FVCC Board Delays Approval of New President’s Contract for Attorney Review

Flathead Valley Community College trustees unanimously selected Dr. Deborah Kish Stephan as the school’s next president last week, but at their Monday meeting they postponed approving her contract until an employment attorney can review it.

The attorney review was not previously part of the public selection process. It was added at the board’s Monday meeting, according to Julie Brempelis, the college’s assistant director of marketing and communications. It should take no more than 10 business days. Brempelis wrote in an email that board chair Callie Langohr had appointed a task force to select an attorney and coordinate timing and details. As of Wednesday afternoon, she did not have details on what the attorney’s services will cost.

Stephan, the president of Hillsborough College’s Brandon Campus in Florida, was selected as the board’s top candidate from a pool of four finalists. Each finalist visited campus in mid-September to engage in interviews and in forums with staff and community members as the board weighed that information in selecting a successor for longtime FVCC president Jane Karas. Board members praised Stephan’s experience as a critical factor during their deliberations last Tuesday, suggesting she’d be able to take on the presidency with ease.

Even so, the board’s selection rankled some college employees, who attended Monday’s board meeting to give their input. Conrad Rauscher, the vice president of the faculty union on campus, spoke during public comment on behalf of the faculty, adjunct, classified and occupational trades associations on campus about their disappointment with the new president and the search process.  

Rauscher’s statement, provided to the Beacon, raised concerns about the presidential selection process alongside renewed concerns about compensation on campus — a challenge faculty and professional staff have brought up before, claiming compensation on campus lacks transparency as they went through an elongated negotiation process for their collective bargaining agreement last school year.

The lack of transparency is also a factor Rauscher pointed to as existing in the presidential selection process. His statement took issue with President Karas weighing in on the search process in a closed session with the board; the lack of shared results from feedback sessions; and argued the candidate the board chose “does not have broad support among the employees of this campus.”

As part of the process for selecting its next president, the board conducted business during two deliberation sessions: one on Sept. 18, and another on Sept. 22.

During the Sept. 18 session, the board began with an opportunity for public comment, before closing the meeting for nearly its entire two-hour deliberation period. Boards can close meetings when individual privacy outweighs the public’s right to know.

Langohr told the Beacon Sept. 18 that during the time the meeting was closed, the board examined candidates’ references and background checks, information where the private-versus-public lines blur. Karas, the school’s current president, entered for part of that closed meeting. Langohr said Karas presented information pertaining to references and background checks during that time frame.

The board deliberated again in an entirely public session on Sept. 22, where it ultimately reached the decision to offer the presidential role to Stephan.

Rauscher, in his statement, argued the public deserved to witness the conversation between Karas and the board.

“The real conversation, it seems, happened behind closed doors — not in the open meeting,” Rauscher’s statement read. “So we are left asking: who chose this President, and why?”

Throughout the week of interviews and forums, the board also collected feedback from stakeholders via QR codes. Brempelis said it “was one of several factors the board reviewed.”

“A single survey was used to collect all feedback from community, staff, faculty and students,” Brempelis wrote in an email. “That feedback included input from faculty who chose to participate. No specific person or group identifiers were collected.”

The board did not share results from that survey in any public-facing manner, instead using feedback as part of its deliberation process. Rauscher’s statement also raised concerns about the lack of shared results from the survey.

“We will nonetheless receive the new President professionally and with grace,” Rauscher said. “But this comes back to you, the elected representatives of this community. How many of you could name five instructors, five staff members, and ten students? Those are the people whose jobs, educations, and careers this President will shape.”

Langohr wrote in a statement to the Beacon that the concerns about transparency are being taken seriously by the board.

“On the presidential search, information about the search, the search committee and the timeline have been and are still posted publicly,” her statement read. “Faculty, staff, students and community members could attend open forums, meet the finalists and share feedback through a survey. The Board held two public deliberation meetings, and all of its votes were taken in open session.”

She continued: “The question about compensation data on campus is broad, so the Board would need more detail to respond.”

Raucher’s statement also promised votes of no confidence from all four campus unions within 10 days in Karen Glasser, the college’s head of human resources, over the hiring process and continuing concerns about “inequitable compensation.” Langohr said the board oversees the president, so any recommendations about employment actions in response to such votes would have to come from the president.

[email protected]