Pima Community College operates under the direction of a five-member board of governors; the members are elected from each of five county districts. The board is elected by voters to six-year terms, and the positions are non-paid. This year, voters will choose representatives from districts 3 and 5.
District 3 is currently represented by Sherryn “Vikki” Marshall, who is running for a third term. Marshall is a retiree who is currently working for Pima County, helping homeless families find employment. Her campaign literature states that she is endorsed by the Pima Area Labor Federation and the Arizona AFL-CIO.
Marshall’s opponent is Sylvia Lee, a former PCC campus president with a doctorate in educational leadership and policy studies. She also has an interesting personal story that is a testament to the value of PCC’s role in education.
District 5 is currently represented by Marty Cortez, who is running for a fourth term. She holds a master’s degree in counseling and guidance from the University of Arizona. She has worked as a principal in both the Nogales and Amphitheater school districts. She is also active in a number of Hispanic organizations.
Cortez has two opponents, Richard Fridena and Francis Saitta. While their platforms are quite similar, Fridena is by far the stronger candidate. While Saitta asserts a number of specific objections to current PCC policies, and offers some specific actions he will try to take if elected, there does not appear to be much to his campaign beyond that. He does not even have a website. Fridena, on the other hand, is running a strong campaign complete with a comprehensive website, signs and even door-hangers. His long list of endorsements looks like a “who’s who” of Pima County machine politics, including Raúl Grijalva, Richard Elías and Regina Romero.
All three challengers have similar platforms and complaints, though Lee is less specific and pointed than Fridena. The one issue that appears to be the primary motivation of all three challengers, though, is the alleged institution of admissions standards. It is the first in a list of complaints on Fridena’s website: “The PCC governing board has abolished the college as an open enrollment and an affordable institution of higher education as originally created by the residents of Pima County. Late last year, the board adopted a very controversial change in the admissions policy, closing off open admissions. From now on, approximately 5,000 people—our kids and neighbors—will be kept out each year. The governing board has made Pima College a selective institution, out of touch with the needs of Pima County residents.”
This accusation is false. Admissions are still open. No one is turned away. Scott Stewart, chairman of the governing board, explained to me what actually happened.
“The college studied student outcomes and determined that those new students who could demonstrate at least seventh-grade capability would have a decent shot at earning some form of certification or an associate’s degree. … If the student assessed below seventh-grade, the student was far more likely to suffer frustration and failure, and run through the available grants and loans before achieving his goal,” Stewart said.
“So we modified the criteria for getting financial aid and taking college-credit classes. Those scoring seventh-grade or above could start taking college-level courses and getting financial aid. Those students scoring below seventh-grade were generally sent to the PCC Prep Academy, where the students are given free tutoring and online modules to work on their specific weaknesses until they reached a level where they have a shot. No one was turned away. Everyone was admitted. But these latter, severely under-prepared students would not, with some exceptions, be eligible for financial aid or to take college-level classes until they demonstrated they could do the work.”
One can have an honest debate on the merit of these changes, but what we have instead is a blatantly false accusation that is unworthy of governing-board candidates. In a perfect world, those who oppose organizational changes would honestly state their objections and have an open and honest discussion regarding them.
But this is not a perfect world. This is Pima County.
This article appears in Nov 1-7, 2012.
The campaigns of Richard Fridena and Syliva Lee are about many important things: Operating in the light of day and honoring their public servant role and demonstrating it be being open and receptive to citizen and public input: See the ADS article regarding this urrent Board’s violations of Arizona’s open meeting laws: “PCC’s thin meeting agendas scrutinized,” December 27, 2011; surely we remember when this PCC Governing Board, led by Board chair, Scott Stewart, tried in the dark to appoint PCC’s next chancellor without the benfit of a national search for the best possible candidate and public input and participation.
I am greatful that the writer of this opinion piece was gracious and honest enough to acknowledge that both Richard Fridena and Sylvia Lee are well prepaid and highly qualified to be outstanding public servants that value public participation. They will operate in the light of day. However, the writer is dead wrong to insinuate that these two Board challengers, Fridena and Lee, are one trick ponies with only one issue: admissions. And the writer is projecting as to who is being dishonest. When someone is told that they cannot register for a credit course they have been denied admissions and access to Pima Community College’s credit courses taught by regular faculty members
This column is an example of the small-minded attitude that is turning the entire country into an angry, hateful third-world society with a small wealthy class riding on a sea of struggling individuals. The only way that Tucson will ever break out of low wages and the boom and bust economy is by transforming itself into a brain hub. And the best way to start in that direction is with a dynamic and open community college. In addition to helping individuals get training and credentials, such a community college supports personal and community develoment, incubates businesses, and adds to our cultural vitality. PCC has lost ground under the present administration and has held Tucson back. There is so much to do: not only will PCC have to correct the recent difficulties, but it will have to modernize and renew our community. The best chance to start in this direction is to elect Drs. Fridena and Lee. R. L. M. Brodesky, PH. D., and retired successful PCC faculty member
I am really surprised that the Tucsonly Weekly allowed itself to be used as a vehicle for this late date hit piece. I wish that the Tucson Weekly would have shared this disparaging and dishonest attack with the two highly qualified candidates for the PCC Governing Board, Richard Fridena and Sylvia Lee so that they could have had time to defend themselves.
It appears to me that Scott Stewart, the current PCC Board, chair, and the only person spoken to as a source for this opinion piece, written by his friend, must be awefully worried that a couple of really good people might become fellow PCC Board members.
Both Richard Fridena and Sylvia Lee have been endorsed by the Arizona Daily Star, PCC faculty and staff, and many, many other people and organizations as well. Google their names and visit their websites.
The PCC Governing Board is in need of new blood/new faces. I think the public is tired of hearing about PCC Governing Board actions such a okaying 2 salaries for college chancellor and $300K+ in consulting fees given to a friend of the former chancellor in violation of procurement procedures.
As Richard Brodeski suggested above, Tucson and all of Pima County deserve a fully open and transparent PCC Governing Board that is woleheartedly dedicated to meeting the higher education aspirations of all of its residents.
In my day at PCC, I greatly enjoyed working the week of reistration; seeing the eager faces of returning and new students. Perhaps the most courageous of the new students were 29 or older ones. Some of them had dropped out of high school. We learned during a professional development day, from a U of A study, that family values explained Hispanic high school dropouts. They were dropping out to help their mom and/or dad put food on the table. It was rewarding seeing so many 29 or older people who were now motivated to pursue their education now showing up. We talked about what they were interested in studying and we talked about the right course or courses to start with.
Seeing some of these students, who, for whatever reasons, had dropped out of high school, walk across the stage at PCC’s graduation was really rewarding. And it was awesome to learn that some had graduated from the U of A as well. At the very least, most of these students, after a couple of for-credit-courses, or several, left PCC better educated than they were before they came, got a better job than they had before, and made their lives better, and the lives of others better as well.
We knew that there was no test that could predict who would succeed or not. We encouraged them all, got them registered in for credit classes – some of them pretty basic courses – and gave them a chance, an opportunity.
That some people, who are seeking to enroll in credit courses, are now being denied, is, well, just plain wrong. Referring them to a “shack in the back” for tutoring isn’t working and doesn’t cut it! Scott Stewart and his friend, Jonathan Hoffman, are wrong and have made a big mistake in this editorial. For the sake of Tucson and Pima County they must be stood up and not allowed to pursue their ant-public agenda.
The current PCC Board has presided over too many unaddressed problems to remain as is.
I support the PCC Governing Board challengers, Richard Fridena and Sylvia Lee. It’s simply time for new energy on the PCC Governing Board.
This PCC Governing Board election is about so much more than what the writer insinuates. I think voters will remember:
“PCC’s thin meeting agendas scrutinized,” Dec. 27, 2011,
‘PCC gave consultant $300K+ in unbid contracts,” Feb. 5, 2012,
OUR VIIEW: RUNNING A COMMUNITY COLLEGE REQUIRES THOROUGH SEARCH, “Don’t Rush process of appointing PCC chancellor,” Feb. 8, 2012,
“PCC votes to search for a new chancellor,” Feb. 9, 1012, (“in which the Board’s atempt, led by Board, chair, Scott Stewart, to get away with merely appointing PCC’s next chancellor without conducting the normal and appropriate process of a national search and public participation was revealed.),
“PCC OKs 2 salaries for college chancellor,” March 1, 2012,
And
OUR VIEW: PCC EXPENDITURE AN AFFRONT VOTERS SHOULD REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER
“Flores deal leaves taxpayer paying double,” March 4, 2012.
The writer of this guest commentry in the Tucson Weekly appears to be in favor of the status qou – more of the same. I think he is wrong. I think Fridena and Lee will provide much needed new leadership for PCC, Pima County and Tucson.
Frankly, I think that it is pretty chicken s*@T of the Tucson Weekly to have not made an official endorsement for the 2 open PCC Governing Board seats way back when the Weekly’s endorsements appeared – as it did for every other office on the ballot in Pima County – and then to print this unfair guest commentary disparaging two fine candidates for the PCC Governing Board, just days before the election. I say, Shame on the Tucson Weekly.
From having served on the PCC Bd during a turbulent period (1975-84) I am well versed in the need for an alert and attentive Board of Governors, which understands that it is the servant as well as the representative of the public. The current board, composed of good people who haven’t had to work very hard for a long time, has been willing to let the college be misguided in many ways by an authoritative chancellor, who we learn through the media was engaging in a variety of seriously questionable practices. A current board member was heard to say, “We really dodged a bullet when Flores resigned, so we didn’t have to investigate the sexual harassment charges” that had been made repeatedly. Financial games, lack of a proper agenda and open meeting requirements, and finally paying TWO people full chancellor’s salaries at the same time, reveal their lack of attention to business. For no other reason, they should be replaced. However, the open admissions debacle so cavalierly dismissed strikes at the heart of the PCC mission, as well as running contrary to good educational practices and 40+ years of historical success. Taking a degree at the end of a course of study is NOT the end all of an education. Plunking a person in front of a computer to do a pre-packaged limited tutoring package does not work over time. I know this to be true. Taking whichever classes lead to the necessary goal of employment or knowledge is. The changes to the open admissions/Pathways to Pima/Pima Academy during the last year have been coming so fast it has become a moving target, and yet the board denies it has made changes. Some of the changes are blatantly against Bd policies and yet the Bd doesn’t seem to care. Let’s vote in two new attentive, informed, and capable Board members: Fridena and Lee.