Clark College is a valuable community resource that provides a variety of education opportunities. As a 24-year faculty member, I am privileged to work at the college, and I care deeply about its mission.
Two highly publicized events recently occurred at the college. First, the trustees concluded that the former president committed actions that were sexually and racially discriminatory. Second, faculty went on strike after 15 months of failed contract negotiations. However, community members may not know about other important issues such as the results of the delayed campus climate survey, disagreements about institutional priorities and resource allocations, an increasing number of administrators, and unresolved differences regarding shared governance.
In my opinion, past and current trustees are largely responsible for not resolving these issues in a timely and constructive manner.
Currently, the trustees at all 30 of the state community and technical colleges are appointed by the governor. RCW 28B.50.140 lists their extensive powers and duties.
Each college president (the trustees’ appointee) and his/her administrative hires are responsible for implementing and administering the trustees’ policies. However, a document from the state board says, “Because there has been a delegation of authority in a given area, the board is not relieved of its responsibility to review actions taken in its name.”
A 2019 article “Colleges and Universities: Do You Have a Governance Crises” states that “Higher ed finds itself at a crossroads when it comes to many things, but especially board governance.” The author concludes that the skills of many college trustees are not in alignment with those needed to effectively govern. The author states that many boards are “overwhelming comprised of political appointees and lack members with high education experience or any experience other than making donations to political campaigns.” I spoke informally with a local legislator who confirmed that political party affiliation is an important factor for appointments made in Washington.
Considering the immense authority and complex responsibilities of the Clark College trustees, and the large college budget ($123.4 million in 2019-2020), I believe that community members should have a direct voice in selecting trustees via elections. This process is currently followed to select members of local school boards.
Candidates would have to publicly explain and defend their qualifications, positions on issues, and vision for the college — which doesn’t happen in the current selection process. Improved communication with constituents would also be necessary during a term of service, especially if a trustee sought re-election. I suspect that local reporters and community members would appreciate a more direct way to obtain information and answers to questions, instead of relying on public record requests.
I have no doubts that the current and former Clark College Trustees are educated, professionally experienced, and committed to the community. However, I believe the more pertinent question is “Are they the most qualified and suitable individuals to guide the college and oversee its operations?”
I believe that electing trustees will result in more effective leadership, greater accountability to the community, and a better future for the college’s students and employees. If you agree, I encourage you to contact your state legislative representatives and voice your support for such a proposal. At least 11 states currently use this approach to select trustees for higher education boards, and I hope that Washington will soon join them.
