Accreditation commission seeks answers from LCC officials, board

A report from the commission that awards accreditation for Lane Community College outlines what it calls “‘substantial evidence of continuing concern” about the college’s Board of Education — including the board’s role in governance and its relationship with LCC President Stephanie Bulger.

LCC officials, including Bulger and two board members, will travel to Seattle this week to meet with the Board of Commissioners of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. The board is scheduled to meet July 7-10, but Lookout Eugene-Springfield could not confirm on the record when the closed session with LCC officials will occur.

After the meeting, the Board of Commissioners could determine LCC is not in “compliance” with certain eligibility requirements and standards; in that event, it could issue a timeline for the college to return to compliance. The commissioners also could ask for additional information or determine that no additional action is required. 

The commission’s report follows a March 3 visit to LCC by a three-person peer evaluation team. That visit came after a Dec. 15 letter from the commission that noted “concerns related to the effectiveness of LCC’s governance following news articles and an investigation report” into allegations that some board members had engaged in abusive and bullying behavior toward Bulger.

‘Common themes’ of concern

The report from the evaluation team did note “real progress” by the board in some areas.

But it cited three main “common themes” of concern, and none of those issues will surprise anyone who’s followed LCC’s Board of Education over the past year:

• The board’s split on where to draw the line between overall governance and operational matters. The report said the board’s “understanding of the distinction between its role and that of management” regarding operations versus governance “appears to remain inconsistent.” 

• The board’s difficulty in speaking with “one voice.” The report said evaluators “heard multiple references to the sense that factions exist within the board,” an impression reinforced by interviews with board interviews and self-evaluation comments. The report said that at times, “these factions appear to reflect the interest of particular constituencies, both outside and inside 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.

• The relationship between board members and Bulger. The report noted “signs of progress” in this area, but also found “signs of persistent discomfort and distrust between particular individuals involved, suggesting a need for additional work to rebuild relationships, foster mutual respect, and sustain open communications across the board members, president and senior leaders.”

Jesse Maldonado, elected chair of the Board of Education at its July 1 meeting, confirmed the meeting this week in Seattle. But he declined to answer questions about the report until after the commission issues a decision. Maldonado will attend the meeting, along with Bulger, Shelley Tinkham, LCC’s vice president for academic affairs, and another board member. The commission’s decision is due within 30 days of the meeting. 

“As the newly elected chair, I am optimistic about LCC’s future and eager to work with the other trustees to accomplish our shared goal of keeping the college strong for years to come,” Maldonado said in an email to Lookout Eugene-Springfield.

Adrienne Mitchell, president of the Lane Community College Education Association, said in an email that members of the faculty union “love the work that we do but remain concerned about the challenges the board faces in functioning collaboratively and effectively, especially at a time of deteriorating campus climate among all employee groups,” a reference to recent results from a campuswide Gallup survey.

Mitchell added: “Our greatest hope for the LCC board is that the members will work together to represent the people of Lane County in providing much-needed oversight, accountability, and direction for LCC — a most precious gem in our community.”

How we got here

The report follows a tumultuous year for LCC’s Board of Education, beginning 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 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.” 

LCC’s attorney 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.”

Evaluation team visits

The commission’s evaluation team visited campus March 3.

Among the team’s conclusions in the report:

• Even though the college has a “seemingly comprehensive policy foundation, the evaluators heard concerns about contradictions, gaps and ambiguities about the multiple documents in use.” The report recommends a “comprehensive review” of those documents to streamline them and resolve inconsistencies.

• The board has made some progress. For example, the report noted board members signed a code of conduct stipulating, in part, they will “make decisions based on the college’s best interest” and avoid actions that “manage day-to-day operations” or “undermine the president’s authority.”

• Despite positive signs, “the evaluators nonetheless found substantial evidence of continuing concern” — and much of the evidence for that came from interviews with the board members themselves. “Most” board members, the report said, “expressed significant worries that Lane’s governance dynamics remained problematic and continued to undermine the president’s ability to lead.”

The report concluded by citing “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. … Given past injuries, the work will require forbearance, rigorous attention to professional boundaries, and a willingness to take risks in reestablishing proper collegial relationships.”