LCC policy proposal reignites debate over board’s role

The Lane Community College Board of Education has 158 policies to guide its work as LCC’s governing body.

A proposal to amend one of those policies, No. 4350, dominated the board’s work session Wednesday, Sept. 17. Trustees argued about whether the amendment would allow the board to serve as a check on LCC’s administration or whether it could undermine the college’s president and administration.

It was the latest chapter in an issue that has divided the board: Should it serve primarily as a policymaking entity or should it delve more deeply into operational details?

At the meeting’s end, trustees decided the amendment required additional discussion and information before taking formal action. Board Chair Austin Fölnagy, who proposed the amendment, said he would not add it to the agenda for the next meeting, Sept. 30, to allow time for a deeper dive.

Fölnagy said the amendment reflected concerns he heard from other board members. In essence, the amendment mandates the board formally approve “any substantive reduction or elimination” or “major substantive changes” to LCC academic programs or services. The current policy says the board shall “approve major substantive changes in the college’s mission, policies and programs,” but doesn’t elaborate.

Fölnagy has said the proposal is supported by state law and board policies. He said the board has, in the past, approved new academic programs and eliminated others — a stance challenged at the meeting by LCC administrators, who pointed to other occasions when the board did not weigh in on program closures.

In an email sent earlier to Lookout Eugene-Springfield, Fölnagy — writing as a board member and not in his capacity as chair — said having the board vote on such matters serves as a check on the administration, is “critical to democratic processes,” and allows for open meetings and public comment.

Other board members saw the proposal as overstepping the board’s proper role — and warned that it could have far-reaching impacts.

“It’s actually a transformational change to the board policy, and I think it would put the college at risk,” trustee Kevin Alltucker said, arguing it could threaten LCC’s accreditation. “Let’s put the brakes on this thing.”

Alltucker listed another worry: He said the amendment could be viewed as illegal retaliation against LCC President Stephanie Bulger in the wake of substantiated complaints that trustee Zachary Mulholland subjected her to abusive and bullying behavior and that other board members (with the exception of Julie Weismann) had shown “dismissive conduct toward the leader of the college based on her race and sex.” Bulger is Black.

“Any proposed changes to the board policy that would reduce the president’s authority to make operational decisions are concerning to me,” Alltucker said. “I think that it could open the college up to an increased risk of acting in retaliatory behaviors against the president.

“I want to make a public statement and be very clear about this. I will not aid or abet any efforts to undermine the president or any retaliatory behaviors toward the president.”

Nursing program decision

The policy debate comes after LCC decided earlier this year to suspend admissions to its one-year licensed practical nurse program to evaluate its fiscal and operating viability. The stand-alone program had 37 applicants for 16 seats. The board didn’t vote on the decision, but heard public comment opposing it.

Newly elected board member Jerry Rust, who joined the board in July, noted the number of people who commented on the nursing program and said he would like the board “to be able to weigh in on a situation like that. … Trust, yet verify. That’s what Ronald Reagan said. I never thought I’d be quoting Ronald Reagan, but there it is.”

To some extent, the debate may hinge on the meaning of the phrase “major substantive change” in the context of educational administration.

Bulger said both the U.S. Department of Education and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, which accredits LCC, define the term and offer distinctions between “major” and “minor” substantive changes. She said officials at the Northwest Commission on Colleges have decided that placing a program on a “moratorium” — to pause enrollment in a program with the idea of having them enroll again in the near future — “does not fall under the category of a substantive change” and would not require board approval. 

“I very much understand what the rules are, and we are fulfilling the rules at Lane Community College,” Bulger said.

Nevertheless, Fölnagy — who has argued that the suspension should have been brought to the board for a vote — has filed a complaint with the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities over the matter. According to documents on the commission’s website, the commission can choose to investigate the complaint — and if warranted, can suggest remedies or other “corrective action.”

The commission reportedly has requested more information about Fölnagy’s complaint. The commission has not answered telephone calls and an email from Lookout Eugene-Springfield asking for more information.

President’s goals

The first half of the 137-minute meeting (not including an hour-long executive session beforehand) included a discussion of Bulger’s goals for the 2025-26 school year. The goals fall into three primary categories:

• Fiscal condition, including trimming LCC general-fund spending over the next three years by about $3 million a year to help restore the college’s 10% ending fund balance (essentially, its reserves) and increasing enrollment revenue by 2%.
• Enrollment growth, including standards for retention and completion.
• Institutional climate, with improvements in a Gallup climate survey and all LCC departments putting action plans into place.

Bulger is asking the board to approve the goals — and a related framework that describes how the board will evaluate her performance  — at its Sept. 30 meeting. 

“If we can work together in this way on these priorities, then I think you’re going to be incredibly proud of this institution,” she told the board. “I feel that I’m the person to lead the institution through some really challenging waters over the next few years, and I’d like … to have your support with that.” 

Although board members signaled general alignment with the goals, some trustees pushed back on one of Bulger’s recommendations: that the board trim its work sessions from 11 each year to six. (In addition to the work sessions, the board holds regular monthly meetings year-round, with the exception of summer break.)

Bulger said having five fewer work sessions each year would free staff time to concentrate on the major challenges facing LCC instead of preparing for the next meeting — a process she said often consumes the two weeks before each meeting. 

Fölnagy, however, defended the work sessions. “There’s great value in these work sessions,” he said. “We need these work sessions to discuss things, to have conversations, to have those conversations out in the open to the public.”

The board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Sept. 30. Its next work session still is scheduled for Oct. 15.