Board reports.Publicly available.

At our August 11 Board meeting, I personally heard Trustee Brad Arneson ask, “What about the last five years?”

I want to be clear about that. I am repeating what I personally heard Trustee Arneson say during the meeting. I am not representing that quotation as language taken from approved minutes, because those minutes are not yet available. I am stating my own firsthand recollection of what was said.

Trustee Arneson is certainly free to explain or clarify what he meant by that statement. But I am equally entitled, as a member of this Board who was present and heard the statement, to respond to it.

So, what about the last five years?

If we are going to examine the last five years, then I believe we should examine all of those five years, consistently and fairly—not selectively invoke five years of history when doing so casts suspicion on President Copple.

Our own Board Policy 2715 requires us to base our decisions upon all available facts, to work with fellow Board members in a spirit of harmony and cooperation despite differences of opinion, and to exercise our authority for the interests of the entire District rather than for the benefit of particular individuals.

The Athletic Department did not suddenly appear when Gloria Copple became Board President. Athletics has been an established College program. The official May Board minutes record that the program had served more than 100 student-athletes and provided opportunities for students to continue their education, including scholarships and degree completion.

As recently as August 11, this Board’s own agenda included student athletic insurance and a $61,500 athletic-training agreement for the basketball programs. Tonight we are considering another Athletic Department matter: a $24,000 supplemental payment associated with adding three new sports programs and six teams.

Trustee Arneson has certainly been willing to vote yes on personnel actions involving College employees. For example, the official record from the May 12 meeting shows Trustee Arneson voting yes, along with every other Board member present, on the consent motion that included approval of the April 2026 Personnel Actions Report.

So when I heard Trustee Arneson say, “What about the last five years?”, it caused me to ask another question: Why is this particular employee suddenly different? Why single out one employee’s additional compensation when personnel actions involving other employees have routinely come before this Board for approval?

The Personnel Actions Report was not an agenda item concerning only one employee. It was an entire personnel report. The agenda specifically stated that Human Resources had verified that all appointees met the required minimum qualifications, and the recommendation was to approve the Personnel Actions Report for July and August 2026 as presented.

My concern is that in attempting to stop one personnel action, the vote affected everybody contained in that personnel action. These were real employees and applicants whose appointments, promotions, compensation changes, or other personnel actions were before this Board.

I personally remember Trustee Stella Styers reacting with surprise and asking words to the effect of, “It was a no for all of them?” I heard that myself. I am not presenting that statement as a quotation from approved August 11 minutes. I am stating what I personally heard while sitting in that meeting.

That brings us directly to why these personnel matters are before us again today. Today’s special-meeting agenda again contains Item 2.1, Approval of Personnel Actions Report. Then, separately, Item 2.2 asks us to consider Ryan Copple’s one-time supplemental compensation.

Separating those matters today demonstrates something important. Ryan Copple’s supplemental compensation can be debated on its own merits. Board members can vote yes or no on that item. But other employees should not become collateral damage in an effort to defeat one person’s compensation.

Item 2.2 tells us exactly what the proposed payment is: a one-time $24,000 supplemental payment for the 2026–2027 fiscal year, tied to additional duties involving the establishment of three new sports programs and six teams. It is specifically limited to those additional duties, limited to one fiscal year, and is not renewable.

So let us debate that. Is the work worth $24,000? Are the additional duties justified? Is establishing three new sports programs and six new teams sufficient additional responsibility? Those are legitimate Board questions.

If the objection is something else—if this is about who Ryan Copple is related to, or about Gloria Copple—then say what the issue is, identify the applicable law, Board Policy, or Administrative Procedure, and let us deal with that issue openly.

What I do not believe we should do is oppose an entire group of personnel actions simply because someone objects to one person contained within that group. One employee should not become the reason that every other employee loses an opportunity that the administration and Human Resources have recommended for Board approval.

If we are really going to ask, “What about the last five years?”, then I welcome that examination. Let us look at five years of votes, personnel actions, Athletic Department decisions, Board minutes, approvals, and objections. But let us examine the whole record, not five years selectively invoked against one person.

If there is a conflict, identify the conflict and cite the law or policy. If there is a violation, identify the violation and cite the Board Policy or Administrative Procedure. If there is evidence, present the evidence.

ACCJC has specifically asked whether this Board follows its established Board Policies and Administrative Procedures, ethically functions as a collective body, acts in the best interest of the institution, and remains independent of undue influence.

I will apply the same standard to President Copple, Trustee Arneson, myself, and every other member of this Board. Facts first. Policy second. Personalities last. That is how I believe this Board should govern.

At the May 1–3 new trustee conference I attended, one session focused on how colleges communicate their identity and value to the public. The speaker referenced Donald Miller’s book Building a StoryBrand, and one statement from that session has stayed with me: It is not that your college is not special. It is that you do not articulate it that way.

I think that statement is very relevant to Palo Verde College.

We are a small rural college. We serve local students, working adults, first-generation college students, transfer students, career technical education students, Rising Scholars students, and students who may not have another realistic path to higher education without this institution. That matters.

But the question is not only whether Palo Verde College matters. The question is whether we are explaining clearly enough why it matters.

At the conference, the speaker used a simple example of a Mexican food restaurant that stands out because people remember its salsa. The lesson was that every institution needs to know what makes it distinct and memorable.

So I think we should ask ourselves: What is Palo Verde College’s salsa? What do we do that makes this college essential to Blythe, Needles, our rural communities, our students, our employers, and our taxpayers? And more importantly, can the public explain that in one sentence?

Another phrase from the session was: Every student needs a guide. That is a powerful way to think about our role as a college. The student is the hero of the story. The college is the guide. Our job is not simply to say, ‘Look at us.’ Our job is to help students get from where they are to where they need to go.

That leads me to the questions I believe this Board should be asking at the governance level: Are we clearly telling the story of Palo Verde College? Are we communicating what makes a small rural college a strength rather than a limitation? Are we helping students, parents, employers, and taxpayers understand the value of this institution?

Are our mission, our programs, our budget decisions, and our public message all pointing in the same direction? Are we making sure that Palo Verde College is known not just for internal difficulties, but for the students and communities it serves?

I do not believe the Board should micromanage marketing or public relations. That is not our role. But it is our role to ask whether the college has a clear identity, a clear message, and a clear public purpose.

Palo Verde College may be special, but the public will not fully understand that unless we learn to say it clearly, consistently, and in language people remember.

For me, the takeaway from that conference session was simple: A college does not build public trust merely by existing. It builds public trust when people understand whom it serves, why it matters, and where it is going. That is a story worth telling better.

June 21 is Father’s Day. Being a father in today’s world is of great importance. As many of you may know, I have four sons, all of whom are graduates of Palo Verde Community College and responsible adults pursuing their goals. Raising children requires patience, love, sacrifice, and leadership. I want to thank all fathers who take time out of their lives for their children, who show up for their families, and who do the quiet work that often goes unnoticed. To all the fathers in our community, I wish you a Happy Father’s Day.

Before I address tonight’s agenda, I want to begin with accountability. As a Board member, I am accountable to the public for what I do, why I do it, how I vote, and how I represent this District. Over the past month, my family and I dealt with serious medical matters. Even during those medical difficulties, I did not miss meetings; I did not miss graduations; I read the materials; I prepared; and I remained focused on this Board’s work.

I attended the Needles graduation and the June 6 Palo Verde College graduation here in Blythe. Those were important events, and I was proud to see students earn their degrees and certificates and move forward into further education, employment, service, and better opportunities for themselves and their families.

I do have a few questions concerning the management of the 2026 graduation ceremony. Although I enjoyed the ceremony, I had difficulty locating the United States flag during the flag salute. I later learned that a small flag was hanging from the ceiling, partially obscured by the rafters. I was not the only person who had difficulty locating the flag, and I believe that is something we can improve next year.

I also understand that staff may have been required to purchase tickets to attend graduation, and I understand that the usual graduation preparation amount of approximately $10,000 may have been exceeded this year. I am not raising these points to criticize the ceremony itself. Graduation is one of the most visible public events of the District, and for that reason I am requesting that, within the next 30 days, Interim Superintendent/President Ed Knudson provide a brief report on the 2026 graduation, with specific focus on planning, staff participation, ticketing, and total event costs. We have to be accountable to the public and to the taxpayers who fund this college.

People recognize us as members of this Board, and that matters because students, employees, taxpayers, and constituents are paying attention to what the Board does. I mention this not for sympathy, but for accountability. I take this role seriously. I show up to meetings. I prepare. I ask questions. And I vote based on what I believe will best serve students, the public, and the long-term health of this college.

Visibility requires discipline. My goal is to be present, serious, prepared, and accountable. At last month’s Board meeting in Needles, it was said during open session that Board members read the agenda and ask questions before meetings. I agree that Board members should read the agenda before meetings. But I strongly disagree with the idea that questions should be handled outside the meeting in a way that replaces asking necessary questions in public.

A prepared trustee is not a silent trustee. I ask questions because I have read the agenda and sometimes found an item to be lacking in detail. Reading the agenda is not the end of oversight; sometimes it is the beginning. An agenda is not a permission slip for silence. It is the starting point for public accountability.

If reading the agenda answered every question, we would not need a public meeting; we would only need a consent button. It would be like the old Staples commercial with the large red Easy Button—push it and say, ‘That was easy.’ But public business is not always that easy. Public business involves many stakeholders, and all voices deserve to be heard and considered.

When an item involves contracts, money, personnel, compliance, or long-term commitments, the public deserves more than a quick approval. The public deserves questions, answers, and a clear record of why this Board acted. The public cannot evaluate what it does not understand or cannot hear. Neither can the Board. This is the reason I ask questions.

Tonight’s agenda proves the point. This is not a routine or minor agenda. This is one of the larger Board agendas we have had in some time, and it is also a significant meeting because it is the first regular Board meeting attended by our new Interim Superintendent/President, Ed Knudson.

We are being asked to vote on major items related to the tentative budget, accreditation, employment agreements, public safety services, instructional service contracts, legal counsel, and the next Superintendent/President search. These are not minor housekeeping matters. These are governance decisions. Some involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. One agreement states that payments shall not exceed $5 million annually unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties. Another agenda item asks us to authorize a request for proposals for second legal counsel with very limited explanation in the agenda description.

Because the Board will vote on these matters, it needs to understand what it is voting on, and the public should hear the questions, answers, costs, risks, and reasons before the vote. This is especially important because tonight’s agenda includes items that reach into nearly every major area of the District: budget, facilities, accreditation, student services, public safety, curriculum, employment, legal counsel, and presidential leadership.

The answer is not simply to make the agenda longer. The answer is to make the agenda clearer, better supported, and easier for the public to understand. I do want to say that Mrs. Alaniz prepares very good agendas and ensures they are posted in a timely manner. I appreciate that work. But a longer agenda does not mean fewer questions are needed. A longer agenda usually means the opposite. The more substantial the agenda, the more important it is that the Board slow down enough to understand what it is voting on.

I also want to point out that after I asked my questions and made my votes at the last meeting, the Board President also asked a series of questions about FTES, and we are now scheduled to receive an FTES presentation tonight. I appreciated those questions because they showed that public questioning is part of responsible governance.

The standard should be the same for every trustee: if a question helps the Board, the public, and the institution better understand an issue, then it belongs in open session. If an agenda item is clear, complete, and well-supported, then public questions should strengthen it. If questions expose missing information, then the problem is not the question—the problem is the missing information.

So I want to be clear: I will continue to read the agenda before meetings. And I will continue to ask necessary questions in open session, because the public has a right to hear the answers before the Board votes.