By Jim Arnold

Last spring (EW, 4/16) I wrote that the Lane Community College Board of Education had become dysfunctional and needed new voices. When I followed up just recently (EW, 10/ 9), I had hoped to report progress. I couldn’t. The same divisiveness remains and the stakes have only grown.

It now seems apparent that LCC’s problems go far beyond a board unable to find itself. At the Nov. 5 board meeting, over two hours of public comment revealed deeper layers of concern. Speakers described an administration that, in their view, operates with limited transparency and contributes to a culture in which employees hesitate to speak openly. Several also stated that a divided board has not provided the oversight the college requires.

President Stephanie Bulger’s leadership has strained relationships with faculty, staff and some trustees. Rather than collaboration, many describe unilateral decision-making and limited inclusion in governance. One of the president’s stated goals early in her tenure was to improve campus climate. Multiple accounts now indicate that this has not happened. Instead, trust has deteriorated and the fear factor has increased.

Faculty union president Adrienne Mitchell’s open letter to the board (posted to lccea.org on Nov. 4) courageously documents many of these issues. She reports that employees have been pressured to resign or sign nondisclosure agreements and that faculty and administrators are afraid of retaliation for speaking up. After raising concerns, she was reportedly told by the president, “I don’t know how long you’ll be around here,” before facing a proposed layoff.

Her letter also highlights damaging operational decisions. The suspension of the licensed practical nursing program last spring, enacted without public input or a board vote, left 37 qualified applicants without a viable local training path. Meanwhile, delays in promoting the new bachelor of science in nursing program resulted in only 11 students enrolling instead of 60.

As a former academic dean responsible for scheduling, I know course planning must be dependable and student-centered. Yet, this fall, more than 100 course sections were canceled, including core classes with active registration. Late cancellations derail student progress and weaken confidence in the institution. Faculty estimate tuition losses may reach $1 million. These reductions appear inconsistent with the adopted budget and limit student access.

Labor negotiations have also deteriorated. Talks are nearing impasse. According to the latest faculty-union bargaining update, there has been no substantive movement from the administration on compensation, benefits, workload or job security. 

The administration’s cost analysis has been strongly disputed by faculty. With only two sessions remaining, mediation appears likely. While strike action is not imminent, some faculty have begun considering it as a last-resort option should conditions fail to improve. The central issue right now is the absence of meaningful progress.

Concerns extend to board governance. For example, when several trustees requested an agenda item reaffirming board authority over program and service reductions, it did not appear. Instead, an administrative memo supporting the president’s position was included. This outcome limited the Board’s ability to fulfill its duty to oversee operations at a critical time. 

In my Oct. 9 column, I suggested that Trustee Zachary Mulholland step aside to demonstrate board accountability. With the fuller scope of concerns now evident, it is clear governance issues extend beyond any one trustee. The problem lies with a governing body that has not acted decisively while the institution struggles.

Given the continuing lack of trust, the deteriorating labor posture, the failure to improve campus climate as promised and the absence of collaborative leadership at a time when stability is essential, I see no viable path forward under current conditions. I recommend that the board decline to renew President Bulger’s contract and begin an open, transparent leadership search grounded in accountability and partnership. This is not a punitive decision. It is responsible stewardship on behalf of the institution.

If the board does not act unilaterally, I suggest that faculty consider a formal vote of no confidence to publicly affirm that administrative leadership marked by fear and stalemate cannot continue.

Lane Community College remains one of Lane County’s greatest public assets. It educates our workforce, expands opportunity and strengthens the local economy. At this critical moment, leadership must demonstrate the courage to act. The community is watching. The future of the college depends on it.

Jim Arnold, Ph.D., is a retired higher-education administrator and former LCC part-time faculty member.