land but have to see it from someplace like,say Philidelphia.

7/27/09 -

MON

What time does JH state? JH Documentation: discussion w/Dr. Kehoe re: staff & Faculty

unrest. Tel/call Chair Scales: his re-evaluation of revenue bond approach: memo to follow.

Te Dr. B. the same. Receive and read Scales memo. (John says he did not have any mtg with

JH re: unrestCould JH have tried to bait him and John doesnt remember b/c he didnt have

anything to say on the subject?) (What time does he document receive and read memo? Prior

to 5:50pm?)

Letter from Ed Scales to Buck Devane & me 5:50 PM (what time did JH talk to Ed?) re: it

may be a waste of time but if that is who we want to go with.Email to Buck & Jill from Ed

reluctantly acknowledging that the SS proposal is more beneficial to college. The email refers

to if SS can even get financing given the bond market (terrible) and that if it doesnt work

out the college will have wasted it time (public record request this email from Ed and/orBuck).

From:Ed Scales [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent:Monday, July 27, 2009 5:50 PM

To:'Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle'; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject:RE: Letter from Student Suites and Issue for BOT

Dear Jill, Buck and Jim,


29/40

29

Sorry we've missed each other on the phone. (According to JH, Ed and JH did talk by phone) My thoughts on the Student Suites letter...

This letter from Student Suites is a potential "game changer". The risk problem would be greatly alleviatedby Student Suites' proposal.

Here's the overall problem, the way I see it.

I'm not very optimistic that, given FKCC's history with housing (none), and given the current bond markets

(awful), that the proposed revenues from the dorm will be enticing to a bond-issuer, especially without anyrecourse against the college or the DSO.

Tuesday

the 28th

at

9 AM

Individual Meeting with LydiaArgument with Lydia- about the registration of new students

and she was extremely obstinate I sensed something had changed. I had to tell her not to yell

at me.

7/29 -

WED

Two calls on my cell phone records to JH 15 minute call at 8:21 PM and a

1PM - Interview Committee with Pam, Rhonda, Tom O. Dir of PR

Around 3:30PM Read email from Lydia re: she was upset about not being on the committee

Go to her office Asked her what was up and she said she was on the phone with someone

who was applying for the Board b/c the Governors Office was saying that there was not

enough peopleTold her that was not was I meant I was asking her about the email she sent

where she suggested that she should be on the committee because of her background in theposition and her ethnicity as a Latino Woman. Told her no b/c she was a reference for one of

the candidates. Discussion got into advising services role in how students were supposed to beregistered earlier. I ask her to stop yelling at me. I say if you dont like it theres the door. (she

has a discussion with Jim re: employment discrimination issue 2 days later on the 31st).

7/30

Thursday

at 4:10

PM

Lydia has discussion with Randy andJim

JH Documentation: Tel call Dr. B clarification of Wood Partners collateral requirement.

Discussions w/Provost and L Estenoz re: growing unrest and discouraging staffpresentations of complaints at Board Mtg.

Thurs

7/30/09

Susies party and left for Orlando;

CALL FROM GOVERNORS OFFICE NEWS ON APPOINTMENT- When was

Antoinette notified? Jill at Key Largo Fundraiser for FKCCNew Trustees Appointed to Board by Governor

Antoinette Martin, sister to the Mayor and sister to Michael McPherson who has been linked

as a dissatisfied employee

FRI- 7/31 JH Documentation: Discussion with L. Estenoz re: public records demand FTE

documents and employment discrimination issue. Tel call Chair Scales re: inquiresconcerning FTE over-reporting and meeting with staff discuss scope of FTE issue andColleges production of documents.

Sat

August 1,Telephone discussion w/Jim H. (telephone call) Jim Hendrick conversation re:insurgency by executive team saying it is people I promoted and appointed.

Jim says it is all of my executive team and these are people you appointed and promoted.NOTE: Jim has been using Lydias office for long hours at a time and Randy Charles has been

visiting in Lydias office frequently.

He tells me I should think about stepping down: and then asks if I read the Keynoter. He tells

me there is an extensive (I think he used the words three paragraph) article that (jill) is being

investigated for Sunshine Law. I ask what for he responds rumor has it that theres someemail from Spencer to you asking if he voted right (the question was after the fact, had to do

with the issue that he was there by phone and couldnt hear the conversation because the

equipment was not working well; I had never replied to that email). That email was sent only


30/40

to me so I knew that someone had raided my email. There had been no public record requests

beforehand for this email. He then emphasizes that this is a criminal investigation. 17

minute phone call at 12:43PM ORLAND

Sat Aug

1, 2009Telephone call to Randy at 3:31 PM 19 minutes, asking him about if there was

faculty unrest he told me he didnt know anything about it; I asked him to talk to

Lydia and he said he would.8/ 4/09

TUESDA

Y

Left Orlando to head to Meeting at Seminole CC to discuss how to set parameters for the New

CC System Funding Formula.

TUESDAY,AUGUST 4 AT NOON call from Atty Buck Devane (19 minute phone call at2:04 PM)to be back in KW in the morning for a meeting w/ Ed or risk insubordination; Relays

that a severance deal will be initiated, that Randy will become interim president, and that if Idont sign the Board will threaten to take action at the Board Meeting that evening.

told by Atty Devane that it has been made clear to him that he represents the board and notme. Told they will present me with a severance or they will fire me. He had been meeting

with Randy and Lydia and then with Buck.

Ask if I need a lawyer told noTurn around (was driving to meeting with Presidents oncreating the new Funding Formula for the CC System.

Secure Lawyer AB Maloy that evening driving back from KW; Call S.Str.

SUSAN URBAN

From:Amato, Roseann [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:29 PMTo:Dr Jill Landesberg BoyleSubject:RE: Jeffrey Pearson - Presidential Waiver for Tuition and Fees forSpring 2009 semester

Never heard of that one. Sounds to me (and this is just my opinion) like shedoesnt like your decision to award this kid and is trying to make a point.Roseann

From:Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent:Tuesday,

February 17, 2009 8:48 AMTo:Amato, RoseannSubject:FW: Jeffrey Pearson- Presidential Waiver for Tuition and Fees for Spring 2009 semester

Oy Vey!

From:Susan Urban [mailto:[email protected]] Sent:Tuesday, February

17, 2009 7:48 AMTo:'Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle'Subject:RE: Jeffrey Pearson -Presidential Waiver for Tuition and Fees for Spring 2009 semester


31/40

31

Dr. Boyle,

Armando Salas-Amaro, our primary state contact and our consultant have bothsuggested that any disbursement to a student in Title IV default (eveninstitutional funds) be made with the acknowledgement that the approver is

aware of the default. Armando indicated that the annual audit routinelyreviews Title IV default student files.

Susan Urban

From:Susan Urban [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:16 AM

To:'Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle'; 'Carol Anderson'; 'Michelle Cherry'

Cc:'Cheryl Malsheimer'

Subject:RE: Requested information regarding Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP)

Dr. Boyle,Please accept my apologies our little department has been pretty overwhelmed and we have a

processing backlog. In addition to that I met with the State yesterday to help me gain a better

understanding of FWEP and the required funds management processes. This is an area ofconcern for the college.

I need to think about the Financial Aids level of involvement in terms of setting/monitoringacademic schedules for students. I will meet with Michelle to discuss further. We are working

with students individually as we see them to explain credit usage and depletion from the

maximum timeframe.

Susan Urban

Director, Financial AidFlorida Keys Community College

(305) 809-3236

Fax: (305) [email protected]

From:Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:45 AM

To:'Susan Urban'; 'Carol Anderson'; 'Michelle Cherry'

Cc:'Cheryl Malsheimer'

Subject:FW: Requested information regarding Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP)

Importance:High

Susan & Michelle:


32/40

I think that one issue herein is critically important:

Your school must establish a schedule designating the minimum amount of work that astudent must complete at the end of each increment. This minimum must be sufficient to

allow the student to complete the program within the maximum timeframe. Your schoolsacademic progress policy must include provisions to determine at the end of eachincrement whether the student has met the qualitative and quantitative components of thestandards or exceeded the maximum time frame.

Could we assign a counselor to work with either Susan or Carol to create such a schedule. I

think it fits right in to the issue that came up last week in helping Lakeisha, i.e. keeping

students on track and making sure they are taking their math classes early in their educationalprogram.

Dr. Jill Landesbe

jill boyle response to august 31 092509

Documents