Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
QuickTake:
A letter from the commission gives LCC four years to address issues that have caused division, for example: how deeply a board should engage in operational details.
The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities warned Lane Community College that “governance concerns” have pushed LCC out of compliance with certain accreditation standards and has given the institution four years to fix the issue.
The commission is responsible for affirming LCC’s accreditation. The action, spelled out in an Aug. 5 letter to LCC President Stephanie Bulger, comes after an investigation by the commission — and a July meeting in Seattle in which commission members quizzed college representatives about governance issues.
It also comes after a year in which board members have repeatedly clashed over the boundaries of their role as LCC’s governing body — in particular, how deeply they should be engaged with operational issues.
“We take the findings seriously and accept the responsibility that comes with them,” Bulger and Jesse Maldonado, the chair of LCC’s Board of Education, said in a joint email to the campus community Wednesday, Aug. 12.
The two emphasized in the email that the warning “is not a threat to the college’s accreditation itself.”
Rather, the email said, a warning “identifies a problem to fix on a set timeline. … Further, it does not change students’ enrollment, financial aid eligibility, classes, degree progress, graduation or transfer plans.”
Specifically, the letter from the commission states LCC is “out of compliance” with a standard of accreditation that involves governance.
Citing a recommendation from the commission’s investigation and report, the letter urges LCC to “hasten its efforts and show evidence to ensure that it conducts its governance activities effectively, and in an environment respectful of meaningful discourse, maintaining clearly defined authority, roles, and responsibilities and that it exemplifies high ethical standards” in its treatment of students, faculty, staff and other stakeholders.
The letter added another recommendation in an area in which the commission determined LCC was “substantially in compliance but in need of improvement.” That recommendation urged LCC to adhere to “clearly defined policies that prohibit conflicts of interest on the part of members of the governing board.”
The letter does not list specific conflicts of interest. But an earlier report from the commission — drawing on interviews with board members and others — cited “a sense that factions exist within the board.”
The authors of the report, a peer evaluation team from the commission, said some of their interview subjects “suggested that, at times, these factions appear to reflect the interests of particular constituencies, both inside and outside LCC. Of particular import is the appearance of board alignment with LCC’s collective bargaining units, most notably Lane Community College Education Association,” the college’s faculty union.
In their email, Bulger and Maldonado — who was elected chair at the board’s July meeting — said they know that “how the board governs affects the campus beyond board meetings. It shapes how decisions are made, how clearly roles are understood across the college, and how effectively the institution can respond to challenges. When board governance is working well, employees across Lane can spend more of their time and attention on students. We want Lane’s board governance to support that work: clear roles, a productive working relationship between the board and the college’s leadership, and decision-making that keeps the institution focused on its mission and on students.”
How LCC got to this point
The commission letter follows a tumultuous stretch for LCC’s Board of Education, first coming to light with complaints filed in March and April 2025, alleging discriminatory behavior by board members. An investigation by attorneys hired by LCC substantiated the bulk of the complaints, leading to a board censure of member Zachary Mulholland, a public apology by the board to Bulger and the board’s acceptance of a set of remedial actions.
In October, the commission sent a letter to LCC, citing concerns about the board’s “functioning as a whole entity and acting in the best interests of the entire community,” in addition to its “ability to demonstrate an effective governance structure, creating a respectful environment and adhering to ethical standards.”
An attorney for LCC responded with a November report, saying that while the board’s “actions have not consistently met the expectations of ethical, respectful and policy-based governance,” the board had “taken corrective steps” and was focused on “continued improvement.”
The commission’s peer evaluation team conducted a campus visit in March. The team’s subsequent report cited “the need for greater policy clarity, improved meeting discipline, greater trust in administrative leadership, and more deliberate structures to elevate authentic stakeholder voice and maintain a focus on mission-driven governance.”
Next steps
In its letter, the commission asked LCC to submit a report on its progress on the two recommendations by the fall of 2027. The letter also said the commission “requires that Lane Community College take appropriate action to ensure” the issues are resolved by Aug. 5, 2030.
The email from Bulger and Maldonado said the commission’s letter and report would be posted on the college’s website.
The commission could have taken stronger action against LCC: The warning is the mildest of three possible sanctions the commission could have imposed. It could have placed LCC on probation or issued a “show cause” notice, compelling the institution to explain why its accreditation should not be withdrawn.
The commission also could have determined that no change in LCC’s accreditation status was warranted or asked for more information before making a decision.
