By Jim Arnold

Last spring, in these pages (EW, April 17), I suggested that the Lane Community College Board of Education might resolve its dysfunction by electing some new members. Six months later, I’ll admit that my optimism was misplaced. While we now have a couple of new faces, the board remains divided, unproductive and, at times, an embarrassment to our community.

Several others have also recently weighed in on the college’s status. First, former faculty member Steve McQuiddy (EW, Sept. 4) reminded us that the institution once thrived on trust, cooperation and a commitment to the collective good. Then, LCC President Stephanie Bulger (EW, Sept. 11) and faculty union President Adrienne Mitchell (EW, Sept. 25) both described LCC as being at an “inflection point,” though they disagreed on what that might mean. Bulger argued that “expenses have risen faster than revenue” and announced annual budget reductions of $3 million through 2029. Mitchell countered that reserves have “increased by $1 million over the last two years while revenue exceeded expenses, not the other way around,” and that the administration has sidelined both the board and public, pointing to the unilateral pause of the licensed practical nurse (LPN) program. 

But let’s back up. I contend the cracks in board governance first became public when the body failed to fill the vacancy left by board trustee Lisa Fragala’s resignation late last year. Four qualified applicants stepped forward, but the board deadlocked and left the seat empty — an early sign of its inability to act decisively.

More troubling conflict soon followed. In early April 2025, then-Vice Chair Kevin Alltucker read a letter into the record accusing then-Chair Zach Mulholland of abusive and bullying behavior toward President Bulger. The college commissioned an independent investigation, which in late June substantiated the complaints. The report found Mulholland verbally abusive, hostile and intimidating toward Bulger, as well as to a student, while also noting broader dysfunction within the rest of the board.

The community responded swiftly. At the Sept. 3 Board meeting, more than two dozen citizens, including two former LCC presidents and a former trustee, spoke with one voice: Mulholland had lost the confidence of the public and should resign. Instead, the board voted to censure him. Now, while serious in theory, censure is largely symbolic. It leaves the censured member in office with credibility unaddressed.

Meanwhile, the board has stumbled in other areas of its responsibility. This fall, trustees have struggled to define their role in decisions about academic programs. The temporary suspension of the LPN program, implemented by the administration without a formal board vote, illustrates this challenge. The board’s discussions sparked by this move have been disorganized, poorly informed, contentious and often disrespectful. 

Then, at the Sept. 30 board meeting, the president’s goals, up for official approval, included those annual $3 million budget cuts mentioned above. During the public comment portion of the meeting, it had been suggested that this presidential goal circumnavigated the prescribed institutional budget-development process, so during consideration of this item there were exchanges that clearly illustrated the divisions within the board — as well as the power struggle between the board and the president. 

Taken together, these issues are examples of the dangers discussed by Mitchell, because when transparency and shared governance are sidelined, students, faculty and the college’s mission are put at risk.

McQuiddy’s reflections provide a constructive contrast. Faculty and staff have long prioritized collective success over personal gain, demonstrating trust, collaboration and commitment to the broader community. If the board emulated such an ethos, it could rebuild confidence and make decisions rooted in LCC’s shared mission.

So here’s why I’m making the effort to offer up this analysis: I believe that Lane Community College is not just another local institution. It is a cornerstone of opportunity in Lane County. Thousands of students rely on LCC each year to launch careers, retrain for new jobs or prepare for university transfer. For it to thrive, it needs a board that can work together with professionalism, focus and respect. Right now, that is not the board we have.

Instead of steady leadership, the board has become a source of instability. Instead of strengthening public trust, it has damaged it.

One next step is clear: Trustee Zach Mulholland should voluntarily step aside. The public has lost confidence in his leadership; the investigation’s findings make his continued service unwelcome. His resignation would show some degree of accountability and help rebuild trust in the board.

But this move, by itself, will not suffice. The dysfunction extends well beyond a single individual. It is systemic. Trustees must address procedural weaknesses, clarify roles and commit to transparent, respectful governance. This will not be easy work.

Lane Community College has a proud history of service to our community. It deserves a board that honors that legacy, provides thoughtful leadership and works together in the best interests of the people it serves. The future of the college, and the opportunities of thousands of students, depend on it.

Jim Arnold, Ph.D., is a retired college and university administrator and has three decades of experience working with and observing higher education governing boards.