Response to August 31

The facts
Jill Landesberg-Boyle

ABSTRACT The contents herein are a response to the allegations presented in a public forum without the opportunity for response.

RESPONSE TO AUGUST 31 I have heard it said, the truth does not stand a chance against a welldocumented lie. I believe what the Board, and the public, saw on August 31st, a display of emotion without an examination of the facts. Some background is worthwhile. In mid-July, the dormitory board voted 5-4 to negotiate with a local bidder. The national companys proposal was $2 Million less, meaning about $200 less a month for students, had a 30 year ground lease as opposed to 75 years, a lower occupancy requirement (90% vs. 96%) and even generated up to $5 million in profits to the college to support the academic mission. The rationale for rejecting a bid that was $2 million lower and would cost the college $5 million in potential revenue losses, was based purely on conjecture; perhaps the national company might incur costs prior to securing its financing. The college secured documentation indicating otherwise, thereby showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the national company was a more sensible proposition. Within days, Mr. Jim Hendrik, who was to be helping the college with the dormitory project, visited my house and asked my company if there was any chance I might change my mind and stop advocating for the national company. He asked if we had a good negotiator and when asked why, replied that he would hate for Jill to be like Moses, bring everyone to the promise land and then have to see it from, say, Philadelphia. On June 22, 2009, Mr. Hendrik documented that he reviewed and read student suites letter had a brief discussion with the college president, and then states he met with Randy Charles and Lydia Esteneoz, et al, re: Faculty/staff unrest. His documentation continues: Telephone call to Chairman Scales re: same. Meeting with Board Chair Scales re: Re-evaluation of housing proposal in light of student suites waiver letter. He does not document that on that same night 15 employees, gathered by Lydia and Randy, meet with Chairman Scales to lodge complaints against the president. In a radio interview Mr. Hendrik said he didnt want the Board to be caught off guard as they were in the Monroe County School District Matter as if the president had been notified of a crime, had avoided acting, and no one had reported the incident. In fact, these same employees had been upset with changes at the college for some time and Chairman Scales had himself had chastised them at a board meeting for their resistance to change and their hostile campaign against the president. The next day, Mr. Hendrik documents: Consultations with Provost, L. Estenoz et al, re: faculty/staff unrest; Telephone call Chair Scales re: same. Telephone call Board member K. Bassett, and email William DeVane re: Same. Consultations with Provost, L.Estenoz, et al, re: faculty/staff unrest; Telephone Call Chairman Scales, re: same.

It is curious that a call was made to Chairman Scales, then to Trustee Bassett, and then again to Chairman Scales. According to Trustee Bassett. According to Trustee Bassett, Lydia Estenoz and Randy Charles did not initially divulge that there was at least one other person in the room (and possibly more as JH documented et al). Trustee Bassett, recognizing she was being listened to on a speakerphone, asked who was in the room with the two of them. Only then was it revealed that Jim Hendrik was listening to the conversation. A surprised Trustee Bassett asked why Mr. Hendrik was in the room and was told that the three of them happened to be talking and thought it would be a good idea to call her. , When she stated she was on spoken with Chairman Scales. And if they had already called Chairman Scales, why would they call another trustee? And why not the anticipated incoming chairman, Spencer Slate? Given the activities that unfolded in the next few days, the culmination of which was Chairman Scales communicating to the president that she would be terminated at the next board meeting (August 5th), it appears likely their motivation was to determine where Trustee Bassett might vote on such a . Chairman Scales would need two other votes and they would not likely come from Trustees Slate. On the other hand, Trustee Bassetts empathy for unhappy staff was wellknown; she had been in constant contact with them over the course of the new presidents tenure. The third vote would have to come from whoever might be named to the board. It is unclear if it was known who the two new Trustees were going to be on Tuesday, 7/22/09. At least one of the new trustees did get notified days before the news went public on Thursday, 7/24/09, so it is conceivable that the Chairman was aware of Antoinette Martins appointment. Her intended vote could have easily been communicated through contact with Lydia Estenoz, her close friend, or either brother FKCC employee Michael McPherson or Mayor Morgan Mcpherson. Morgan had been privy to a conversation with the president about Michael and had reason to believe that his job was not safe. He himself has reportedly told at least one person that he is protecting (his) brothers job. If the Chair believed he could secure three votes for termination, it would explain Mr. Hendriks documentation on 7/24/09 and, in particular the comment: discuss scope of problem and potential consequences. Two telephone calls to Chairman Scales re: same. I left for Orlando on Thursday, 7/24. While there I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Hendrik who conveyed to me that there was faculty/staff unrest he used the word insurgency and suggested I resign from my position. He refused to tell me who provided this information to him. He then nonchalantly asked if I had read the Keynoter article that day and then pointed out that it was reporting an alleged Sunshine Law investigation against me. I was struck when he carefully, almost too nonchalantly, made sure to mention that this matter was a criminal investigation. I called Dr. Charles, who told me he did not know of any unrest. I asked him to talk to Ms. Estenoz, knowing that she and I had argued before I left and knowing that she might be upset with me (in fact, it is interesting to note that according to Mr. Hendriks time sheet, within minutes after our last argument, she and Dr. Charles were again meeting with Mr. Hendrik about growing unrest). Two days later the Attorney for the Board summoned me to meet with the Board Chair the next morning, the day of the August 5th Board Meeting. I was told to prepare to be offered a severance agreement and if I did not accept, I would be fired at the Board 3

Meeting that night. In the meeting I had with the Chairman Scales, on his last day as chair, he affirmed that sentiment and told me You cant win this one. He clearly conveyed a sense of confidence in the outcome of a vote. Meanwhile, the provost was busy assuring staff this was a done deal - the president would be terminated at the meeting. He told others to get out of town in an attempt to ensure no one would speak on my behalf. At the meeting, Ms. Estenoz broke the ice, stating there were morale problems and concerns about our FTE; she had taken the liberty of bringing this to the States Attorney. She had a different interpretation of the FTE regulations, she explained. Perhaps her legal expertise could be attributed to her conversation about over-reporting FTE that Mr. Hendrik documented in his timesheets. Lydia Estenoz has stated in mediation that three board members told her to speak out at the board meeting and talk about morale problems and her (uninformed) opinion of the FTE. 1 The die was cast. Unhappy employees who had been told their boss would be fired if they showed their discontent (after all, there were two new Trustees and it was incumbent upon them to make it look authentic). They yelled and chanted with abandon, heartened by the knowledge that if they supported the provost, he would be named interim president. That did not happen. In fact, the few faculty members I gathered prior to the meeting expressed their feelings that the meeting was a set up. The board then set a follow-up meeting for August 31st. These grievance procedures are completely outside of established board policy, but nonetheless, the surprise attack had caught everyone off guard and so following procedural due process was not the first thing on most peoples minds. Employees believed they could act with impunity and, their behavior seemed to affirm this, for it is difficult to believe that without such assurances: Ex-Employees who had not been to a board meeting since they were employed would be there with their families Current Employees would be accompanied by their families Employees would chant and taunt the president loudly and without any regard to civility or decorum. When I was not terminated, employees become increasingly agitated they had just acted with extreme antagonism towards the president and, as the infamous blog started communicating, they were afraid they had lost at least one of the
Bear in mind, that for two years detractors have been trying to find a way to poke a hole in the record enrollment numbers at FKCC. At first it was said to be completely bogus. Then detractors pointed out that the bulk of growth was not headcount, but credit hour production (in the first year there was a great deal of truth to that, but that just affirmed that had the prior administration attended to the class schedule, they, too, could have posted gains). Then, they hit upon the idea of tearing away at how FTE is calculated. This is a very complicated process, and as Dr. Holdnak from the Division of CCs has said, it is a case by case process. Nonetheless, there was something they could get a toehold in and they went for it with gusto! John Kehoe, Lydia Estenoz, Randy Charles, David Monroe, worked with me as we went through each students individual records for hours on end, to determine that there was a question about 2.2FTE (and that we had also underreported 1.9 FTE).
1

three trustee votes upon which they were counting. Anxiety was observed among employees who had yelled and chanted at the president. Employees such as Cheryl Malsheimer, Michael McPherson, and Bryan Gilchrist, all of who had attended the meeting (two of whom brought family members), were overheard at work planning where their next meeting would be held to give them and their friends a chance to re-group. The coordinated introductions provided (I am not nameless, faceless, or disgruntled), was a sure attempt to come out in full force so that they succeeded in their agenda to get the president terminated at this point, one would safely assume that once s/he had yelled at his/her boss in public, there was no room for a second failed attempt to get the president fired. Erika MacWilliams rebuffed attempts for the administrative staff to collect the speaking cards and, instead, had all of those she knew would speak against the President hand their cards to her. She then waited until it seemed audience members had given in their cards, before providing her stack, in one neat package, to Mr. DeVane. By doing this, she and her friends determined the order of appearance (starting with the provost) and ensured a potent, nonstop trail of aggrieved parties for the first hour and a half. Those employees did not follow the rules many speaking more than three minutes even when told to stop. Many who came out to support the president left due to time constraints. When those who did speak for the president (the majority of speakers, in fact) were at the podium, there were interruptions and yelling from the first speakers. Suzy Parks would raise her glass and jingle the ice in it to interrupt them. Throughout the litany, Trustee Bassett repeatedly shot disdainful glances and scowls in my direction, communicating clearly her thoughts on the outcome. Indeed, in subsequent conversations she did not want to hear what I had to say, expressing only her wish to hear me to accept the charges offer a full apology. I was never asked for the truth and it wouldnt have mattered if I had been - it was clear at least three believed each story. Their public comments at the end of the trial left few in doubt of the outcome. One trustee referred to the twenty employees as abused. As a curious aside, here we are after the decision and yet, the blog is still active. It is robust with employees and ex-employees jubilantly poking at their colleagues and the president, as they impugn the dignity of the College. The bloggers have been given a copy of the agreement I made with the Trustees in good faith, and have posted it. I wonder, if the polarization at the college is all about me, why do the employees continue their attempts to divide their colleagues and embarrass the College? As for me, I remain convinced that the truth is critically important to most. The truth should especially have a place of importance at an institution of higher education. Towards that goal, I wish to provide the Board of Trustees with some information about the allegations brought to the August 31st 5

Grievance Meeting to clear my name of any allegations of wrongdoing, a privilege heretofore not provided. Had these issues been handled through an appropriate grievance process, I may have had a chance to provide the facts, bring forth witnesses, and produce documentation to substantiate the facts. In other words, if provided any semblance of due process, perhaps the community would not be watching the college with such skepticism about what has just unfolded. In fact, perhaps public confidence in the College no, in leadership in the Florida Keys would not be so jeopardized as it is today.

RANDY CHARLES
Randy Charles described a paralyzing amount of micromanagement without providing a single example. Perhaps what he refers as micromanagement is follow up because as he has not completed tasks assigned to him. These include: a. Our accreditation process--addressing compliance certification, faculty credentialing, and the QEP plan (which should have two years of data) b. Reviewing the course schedule to ensure classes are offered strategically, c. Working with faculty to create a process for continuing contracts. His failure to complete assigned tasks has been documented in his annual performance review and his probationary review. I urge you to ask Joanne Dinkel for a copy. Randy has been given much autonomy for example he determined terminations of faculty on his own and was provided complete control over the course schedule. It soon became apparent, though, that, in hindsight, I did not hold him as accountable as I should have. I will provide email documentation that I asked for his attention to these important tasks, if necessary. (ATTACHED). My greatest concern continues to be his unwillingness to hold Erika MacWilliams accountable for beginning our SACS process. Over the course of the year, Randy himself has repeatedly expressed fear about FKCC not being prepared for SACS. I agreed and we set aside funds to hire a more seasoned accreditation director, but allowed funds to remain for Erika to be retained. We discussed the more seasoned person mentoring Erika and, given our late start, I felt it would be beneficial to have two people in place. (NOTE: as Erika stated at the August 31st meeting, Randy told her this position was being brought in so that she could be fired this is completely untrue. In fact, I asked Randy to have a professional

development conversation with Erika pointing out her areas of growth and assuring her that she had a job). I also offered to go back through all the emails I had sent following up on Erikas progress and to compile those into a single document for him to work with Erika on. I did this and can attach that list (ATTACH). We also decided to send a team to attend the SACS conference (Dec. 2008). There our fears were confirmed as we met with many professionals from around the country who were surprised that we had not yet begun to prepare for our January 2012 visit. Randy was to begin the search process for the more seasoned accreditation person immediately upon our return to campus. To date, he has not hired anyone and, to my knowledge, stopped collecting resumes and interviewing. Accreditation has been an area I have been very vocal about addressing. I have expressed grave concerns in Erikas competency. I have not seen evidence that her level of knowledge is as expert as it should be for a lead accreditation director. I have pointed out numerous examples to Randy of cases where Erika provided inaccurate information to the college about the process, the timeline, and the documentation that we are already behind in collecting. For example, when Erika prepared our request for a substantive change in program offerings (hospitality), she was not aware a prospectus had to accompany the request. The Executive Director of SACS wrote back directly to me and chastised us for not knowing to include a prospectus. This letter is on file. (ATTACH) Last year, when we were working with consultant Debbie Mason, we asked Erika to prepare an analysis of data on four institutional areas of concern. Despite repeated requests to her and Randy, she did not provide these documents. In the end, neither Erika nor her supervisor produced the reports the president did. I clearly discussed my disappointment with Randy who said to me he thought the problem was Erika did not possess the skill level to create an analysis such as what was requested (ATTACHED). Erika also has difficulty communicating clearly (something I believe Bob Norton can attest to as he had expressed some concerns last year during the faculty case). Randy has said he has had a hard time understanding her, despite spending hours with her even setting aside a day -long retreat for the two of them. Despite my constant follow-up with Randy, he does not seem to want to hold Erika accountable. I have asked him about this and he says he does not know why. The problem has been ongoing as documented in his annual performance evaluation. Several months ago, I asked Randy to start on the Quality Enhancement Program (QEP) a major research report that takes an issue at the college, such as math passage rates, and shows how data was collected, an intervention was planned and implemented, and then provides the results. This is a very involved project - usually a two-year research project, and one that must be submitted prior to the onset of the accreditation visit. Randy said Erika 7

insisted the QEP is not due until after the on-site committee visit in January 2012. I corrected him -it must be completed and in the reviewers possession prior to the visit, We MUST start this process now as this is already fall 2009. Randy did initially begin a search for the accreditation position we created. He told me that he had set up a phone interview with Cheryl, Erika and himself for a candidate, and Cheryl ran out of the room crying, I cant do this! This is Erikas job! He has still not hired anyone and has not interviewed anyone since this incident, several months ago. Around March, I asked Randy to meet with Susanne Woods, a former provost with impeccable credentials including having been a tenured-faculty member at Brown University. I asked Randy to hire Dr. Woods as a consultant to compile our Compliance Certificate, which must be in to our accreditation agency 15 months prior to our process (which begins with an off-site review in fall 2011 and an on-site visit in January 2012). The Compliance Certification process is extensive and requires that the college engage in an internal evaluation study that measures how it fares on each of the accreditation principles outlined by SACS. Although he spoke with Susanne and agreed that she was more than qualified to help us in this capacity, he did not act to initiate her hiring. I stepped in after a few weeks passed without his attending to this matter and asked the business office to initiate a contract with Dr. Woods for 20 hours per week (around April, 2009). Frankly, my anxiety was too great to let the matter continue unresolved. Dr. Woods can attest to how much I have pushed SACS accreditation in a letter to the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor (ATTACHED). She can affirm how worried I have been that we have lost yet another year because Erika has not completed assigned tasks. A wealth of documentation exists on how I have tried to move Erika and Randy forward on this very important task. They have never responded to her requests for thoughts and/or feedback on the process. I have been the only respondant to her inquiries. I asked Randy to attend the August SACS conference and suggested he gather a team of faculty to accompany him and Erika. He did not. Furthermore, he cancelled his trip at the last minute and sent his secretary with Erika. I took issue with this for a variety of reasons. One was that he was not attending and he had acknowledged to me on several occasions that he did not understand the accreditation process. I also objected to him sending his administrative assistant instead of the Curriculum Chair. Finally, given the many documented leaks and the internal problems that existed, I did not want Jillian to be drawn into the destructive dynamics at play within the organization. I knew that Erika MacWilliams was extremely unhappy in her position and that she had gathered many colleagues to spend hours lamenting about the administration. It was not in Jillians best interest to be influenced in a way that would entangle her in negative dynamics. Randy became angry with

me and said, Jillian is too smart for that! As is clear now, Jillian has, indeed, become a part of this dynamic. Not just because of her attending the conference, but because Randy reinforced the possibility of her becoming jaded by telling (as was shared in meetings and on August 31st) that the president did not want her to attend the conference, did not trust her, and was thinking of terminating her. Now, there is no doubt that Jillian, a great employee who just wanted to do her job, has been pulled into the underbelly of dynamics that Randy actively exacerbated when he was hired to do just the opposite. Randy Charles also spoke of fear and paranoia. This strikes me as particularly interesting on two levels. First, what the paranoia he has attributed to me is based on my sense that some employees were banding together in an attempt to sabotage the college as a means of terminating my employment. I doubt there is anyone among us who would deny that I have been the target of the most mean-spirited, public attack imaginable. It is a well-known fact that employees were orchestrating efforts to get me terminated since the very beginning of my presidency. My awareness of this, and of the actions that some employees have undertaken is not paranoia - rather it is an acknowledgement of the facts. ! Two outside technology consultants have both affirmed that we have serious issues within our IT Department and that three anonymous emails that were sent (a) originated from our server and (b) had to have been created by someone with the administrative code to our server, i.e. the director of IT and/or the assistant director of IT. Furthermore, we know that my emails have been stolen from my computer and that other emails have been sent under Dr. Kehoes name without his involvement. ! The director of IT was told to provide the Administrative Code to his direct supervisor, David Monroe, and he refused to do so for several days (enough time to cover any traces of which person actually sent the anonymous email. On Friday afternoon, when David physically went to Bryan Gilchrists office to ask for the code, Bryan said he was late to a 4pm meeting (it was 4:02pm). Soon after, he was seen drinking with Randy Charles, Gavin McKiernen, and Erika MacWilliams at Beachside Tavern. ! Human Resource records have been stolen from colleges files and became public. ! Christina Pichardo has documented phone calls with Suzanne Runnels and/or her husband Mike Driscoll, and then the president receives inside information about those phone calls (ATTACHED). ! Ex-employees such as Sharon Toppino regularly come on campus and spend long hours in current employees offices. 9

! Conversations that are held in Presidents Cabinet find their way on to the blog. In each of these instances, and in many similarly questionable circumstances, the college is undermined by posted attacks directed to any employee who supports the president, by needless mountains of research to fulfill public records requests, and by creating an atmosphere where colleagues cannot trust each other. I, and others, were trying to find substantive evidence to bring an end to this hostile climate, but, before that could be done, some of the very people who we have reason to believe engaged in this behavior, were summoned to a meeting with the then chair of the board, Ed Scales, who was told that this behavior was merely my paranoia. Unfortunately, many employees and even students have been deeply wounded in this situation, as they have been called retarded or even threatened. In fact, one of the IT Consultants received a voice mail on his telephone that was a recording of someone disguising their voice and saying Stay out of FKCCs computing issues. I would contend that there is a deep issue of hostile behavior and that rather than minimize the president for trying to ascertain the source of the problem, Randy might have better served the college by trying to stop the behavior than by exacerbating problems by inaccurately communicating the presidents communications and even making-up lies to create a sense of fear among employees (i.e. telling employees the reason why he did not complete a single evaluation was because in each and every case the president was going to write all over them negative comments. This brings me to the second level of my dismay. While Randy Charles was alleging that the president was paranoid he actively participated in creating a fear of paranoia in employees. As was seen on August 31st, in nearly all cases where employees alleged they were called names by the president or were told something disturbing, they stated they had heard that from their supervisor, i.e. Randy Charles, not directly from the president. A few employees left simply omitted any information about where they had heard the information and simply presented it as if they were in a room, face-to-face with the president, and had been called a name. As they stated: the president called me presenting the information as if they were face to face with the president and she engaged in name-calling. I adamantly deny any such thing occurred. If we were to go back and question those employees, I believe we would determine the source of those rumors was Randy Charles. We have also heard from employees, like Brittany Snyder, who, at the August 5th Board Meeting said, My supervisor couldnt do my evaluation because the president would write all over it. When I subsequently asked Randy why he would say something like that he denied that he had said it, instead stating that Brittany must have misunderstood something he said. However, at a subsequent mediation meeting (witnessed by a trustee), Jillian Manzer asked me if I had

said I was going to fire her. I was shocked beyond belief I think the world of Jillian and have said so to both her and Randy Charles. I asked her who would tell her a thing like that? She stated, My supervisor (Randy Charles). At that point, I stated that it was hard for me to accept responsibility for doing things that I had not done and had not even known was being said. I mentioned how shocked I was when I had heard Brittanys comments about her evaluation, at which point Gavin McKiernon stated, He told all of us that.

BRITTANY SNYDER Brittany Snyder is an interim employee who has filed a grievance because she is not in a permanent position. I believe this is important information as it speaks to her motivation. Just over a year ago, Brittany was a finalist for a position of business faculty position. I would encourage you to interview those who sat on her committee. Michael McPherson put the committee together and he assigned several of Brittanys good friends: Erika MacWilliams, Bryan Gilchrist, and himself. Only a single faculty member was asked to join the committee- Sharon Farrell. Two community members were also part of the committee (one was Anne OBannion, now a trustee). Randy Charles was also up for the position and at the end, the committee recommended Brittany. Sharon came to me to voice concerns about how the committee had been run she felt it had operated in a bias way to benefit Brittany getting the job she indicated that unlike the other candidates, Brittany had not done a teaching demonstration. I was also concerned because at the time we were trying to plan for a baccalaureate program in business, this requires a person with a doctorate in business must teach a required percentage of the courses (per SACS). Dr. Kehoe called SACS to confer and they were firm that if we wanted to have the four-year program, we should hire a person with a doctorate in the field. Brittany called me at home and begged me to put her in the position as an interim. She said that she would recruit enough students that we would be able to afford to hire a second person and that person could have the doctorate. Additionally, Erika and Michael had argued that she was in a doctorate program. I told Brittany I thought the world of her and even though this was going to be problematic relative pursuing the institutional strategic plan, I would allow her to take the job as an interim. Later in the year, Erika brought in a friend of hers who is also an accreditation consultant. In a large meeting where Brittany was present, the consultant reiterated that we needed a person with a doctorate. Brittany was very upset and I heard she had been crying. I called her and told her not to worry- we would find a way to work this out. I kept her in the interim position and even allowed for her to continue as an interim this year. Nonetheless, Brittany has somehow gotten the idea that I am trying to get rid of her (from comments she 11

made on August 5th, it appears that Randy Charles has given her this idea) and her status as interim has added to her anxiety. Brittany stated that I wanted to eliminate Suzanne Runnels job after she complained about sexual harassment. The fact of the matter, as Ms. Snyder knows very well, is that we were facing serious budget constraints that year and that all positions were under scrutiny. There was never any relation to a sexual harassment complaint. In fact, I was not even aware that Suzanne had made a complaint because that complaint was raised to a board member at a meeting (a year and a half ago) at which I was not present. I only became aware of that after someone else who was at the meeting told me that was said, although I did not know who said it or what it referred to. I immediately asked the Board Member who was present about it, in front of the HR Director. She said that it came up but she would not tell me who said it because she wanted to protect the confidentiality of the employees who had met with her. I stated that if there was a sexual harassment issue the organization had an obligation to investigate. I was told that as the conversation evolved, the employee had said the activity in question was not something she saw as sexual harassment, but rather a comment that she felt was inappropriate. The Trustee again told me it was not an issue the person wanted to pursue and that it was not something that rose to the level of sexual harassment. I was not told who the parties involved were nor the circumstances. In August of 2008, Mr. Driscoll filed a public record request for the Elisa Levy notes. In the Elisa Levy meeting (March, 2008), I was asked to leave the room while small groups discussed issues and put them on newsprint. One of the groups listed Gender based comments on the part of the Provost. Again, there was no mention of who made the comment nor was any specificity provided about the substance of the comments. The facilitator had stressed confidentiality; Ms. Levy had assured employees their individual comments would be kept confidential unless they themselves wanted to state to the larger group that a written comment had been theirs. That had not happened in this case. The term sexual harassment was never used and it was never stated that the comments had been pervasive or hostile. After Mr. Driscoll received a copy of the report, he sent it to the Division of CCs and alleged his wife was the victim of sexual harassment. It was only then that I connected this with what was raised with the Trustee (outside of my presence) and concluded that it was most likely Suzanne who had made the allegation. At a subsequent Board Meeting, Mr. Driscoll accused me of not addressing sexual harassment. At that time I reiterated what I have reiterated herein. The Board Member recalled the situation differently than do I, indicating that she did tell me the details about the incident. Joanne Dinkel and I conferred after that Board Meeting and Joanne stated that her

recollection was the same as mine at the time we had not been given any names or details and were told that employee stated she did not see the comment as sexual harassment nor did she want to file anything with HR. Regardless, of the different recollections, it is important to note that the Trustee did tell Suzanne that if she was a victim of sexual harassment that she should report it to Human Resources. She did not ever file any complaint with Human Resources or with any one else at the institution. As an interesting note, the Board member did follow up with Suzanne Runnels several months ago, and was told that the issue was not about the provost at the time but about a different staff member. I believe the Trustee will attest to that. This is important because it indicates a different story than what was documented at the Elisa Levy meeting. Brittany Snyder also alleged that she was asked to give a degree to a student who had not earned it. This is not true. The student in question had never been advised correctly, had managed to go through semester after semester with waivers for math classes that she needed to graduate. She had not been properly advised by financial aid about the concept of satisfactory academic progress a term that requires students to complete their degrees within federal timelines and with satisfactory grades. As a result, each semester she would go to advising and, because of scheduling problems due to the lack of class times/choices, she would receive a waiver from the advisors. The student was a young, African American mother of three, named Lakeisha. She had been signed up for distance learning classes that fit her schedule, even if they did not fit her curriculum requirements. More disturbing, as a remedial student, those were not the best option for her learning level. She was never told that she would eventually run out of financial support and would end up having invested time and money in randomly chosen classes that might have fit her time requirements at that point in her life, but did not work together towards a degree. Nor was she told that if she did not register for math in a timely way, that she would come up against her time limits, and never have completed even her remedial math, much less the math required for the business degree she wanted. In fact, when I learned this, I did some research into how many of our students were being allowed to get into the same situation. I then changed the process and provided a clear directive to the Academic Advising Department that students must take math upon entering their degree program. This is to ensure that students do take math at the start of their program so that we would not continue to churn students through the system, taking their money, using all their financial aid, and not having the means to graduate because a lack of courses. Math is a gateway class. It is imperative that students do not put it off failing math is one of the most certain predictors for student attrition from college. In fact, a year ago I had compiled statistics on the rate of our students who do not pass math and how that correlates to failing to complete a degree 13

program. (I actually had asked the Institutional Research Department and Randy Charles to put this information together, but they were unable or unwilling to do so.) In the case of Lakeisha, she had ended up with no certificate or degree to show for her time in college because the classes she was allowed to take did not seem to follow any curricular pathway. While it was clear that she would not qualify for an associate degree, I asked Brittany if we could find a certificate program for which Lakeisha had the necessary requirements. I had heard many other issues of students being improperly advised and I understood that advising was an area that in the coming year we would have to review. The advisors felt that changing the way they advised students was a criticism of them. I have heard, particularly from Suzy Parks, that they resent that students run to the president and it makes them feel they did something wrong. In fact, during mediation this issue came up and I assured Suzy that is not my intent and that in each and every student case, I always involve those employees involved. Similarly, in this case I involved Randy, Brittany, Susan Urban, and Suzy Parks (the advisor). However, they felt differently and argued that the student did not deserve a chance to go through school. They argued that she was just using financial aid for living expenses and that she was not serious about her academic program. I listened to both sides of the situation, theirs and the students side. I spoke at length with Lakeisha, pulling Randy and others into the conversation. I even had conversations with the students mother. I reviewed our process of allowing students to bypass math class until they ran out of financial aid, and I was alarmed. I was even told by the director of advising that the former VP of Student Affairs, Sharon Toppino, had started this practice by directing advisors to waive math and just get the students in enrolled in something. I took steps to ensure that the student would be monitored - I had the student sign an agreement that she would check in every other week with a counselor throughout the semester so that her progress could be monitored. Doing so allowed us to identify this at-risk student and get her ongoing support through a grant program (with Carrie Groomes-Davis) so that she could get back on track academically and be monitored regularly by a counselor. Nonetheless, the four employees in question felt that the student did not deserve our help and they were quite annoyed at me for stepping in to make sure that she got the help she would not have otherwise received. I followed up at the end of the day with Randy, who was agitated with me. I expressed my feeling that he was too focused on creating loyalty with employees at the expense of resolving long-standing barriers that negatively impacted the quality of the educational experience. I also asked him about what I believed was an assumption that the young mother was using financial aid solely as an income source. He acknowledged he had doubts about the

students motives although he also acknowledged that the student had been illadvised.

CHERYL MALSHEIMER Cheryl Malsheimer gave an emotional recount of being called in to work on a weekend (before Spring opening), omitting that it was the weekend before we opened and I had been alerted to a major problem with the course schedule. During the previous semester, Randy Charles and Cheryl Malsheimer were working on the class schedule. I asked Randy each week during individual meetings and even in passing, if the schedule was coming along. I was admittedly becoming worried because the deadline for it to be finished had come and gone. Each time he would tell me they were working on it and had it under control. I did not want to micromanage and so I would tell him, as long as you have the issues under control. However, in the final analysis, the course schedule was not distributed in time for most students to sign up for classes before they left for the Holidays. Therefore, we did not have a good handle on our student counts for the spring. I watched the enrollment numbers over the holidays and was increasingly worried that they were lower than where they should be compared to the prior years benchmark. Close to the start of the semester, I received a phone call from Gary Martin. Gary informed me that he was checking on the Marathon and Coral Shores classes and that they were not showing up in the online schedule and had not been listed in the printed schedule. As we later discovered, the old class schedule had been rolled over and the new classes had been entered on top of the old classes this caused the computer program to indiscriminately bump classes out if they conflicted with another scheduled class. This had been the source of the registration problems, and subsequent low enrollment numbers. I then learned that right before the break, Cheryls office had sent out letters to students telling them they could not register for classes because of a hold her office had placed on the students records. I found this out because my husband received such a letter. He was a student that took diving classes, not a degree-seeking student, but because he had not submitted transcripts, he was blocked from enrolling in an advanced scuba class. When I researched it further, it turned out that hundreds of students had been similarly blocked from registering for a variety of different types of holds. Next I learned that all the phones and computers on campus had been taken out of commission the painters had left them unplugged, with all the office furniture from the main floor of the administration building, in the center of the lobby.

15

Complicating matters, Monday was to be the first day staff were back on campus and the first day of classes. I did reach Randy and Cheryl and at one point, when I was talking to Cheryl about the problems we were facing the weekend before school opened, she said that Randy was in her office with her. I asked her to put me on speakerphone and I told them that I was on my way into work and I wanted them to come up with a solution to fix this critical situation that had resulted from the lack of oversight with the course schedule. I was frustrated and I am sure that came across in my voice. As a part of the solution, we called those employees we could reach and asked them to come back to campus and meet about how we could get the campus in shape for Monday and get the phones back up and running. I have notes of that meeting (ATTACH). I did ask Cheryl to if any of her staff members were available to answer the phones and, she said she had someone who probably would be interested in making the money; NOTE: Cheryl omitted in her account that the person was paid overtime to come in and answer the phones. She also omitted in her account that after things were getting back in order that day, I went to see her in her office to spend time talking to her and to apologize for being abrupt in my phone call to her. She said to me that she did not think she could be the person to lead her department because she was just good at routine work, not at being proactive or at problem-solving. She stated that she understood, in hindsight, how many barriers she had created for the enrollment process, and she did not know how she could have missed them at the time. She affirmed her understanding of how the processes she had put into place were creating problems in our enrollment management situation. I told her I had faith in her and I did not believe that she was not creative or a problem-solver. I encouraged her to see herself in more esteem. I was very supportive of her and told her that whenever she needed to talk to me, she could. We spoke for some time, and I assured her that I had confidence in her leadership ability. KARLA MALSHEIMER Karla Malsheimer, an hourly employee and daughter of Cheryl Malsheimer, told how she was being moved out of her private office and that doing so was violating ADA provisions. She was asked to move because we had added another advisor to the department (Nicole Girrard) and we could not justify having an administrative assistant in a private office when there were not enough private officers for advisors. A second interesting piece of information is that the hourly employee was moved into her position in advising because she complained of being abused as faculty secretary. I granted her request to be moved into the job of

her choice, and, in so doing, provided the Advising Department with another support position. Karla also mentioned that she called me about a problem with the schedule. That is true. She called me at home when I was out sick one day. She was highly agitated about the class schedule and said that she was having problems that she needed to share with me. I told her that I was ill but that if she needed to see me, she could come by my house. I did answer the door in the bathrobe. I listened to her issues and frustrations and there were some problems that, indeed, needed to be corrected. It is quite possible that in my own frustration, and not feeling well to begin with, I could have said something like I cant trust anyone! probably to refer to the fact that the course schedule had been delegated to people and I was being called, on a day when I was home ill, to fix a problem that I should not have been involved in to begin with.

SUZY PARKS Suzy Parks brought to the floor a complaint about dual enrollment and alleged that I was asking her to be non-compliant with the law. The truth is that Suzy has, for two years, complained about changing dual enrollment. When I came on board initially, I received emails from school board members and calls from parents about the Band Camp program. Suzy Parks was the person in charge of helping high school students register for band camp and other dual enrollment classes. However, I received complaints about how she handled her duties. Furthermore, there were issues with band camp in particular, because she believed that those classes should not be counted as vocational classes (Band camp is a program where high school students take summer classes in music, culinary skills, set design, and other similar programs). There are higher high school GPA requirements for college-geared classes (such as math) than there are for vocational classes. Complicating matters, I learned upon my arrival to FKCC that we had no one set requirement for either vocational classes or college classes. In fact, our requirements were set by each individual instructor, typically at levels significantly higher than what is even required to qualify for Bright Futures. The legislation that authorizes dual enrollment explicitly states the goal is to optimize access. We moved to standardize the guidelines and align them with the legislation. Also, because of ongoing complaints from parents, I moved Suzy Parks into a position as an advisor. I did not negatively impact her salary. I put Gary Martin into the position of vice provost. This has been a sticking point with Suzy (and with the entire advising department) ever since. For two years, she has tried to unreasonably limit access to dual enrollment classes. Indeed, this issue had just come up a few weeks ago where she had failed to acknowledge the SAT scores of about 25 17

high school students who were taking a d/e class. She bumped them out of the class and Gary Martin had to take the extra steps to get them back into the classes. Suzy She also referred to secret shoppers. This idea was discussed at a Presidents Cabinet meeting with her supervisor, the director of academic advising and with the director of enrollment. What we decided, after much discussion, was to tell the student services employees about the secret shoppers ahead of time before we actually hired any so that they would be aware of the program and not feel that the program was implemented without their knowledge. As it turned out, we never did actually get to hire secret shoppers. What is important here is that there are problems in student services that have come to my attention and the attention of many others. We were trying to find a way to better understand the issues so that we could work with the staff on improving our services and, ultimately, our enrollment. TINA PICHARDO Tina Pilchard0 claimed in her allegation that I cornered employees and interrogated them after she got her promotion. This is absolutely not true. I was well aware of her applying for the promotion and had no involvement in the search committee whatsoever, other than signing the paperwork once the recommendation was made. She is correct that there was an incident where HR asked her about the disappearance of some files; she, like other employees who had access to the records, were all asked questions as the college consulted our labor attorneys and followed the advice of counsel. She also indicated being spied on. Unfortunately, in a recent mediation session, a member of the IT department, Michael Cruz, divulged that he had been asked to pull her phone records, thereby divulging confidential information. The information has been forwarded to Board Members and is attached.

SUSAN URBAN Susan Urban had no background in student affairs, financial aid, or regulatory requirements when she was hired. I set aside funds to bring consultants down to Key West for several weeks to train her. Susan stated that I have no care for regulatory requirements which is particularly disturbing to hear I have spoken on regulatory requirements in higher education at national conventions and last year presented with the General Counsel for Brown University. In fact, I have shown Susan where to find the regulatory requirements for federal financial aid (34 CFR 668). The truth of the matter is that Susan often points to regulations in isolation to show why she cant help a

student. (ATTACHED) then have to research the matter myself to show her that there are ways in which you can help a student. I brought a student to her named Jorge who was having problems getting financial aid. He was treated rudely in my presence. I followed up with Susan and have emails that track our conversation. There are opportunities for an institutions financial aid director to make decisions based on circumstances as long as they are documented and within the parameters of the guidelines. Susan resisted this. At one point in time we discussed Satisfactory Academic Progress, which she said the former director wasnt tracking or enforcing. I told her that I was supportive of making sure we followed the guidelines. I directed her and Cheryl that they involve the department heads in the discussions about SAP so that they could review their program requirements and make sure that the process was seamless. I also told her that since we had already started the semester, she needed to communicate to students who were in jeopardy of losing aid. I told her to bring them in and work with them so that they were prepared the following semester when they would not get their aid. I did not want the rug pulled out from under students who had already enrolled and were taking classes. I didnt think it was fair to pull their financial aid without warning after they had made decisions to be in school that semester based on information we provided them relative financial aid. I went so far as to call Washington, D.C. to talk to the US Dept of Education to ensure our compliance with regulatory requirements. Susan left my office and within a week I had students crying in my office and department heads calling me because they, too, were dealing with students. One student had been told to go enroll at St. Leos. I called Susan Urban, Cheryl Malsheimer, Bill Chalfant and Dawn Cline (diving department) to talk about their students who had been impacted. I asked Susan if she remembered me telling her to involve the dept heads and to not pull students aid without any warning. She did. I asked her why she did not do as I had directed her to do. She did not have a satisfactory answer. I told her not following a directive is insubordinate. Later I asked Cheryl Malsheimer (her supervisor) to document the incident. Cheryl refused. Rather than document Cheryl and cause more hurt feelings, I decided that I would have Susan report directly to me. During Susans probation evaluation I documented my concerns. I was going to extend her probation and she was very unhappy about that. At the time, we were trying to determine who student services should report to and while the executive team all thought an ideal situation would be to bring in a student affairs professional from the outside, during budget discussions it became apparent that this would not be viable. Against the recommendations of Randy, John and Joanne, I promoted Lydia. I knew I would have to train her in student affairs matters, but I also 19

thought that she could help to lead the student services area into a less resistant position. I have since learned, that, in fact, she began to identify with their resistance to change and to aggravate the situation by wanting to provide them everything they asked for. In the case of Susan, I wanted to consider moving Susan out of the director position and hiring a new director who had a background in financial aid and understood the regulations and how to increase the number of students who accessed financial aid (our benchmark numbers are low for a school of our type). Lydia disagreed and so I went with Lydias recommendation and took Susan off probation.

SHERRY BOYER Sherry Boyer spoke of her job changing and in a constant yo-yo because of turnover. In fact, there has been absolutely no turnover in IT during the past year. Sherrys job changed only because she was hired as a webmaster. But, after numerous attempts to get a new website up and running, and months and months of waiting, John Kehoe, Lydia Estenoz, and I made the decision to hire an outside firm to design and implement the new website. By all accounts, Sherry was not happy with this decision because she felt it was a personal affront. Sherrys job was changed since she was not doing the website. The job change, suggested by Bryan Gilchrist, her direct supervisor, was done to assist Gavin (distance learning) when Julie Bailey left. Bryan was adamant that we did not need to replace Julie Bailey and that Sherry could provide the needed support for Gavin. It is also important to understand that while Sherry did not bring this up on August 31st, she has been very upset by the fact that Bryan Gilchrist recommended her for the network position but, in consultation with David Monroe and John Kehoe, we decided to give the position to an outside person with more experience. Dave Monroe has an extensive background in networking and he is now over the IT Department. Sherry filed a grievance about this situation and has also brought this up in mediation sessions. She feels that the president is responsible for her not getting the promotion.

PENNI WISE Penni Wise alleged that I had directed the Nursing Director to abort the investigation into cheating. I have documentation and a letter from a student that shows otherwise. ATTACHED.

IGNORING THE LAW Advising has actively fought me on dual enrollment saying that the law wont allow changes I pushed to implement. When I came here, each instructor was allowed to determine what scores d/e students needed in order to get into a class. I had several communications from school board members and from parents complaining about the obstacles their students encountered. I did a bit of research and discovered that in nearly all cases, our standards were higher than nearly any other community college in the state, and, certainly, far above the state set requirements. I changed that and, yet, the same employees who say they embrace change, have fought me on that to this day. A focus on obstacles, not opportunities. I also came under fire when I wanted to change the TOEFL scores to encourage more international students. We had no EAP program at the college and our score requirements were the highest in our system. I asked staff to research the other schools and adopt not the lowest, but the median scores of the system. However, even the other night, we heard how I had evidently disregarded policy and law when I simply asked us to align our standards with other schools. Obstacles. One passionate employee angrily told how I was making her move out of her office in violation of the Americans with Disability Law. This is an hourly employee who serves as an assistant to the director of advising. A small part of her job duties is meeting with students with disabilities to get their paperwork in order so that we can relay to the instructors what accommodations they need. Now let me give you some background. This is an employee who previously worked as the secretary to the faculty. She came to me and begged me to move her because she said she was being abused by one of the faculty. I created an extra position in advising services where she asked to be placed and moved her. The director had an extra office and she has enjoyed being one of very few hourly employees who have their own offices. However, when we added another advisor just recently, there was no office for that person. I knew it was going to cause problems, but I had to make the difficult decision to move the advisor into the office and move the hourly employee to a desk outside of her supervisors office. I asked that when she was dealing with students requesting accommodations, she use one of the adjacent conference rooms. There was no violation of the law. Obstacles not opportunities.

RETALIATION There were numerous allegations about retaliation but not a single documented case of retaliation exists. In one case Steven Parker attributed a demotion he received (a reclassification that kept his salary the same but moved him into a lower range) to his friendship with someone who came to the Board meetings to speak out against me. I went to speak to Steven about this. I visited 21

him in his department and asked why he was upset. He explained he had been demoted around the time one of his friends had come to a board meeting to speak against me. He was sure the two events were related. I was surprised I sign mountains of paperwork and, in the case of reclassifications simply ensure the supervisor and human resources approved the action. Nonetheless, within an organization where the word retaliation has become such a rallying cry, I understand how he concluded that I had a hand in the matter. Steven also talked about Debbie Leonard calling and asking about his account; the fact of the matter is that this incident happened as we were going through the FTE one-by-one to double check numbers. In the process, we discovered cases where employees had outstanding balances. Steven happened to be one of many people called that day. Debbie Leonard, David Monroe, Jesse Perl off, and even Lydia can verify this. At the grievance meeting feelings of trepidation were expressed and I believed the issue was that HR was seen as an arm of the president. However, this employee shared a completely different perspective. He had gone to Human Resources in confidence to talk about his demotion, but his confidence was not honored. His supervisor was informed. As far as he was concerned, I wasnt the issue at all. NAME CALLING There were also allegations made about what I allegedly said often those were phrased as Dr. Boyle called me as if the employee had first hand knowledge. Yet, other employees acknowledged that they had heard such information from their supervisor They did not say who that supervisor was, but in case after case, it was Randy Charles. Randy Charles also told employees that he could not do a single evaluation because the president would write all over it as Brittany Smith and others have said publically. The fact of the matter is that this was never said to him. In fact, if one were to pull Dr. Kehoes employees evaluations of the business office, purchasing, IT and others, they would see that did no such thing. Why would I do this in the case of Randy Charless employees?

CONCLUSION For two years, I have been the object of some of the most vicious, malicious verbal attacks imaginable as individuals with personal agendas have gathered to oust me from the college. I went to the Key West Police, the Sheriffs Office and the States Attorney Office and pleaded for help. They explained that they could not subpoena any records, because these (word) danced right up to the criminal line, without going over it.

Most of us found their tactics so distasteful, so sophomoric, that we thought it best to ignore them. Now these individuals are finally showing their faces. They continue to hurl insults, rumors, and innuendos. Most of the roughly 25 (all but two staff, not faculty) employees who spoke at open meeting repeated rumors and misinformation they were told by others. Others misrepresented facts or lied by omission. Others engaged in outright slander by stating that I had delusions of paranoia and conspiracy. Paranoia Paranoia was a common theme. I had only been on the island a matter of weeks when I heard from dozens of people that my vice presidents were telling everyone I had a bipolar disorder. That soon turned into narcissistic personality disorder then mood swings and now paranoia. I have endured two years of malicious emails, blogs, letters, and rumors that thousands of people have seen. We all know about the Jan Perez emails, the Pat Perez emails, and the many other pseudonyms that have evolved. These emails are sent almost weekly and, at times, multiple emails are sent in a single week. The emails go to newspapers all over the country, every former employer and supervisor, the Los Angeles Jewish Community, college presidents throughout the state and even the country. I have asked staff for a written document and then, ten minutes later, I have received a public records request for that same report. I have had my emails stolen off my computer and an independent outside technology firm has said that it is almost certainly a breach occurring within my own Institutional Technology department. I think a reasonable person under those circumstances would have some hesitancy to place too much trust in others. Retaliation A second charge that was repeatedly raised was a charge of retaliation. Have staff been asked to be accountable for their job duties. Absolutely. Have they been asked to provide excellent student services? Yes they have. If someone does not do their job, are they held accountable? Indeed they are. And if they continuously focus on obstacles, not opportunities, are they challenged to rethink their assumptions. Yes. That is not retaliationthat is accountability. One employee said that she disagreed with me and I told her if you dont like it theres the door. What she didnt say was that she had yelled at me twice in the past week to the point where I had to ask her to stop yelling at me. She also didnt note that she had just received a promotion and a $20,000 raise to lead student services and the charge she had been given was to move them from a culture of obstacles to one of opportunities. She had been asked to work with them to improve their processes and to move them in the direction that we had set for the institution. She had instead been reinforcing their resistance to change. That day we were disagreeing about a directive I had given her that she was not following. Yes, I told her that if she didnt like the direction, she could leave. That was at about 3:30PM; according to Mr. Hendriks community service report, she and the provost were meeting with Mr. Hendricks by 4:10pm and placing a call to Ed Scales about faculty/staff unrest. Now counter that with the faculty perspective. I sat in mediation with the faculty where the focus was not on me, it was on the board. Two faculty members shared that they 23

came back to FKCC because of the exciting changes going on here with the new leadership. Others were clear to point out that none of them were asked if there was a morale problem. And yet another pointed out that the person who was in charge of the faculty, that is, the provost, had not asked them if there was a problem. The person in charge of the academic quality of the institution was completely out of touch with the faculty when he began reporting that there was extensive faculty unrest. Abusive Behavior A third theme in what the Citizen noted appeared to be an orchestrated attempt at defaming the president was a charge of abuse. Employees described that I called them names, or said that they couldnt sit with their friends without being put on a hit list. However, what they didnt say was who told them those horrible rumors. When our mediator was here, he said he had never been anywhere where the organization ran so pervasively on rumors and innuendos. What shocked me was that two days prior, a trustee and I sat and heard employees talk about one person in particular who was spreading those rumors. One administrative assistant tearfully asked if I was going to fire her it was someone I have great admiration for and when I heard this I was shocked. I assured her I thought the world of her and had not said such a thing. She told me that her supervisor had told her this. Yet, at the open meeting, she and others who had described similar experiences went to the podium and ascribed those words to me. That is why Trustee OBannion noted at the conclusion that she had heard with her own ears a completely different story just two days prior. I dont know why that is, although several people in academic affairs have said that they were told to keep their heads down because the decision was already made. They told me they were told that by the provost. It is worth juxtaposing the allegations of retaliation and hostile work place against the facts. I promoted many staff, gave raises and equity boosts (even to those who claim an atmosphere of retaliation), and when asked for a favor by any employee, I typically said yes. Whether hosting a Girl Scout troop on campus, allowing a friends wedding in the Maxwell Environmental Center, or offering free or reduced space to numerous community organizations in need of space. And while some employees talked about being told a year ago that they were going to be fired, none were. Indeed, they have received substantial raises. Health benefits were extended to partners and subsidies for family plans were created when health care became too expensive for many staff to afford. Nearly all budget requests for new furniture or instructional equipment were met. It is also worth juxtaposing my work environment I have been the victim of innumerable anonymous hate mail, have been threatened, have been told that I could lose my housing allowance (in fact it took three board meetings to get it continued). I have been yelled at by the Chair of the Board at a public meeting and publically rebuked by three board members on August 31st, even before they had ever heard the facts from my side. I have asked the Chair of the Board for an investigation by the board into the anonymous smear campaign I have

suffered but, instead, have only been threatened with investigations into me when allegations are made. As a senior faculty member noted:

Dr. Boyle has faced years of real, not imagined or paranoid, opposition. The organized opposition began even before she became president, has been aired in the press, on their blog sites, and in meetings with board members. Oddly, the same clique which has opposed Dr. Boyle and resisted student centered reforms, claim that something is amiss in any curiosity Dr. Boyle might have about the history and extent of their opposition. Serious charges and slanders have been lodged, without adequate format for rebuttal or other trappings of due process. Many falsehoods were flaunted in front of media, and aired as truth. The FKCC College Board of Trustees could investigate to find any similar examples of an organized group of malcontents gaining a forum to publicly slander and undermine a college president.
The Chair of the Board has befriended and mentored the provost and invited him to settings where the next speaker of the house is present, while not inviting the president to partake in those same settings. In fact, Ed and Randy have been seen hanging out with a variety of political leaders Ron Saunders, Dean Cannon, Mario DeGinnero, Morgan McPherson. The Chair of the Board has then taken phone calls from his protge Randy Charles who tells him, coincidentally at the same time that Morgans sister is appointed, that now is the time to strike. I do have high expectations, and I may not be as complimentary as I should be, but I am not abusive. The fact that those who engage in the most abusive and vile attacks have co-opted the word "abuser" and "retaliation" from their own methods, and applied it to me, is the most appalling offense of all. I don't have to do this the game is over - but no matter how much I tell myself that it is not even worth the hours of work and research, I can not help but feel compelled to reveal the facts. You see, when someone has an opportunity to be presented with the case against them (the person and the specifics), they may be able to fill in the pieces. However, in the case of trustees meeting without the "defendant" in the 25

room, there is no truth. After two years, those trustees are already tainted and simply want to feel affirmation that they are right" in their decisions. It is that self-assurance, that allows them to rationalize that they have made the best decision for the college. The truth is, at the end of a witch hunt, you may have burned the symbol, but the problems remain...if you dont believe me, just log on to www.savefkcc.com.

APPENDIX

July 20, 2009

Consultant gives further explanation on the types of financing employed by each bidder, shares insights on conversations she has had with each and makes a recommendation on the type of financing that would be most beneficial to the College. After thoroughly reviewing both types of proposed financing, she proposed tax-exempt financing as the method most beneficial to the College in that it represents lower costs to the students, more flexibility, and a cash flow to the College. She also stated that the partners do not wish to substitute team members and that given the structure of each proposal, neither would be very adept at adopting the strategy of the other. A member of the audience who also has served in a consulting capacity stated that, in a conversation with Mr.Spottswood, a partner with Wood Partners, the latter individual stated that if given the opportunity to obtain tax-exempt financing, the College should jump at the chance. Wood Partners had still not produced a viable pro forma. Despite the information from the consultant in the audience along with the evidence and testimony presented by the financing expert supporting the financing approach advocated by Student Suites, the Board decided to extend an invitation to Wood Partners to discuss with them at greater length its proposal. DSO also directed College Board of Trustees to be asked questions Did they want the College to manage Student Housing? and Did they wish to obtain a profit from housing? Does the BOT care? (DOES THE BOARD CARE IF THE COLLEGE GAINS FINANCIAL RESOURCES BACK FROM THE HOUSING VENTURE? WE HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO CARE.)

7/20/09, Monday Aft DSO meeting 7/20/09 DSO MEETIN G 7/21 Tuesday

Expert recommends National Company. Ed brings up a question of bond financing what if SS doesnt get financing and if they start incurring costs, the college would have to pay $200,000 maybe $400,000. Moves for Woods. Jill comments on other agenda and that she was told that if she doesnt go with Spottswood, then .Ed jumps out of his chair and yells at her to silence her. The members of the DSO who voted for Spottswood also yell at her. Jim H. documentation: Call M. Bailey: provide update and discuss issues to be decided at todays Board meeting. (M.Bailey had been a vote in favor of SS) Attend and assist DSO meeting. Tel Dr. B (following meeting). Jim H. Documentation Call Ed Scales re: basis for decision by Island Living Board (and reconciliation of conflicting views. Consultation w/Dr. B. re: same.

July 22, 2009

7/22 WEDNES DAY

Received letter from Student Suites attesting to the fact that FKCC is in no danger of being stuck with any fees if they accepted our proposal and we could not find the financing. Jill gets letter from SS to Hendricks and Ed Scales showing that what Ed
presumed and presented to the Board of DSO was inaccurate. Jim H. Receive and read Student Suites letter re: waiver of liability for preliminary expenses to be incurred in dorm design; brief discussions w Dr. B and DL same. CONSULTATIONS W/PROVOST, L. ESTENOZ, ET AL, RE: FACULTY/STAFF UNREST; TEL. CALL CHAIRMAN SCALES RE: SAME. Meeting with Bd. Chair Scales re: Re-evaluation of housing proposal in light of student suites waiver letter. According to Lydia: Jim and Ed met with Lydia and Randy also that night.

7/23/09 TUESDA Y

JH Documentation: Receive and read Dr. Ks email, attaching copy of issues for Student Housing memo re: Woods proposal. Discussion w//Dr. Kehoe re: same.

27

Consultations w/Provost, L. Estenoz, et al, re: faculty/staff unrest; Tel.call/Chair Scales re: same. Tel Call Board member K. Bassett, and Email Wm DeVane re: same. ---according to Kim, Randy and Lydia do not divulge that Jim is in the room listening in until Kim asks who is in the room. Consultations w/Provost, L.Estenoz, et al, re: faculty/staff unrest; Tell call-Chairman Scales, re: same. Discussion with DL rescheduling Board meeting to meet State deadline for submission (so Jim knew when Board Meeting would be). 7/24/09 JH Documentation: Tell call Wm DeVane re: staff and faculty unrest; discuss cope of problem and potential consequences. 2 Tel Calls/ Chair Scales re: same. Te call-M. Bailey (housing Board) re: comments made at Mondays Board meeting and potential reconsideration based on SS letter. Tel/call Wm Devane re: his inquiries concerning staff unrest. MEETING WITH SPOTTSWOOD IN THE MORNING Meeting at Beachside with Robert Spottswood, Kirsten Kraig, Jim Hendrik, Jill

7/25?/09 FRIDAY after the meeting

Why doesnt he document this meeting in his probation record like he does the other meetings?
Friday (after the DSO Meeting where Jill mentioned Spottswood) EVENING Jim Hendrick comes to visit Jills husband and Asks if Jill will change my mind on the dormitory deal; Asks if I have a good lawyer/negotiator; Says it would be a shame for Jill to be like Moses, bring the people to the promised land but have to see it from someplace like, say Philidelphia. What time does JH state? JH Documentation: discussion w/Dr. Kehoe re: staff & Faculty unrest. Tel/call Chair Scales: his re-evaluation of revenue bond approach: memo to follow. Te Dr. B. the same. Receive and read Scales memo. (John says he did not have any mtg with JH re: unrestCould JH have tried to bait him and John doesnt remember b/c he didnt have anything to say on the subject?) (What time does he document receive and read memo? Prior to 5:50pm?) Letter from Ed Scales to Buck Devane & me 5:50 PM (what time did JH talk to Ed?) re: it may be a waste of time but if that is who we want to go with. Email to Buck & Jill from Ed reluctantly acknowledging that the SS proposal is more beneficial to college. The email refers to if SS can even get financing given the bond market (terrible) and that if it doesnt work out the college will have wasted it time (public record request this email from Ed and/or Buck).
From: Ed Scales [mailto:escales@edscalespa.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 5:50 PM To: 'Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle'; jtylaw@mac.com; wndbuck@aol.com Subject: RE: Letter from Student Suites and Issue for BOT
Dear Jill, Buck and Jim,

7/25?/09 FRIDAY

7/27/09 MON

Sorry we've missed each other on the phone. (According to JH, Ed and JH did talk by phone) My thoughts on the Student Suites letter... This letter from Student Suites is a potential "game changer". The risk problem would be greatly alleviated by Student Suites' proposal. Here's the overall problem, the way I see it. I'm not very optimistic that, given FKCC's history with housing (none), and given the current bond markets (awful), that the proposed revenues from the dorm will be enticing to a bond-issuer, especially without any recourse against the college or the DSO.

Tuesday the 28th at 9 AM 7/29 WED

Individual Meeting with Lydia Argument with Lydia- about the registration of new students and she was extremely obstinate I sensed something had changed. I had to tell her not to yell at me. Two calls on my cell phone records to JH 15 minute call at 8:21 PM and a 1PM - Interview Committee with Pam, Rhonda, Tom O. Dir of PR Around 3:30PM Read email from Lydia re: she was upset about not being on the committee Go to her office Asked her what was up and she said she was on the phone with someone who was applying for the Board b/c the Governors Office was saying that there was not enough peopleTold her that was not was I meant I was asking her about the email she sent where she suggested that she should be on the committee because of her background in the position and her ethnicity as a Latino Woman. Told her no b/c she was a reference for one of the candidates. Discussion got into advising services role in how students were supposed to be registered earlier. I ask her to stop yelling at me. I say if you dont like it theres the door. (she has a discussion with Jim re: employment discrimination issue 2 days later on the 31st).

7/30 Thursday at 4:10 PM Thurs 7/30/09

Lydia has discussion with Randy and Jim JH Documentation: Tel call Dr. B clarification of Wood Partners collateral requirement.

Discussions w/Provost and L Estenoz re: growing unrest and discouraging staff presentations of complaints at Board Mtg.
Susies party and left for Orlando; CALL FROM GOVERNORS OFFICE NEWS ON APPOINTMENT- When was Antoinette notified? Jill at Key Largo Fundraiser for FKCC New Trustees Appointed to Board by Governor Antoinette Martin, sister to the Mayor and sister to Michael McPherson who has been linked as a dissatisfied employee

FRI- 7/31

JH Documentation: Discussion with L. Estenoz re: public records demand FTE documents and employment discrimination issue. Tel call Chair Scales re: inquires concerning FTE over-reporting and meeting with staff discuss scope of FTE issue and Colleges production of documents. Telephone discussion w/Jim H. (telephone call) Jim Hendrick conversation re:
insurgency by executive team saying it is people I promoted and appointed. Jim says it is all of my executive team and these are people you appointed and promoted. NOTE: Jim has been using Lydias office for long hours at a time and Randy Charles has been visiting in Lydias office frequently. He tells me I should think about stepping down: and then asks if I read the Keynoter. He tells me there is an extensive (I think he used the words three paragraph) article that (jill) is being investigated for Sunshine Law. I ask what for he responds rumor has it that theres some email from Spencer to you asking if he voted right (the question was after the fact, had to do with the issue that he was there by phone and couldnt hear the conversation because the equipment was not working well; I had never replied to that email). That email was sent only

Sat August 1,

29

to me so I knew that someone had raided my email. There had been no public record requests beforehand for this email. He then emphasizes that this is a criminal investigation. 17

minute phone call at 12:43PM ORLAND

Sat Aug 1, 2009

Telephone call to Randy at 3:31 PM 19 minutes, asking him about if there was faculty unrest he told me he didnt know anything about it; I asked him to talk to Lydia and he said he would.
Left Orlando to head to Meeting at Seminole CC to discuss how to set parameters for the New CC System Funding Formula. TUESDAY, AUGUST 4 AT NOON call from Atty Buck Devane (19 minute phone call at 2:04 PM)to be back in KW in the morning for a meeting w/ Ed or risk insubordination; Relays that a severance deal will be initiated, that Randy will become interim president, and that if I dont sign the Board will threaten to take action at the Board Meeting that evening. told by Atty Devane that it has been made clear to him that he represents the board and not me. Told they will present me with a severance or they will fire me. He had been meeting with Randy and Lydia and then with Buck. Ask if I need a lawyer told noTurn around (was driving to meeting with Presidents on creating the new Funding Formula for the CC System. Secure Lawyer AB Maloy that evening driving back from KW; Call S.Str.

8/ 4/09 TUESDA Y

SUSAN URBAN

From: Amato, Roseann [mailto:Roseann.Amato@usafunds.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:29 PM To: Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle Subject: RE: Jeffrey Pearson - Presidential Waiver for Tuition and Fees for Spring 2009 semester Never heard of that one. Sounds to me (and this is just my opinion) like she doesnt like your decision to award this kid and is trying to make a point. Roseann From: Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle [mailto:jboyle@fkcc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:48 AM To: Amato, Roseann Subject: FW: Jeffrey Pearson - Presidential Waiver for Tuition and Fees for Spring 2009 semester Oy Vey! From: Susan Urban [mailto:susan.urban@fkcc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:48 AM To: 'Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle' Subject: RE: Jeffrey Pearson Presidential Waiver for Tuition and Fees for Spring 2009 semester

Dr. Boyle, Armando Salas-Amaro, our primary state contact and our consultant have both suggested that any disbursement to a student in Title IV default (even institutional funds) be made with the acknowledgement that the approver is aware of the default. Armando indicated that the annual audit routinely reviews Title IV default student files. Susan Urban

From: Susan Urban [mailto:susan.urban@fkcc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:16 AM To: 'Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle'; 'Carol Anderson'; 'Michelle Cherry' Cc: 'Cheryl Malsheimer' Subject: RE: Requested information regarding Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) Dr. Boyle, Please accept my apologies our little department has been pretty overwhelmed and we have a processing backlog. In addition to that I met with the State yesterday to help me gain a better understanding of FWEP and the required funds management processes. This is an area of concern for the college. I need to think about the Financial Aids level of involvement in terms of setting/monitoring academic schedules for students. I will meet with Michelle to discuss further. We are working with students individually as we see them to explain credit usage and depletion from the maximum timeframe. Susan Urban Director, Financial Aid Florida Keys Community College (305) 809-3236 Fax: (305) 292-5166 Susan.Urban@FKCC.edu From: Dr Jill Landesberg Boyle [mailto:jboyle@fkcc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:45 AM To: 'Susan Urban'; 'Carol Anderson'; 'Michelle Cherry' Cc: 'Cheryl Malsheimer' Subject: FW: Requested information regarding Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) Importance: High Susan & Michelle:

31

I think that one issue herein is critically important: Your school must establish a schedule designating the minimum amount of work that a student must complete at the end of each increment. This minimum must be sufficient to allow the student to complete the program within the maximum timeframe. Your schools academic progress policy must include provisions to determine at the end of each increment whether the student has met the qualitative and quantitative components of the standards or exceeded the maximum time frame. Could we assign a counselor to work with either Susan or Carol to create such a schedule. I think it fits right in to the issue that came up last week in helping Lakeisha, i.e. keeping students on track and making sure they are taking their math classes early in their educational program. Dr. Jill Landesberg-Boyle

President Florida Keys Community College

From: Albee, Amy [mailto:Amy.Albee@fldoe.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:51 PM To: jboyle@fkcc.edu Subject: Requested information regarding Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) Importance: High Hello Dr. Boyle: I have researched your request regarding satisfactory academic progress (SAP) for federal student aid. I am e-mailing as I wanted to attach the procedures regarding SAP published in the federal student aid handbook found online at http://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/Vol2Ch100809.pdf. The guidance regarding SAP begins on page 7 of the attached PDF. There are no provisions for a state entity to hear an appeal by a student regarding their Title IV Federal aid. Appeals are part of a policy and procedure process established by the institution. According to federal guidelines: Your schools academic progress policy must include specific procedures through which a student may appeal a determination that the student is not making satisfactory progress; Your school may permit appeals of adverse academic progress determinations for mitigating circumstances, If you do, your schools written academic progress policy must explain the mitigating circumstances and the appeals procedures. When you approve an appeal for mitigating circumstances you are suspending the academic progress standards for that student. You are not eliminating or disregarding one or more grades or credits attempted in its calculation of a students academic progress standing. The students permanent academic record has not been modified. So, when you grant an appeal, you are acknowledging that, because of the documented unusual circumstances, the student continues to be FSA eligible even though

he or she falls below your schools academic progress standard. Your schools policy can also include a limited conditional or probationary period during which a student who doesnt meet your schools SAP standards can continue to receive FSA funds. I also wanted to point out that in the instance of state financial aid, students must also maintain satisfactory progress. Section 1009.42 of Florida Statute allows students who believe that there was an error in determining their financial aid eligibility for state aid to appeal in writing to the DOE Office of Student Financial Assistance (OSFA). OSFA will investigate the complaint and take action within 30 days of receipt of the notice. Therefore, in the instance of state financial aid, a student can appeal to the DOE. Please confirm that you received this e-mail. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Amy Albee Coordinator of Outreach and Access Division of Community Colleges Florida Department of Education (850) 245-9488

From: Amato, Roseann [mailto:Roseann.Amato@usafundsservices.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:14 PM To: JBoyle@fkcc.edu Subject: Default Rate Jill, You should have received your final 2007 Cohort Default Rate yesterday its 19%, up from 12.6% for 2006. This is the main reason I wanted you to switch guarantors to us. We could have helped you a LOT with this but your staff didnt return my calls or emails all summer until the first week of class, and then left me a message asking me to call them after things have slowed down WAY too late to help you for the 09-10 year. Her message told me she wanted to talk to me about moving to Direct Lending as if I could help theres no reason for me to talk to you about doing that. We would have no role to play in that. She obviously doesnt understand this at all. Direct Lending is what Obama wants all schools to

33

move to, and at this point you might as well wait to see if youre going to be forced to or not. Direct Lending is direct through the government there will be no more USA Funds guarantee agency, and no more support in any way from my company, IF that goes through. The House is supposedly voting on the measure this week (and its expected by some to pass) and will then have to get through the Senate (where its expected to have a much harder time.) But if it Does pass, all schools will HAVE to switch to DL by next July 1. Im not sure why she doesnt understand that. I know shes got a lot on her plate and probably wasnt really listening when I was there talking to her and the others. Im disappointed to not be working with you, and even more disappointed in how it all played out. She chose ELM over OpenNet (though Ill never understand why) and said then that she wanted to speak with me about using USA Funds to guarantee your loans because she obviously saw the overwhelming benefits of doing so. Even though I emphasized to her that a move to USA Funds would be quick and painless, she apparently chose to stay with OSFA (the Florida Guarantor), so now youre stuck with their default history for another year since I would assume that most of your loans have already been processed. I tried calling you a few times and didnt hear back, and didnt want to bother you because I know you have Many important things on your mind. I know you have more important battles to fight. But now that your rate is up to 19%, you might want to contact OSFA and see what theyre going to do for you about this. Their overall 2007 CDR is 10.9%. Ours is 6.8%. Theres no guarantee it would have been that great of a percentage lower with us, but chances are, it would have been. Also, many loans may have already been PUT with the government (meaning Sold to them by the lenders to get capital to make more loans) so thats going to have some impact as well on future default rates. I hope youre doing well. If you ever get up to Orlando and have a spare moment or evening give me a call. Id love to catch up with you! Roseann

CHRISTINA PICHARDO:
Mr. Driscoll requested financial record information that the latter had put in the form of a public records request on February 18, 2009. The next morning, Dr. Boyle acknowledged Mr. Driscolls request with an email. That same day, FKCC telephone records revealed that Christina received a call from Mr. Mike Driscolls home phone number at 10:02 a.m. The call lasted 4 minutes, 12 seconds.

Later that morning, David Monroe, Tamrah Hill and Cynthia Hullum were discussing the specifics of Mr. Driscolls request, what needed to be fulfilled and the manner in which the charge for gathering this information was to be determined (e.g. State statutes, time, charges per copy, etc.). This conversation occurred at Cynthia Hullums desk with the door to her office almost shut. While this conversation was taking place, Christina Pichardo appeared at Cynthias office door, stood outside for a while, then, when they looked at her, she opened the door and went through to Ms. Hullums desk to ask a question. She remained for about 5 minutes mainly talking to Tamrah.

The next day, Saturday, February 21, 2009, the following message was received by Dr. Boyle from Mr. Driscoll:
From: Mike Driscoll [mailto:hstcmc@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 7:30 PM To: jboyle@fkcc.edu; drjs_boyle@firn.edu Cc: info@keyssao.org; Bill Becker; Adria Harper; cristopengov@eog.myflorida.com; sharon.farrell@fkcc.edu; cynthia.hullum@fkcc.edu; 'Dr. John Kehoe'; jguerra@keysnews.com; jason@keysweekly.com; escales@edscalespa.com; ejlaino@aol.com; Lydia Estenoz; tamrah.hill@fkcc.edu Subject: RE: Public Records Request Dr Boyle, I heard that the papers were ready at noon on Friday, thank you for the quick response. May I pick them up on Monday? Mike Since the request was not ready, Dr. Kehoe responded the following Monday, February 23rd: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:36:18 -0500 From: john.kehoe@fkcc.edu Subject: RE: Public Records Request To: hstcmc@hotmail.com CC: lydia.estenoz@fkcc.edu; cynthia.hullum@fkcc.edu Hi Mr. Driscoll: We are still working on your request. I am not sure who informed you that the information you requested was ready last Friday by noon. Per your request, we are still putting the detailed estimate together, and, as such, should have that ready for you shortly. Thanks for your patience. John Kehoe

Mr. Driscolls reply on Monday, February 23rd, was as follows:

From: Mike Driscoll [mailto:hstcmc@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 9:22 PM

35

To: jboyle@fkcc.edu; 'Dr. John Kehoe' Cc: Lydia Estenoz; cynthia.hullum@fkcc.edu; leonard_d@firn.edu; adafri@aol.com Subject: RE: Public Records Request Sir, Thank you for responding. I do have a concern. It have been brought to my attention that some inappropriate actions were made to the documents and statements were made in the preparation of those documents to the effect that people should take their time in gathering the documents in order to run the bill up and also that some of the hours were billed to a higher paid employee of the college when that that person did not in fact participate in the gathering of that information. I am still contemplating this information and am trying to decide if I should contact the State Attorney's office who could flush this out. In all fairness to the college I would like to give the college an opportunity to provide unadulterated documents and complete my request while reviewing their billing procedure and make corrections and a refund. I have it from a good source that the documents I requested were in fact ready on Friday, now you tell me that it will take more time. As a citizen of the State of Florida, it is my right to be able to request these documents and as an institution under the State of Florida, it is the colleges obligation to provide them. I am willing to pay a reasonable fee for these documents, but what I am hearing is troubling to put it mildly. I am contemplating what I should do while awaiting to hear from you. Mike Driscoll Key West, Florida Home 305 293 2861 Cell 305 434 2578 "Press On Regardless"

Dr. Kehoes reply to Mr. Driscoll on Tuesday, February 24th was as follows:
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:10:07 -0500 From: john.kehoe@fkcc.edu Subject: RE: Public Records RequestTo: hstcmc@hotmail.com; jboyle@fkcc.edu CC: lydia.estenoz@fkcc.edu; cynthia.hullum@fkcc.edu; leonard_d@firn.edu; adafri@aol.com Mr. Driscoll: I am not sure what you are referring to with regards to inappropriate actions. Through the combination of the business office being short staffed on Monday and preparations for our Board meeting that evening, that office could not complete the gathering of information. As of C.O.B. Monday, there were still items that were being tracked down pursuant to your request. Although this might have taken a bit longer than your source indicated, I can assure you that not a penny will be added to your bill that is not allowable and not in support of the gathering and review of that information.

We hope to have an estimate for you shortly. John Kehoe

37

PENNI WISE ALLEGATION

September 14, 2009 Florida Keys Community College Board of Trustees, I am writing this letter to voice my support for Dr. Landesburg-Boyle. I understand Professor Wise has recently raised the issue of Dr. Boyle involving herself and interfering with an alleged incident of cheating. With all due respect to Professor Wise, she may not be aware of all of the facts in this situation, as she was not directly involved, and any facts she may have are simply hearsay. The specific facts to the incident are not important at this time, as they are not the issue, however, Dr. Boyles integrity is. After the close of College business last December an E-mail had been sent from the Clinical Nursing II (CNII) professors personal E-mail that the CNII final exam had been found to be invalid, and the entire class would be required to retake the exam the day the college re-opened. No explanation as to the invalidity had been given and a Hold had been put on our accounts. This Hold put financial aid for the entire Senior Nursing class in jeopardy, including GI Bill money for a mother of three and Navel Vet. Dr. Boyle only became involved after I, as the Nursing Class President, had gone through channels and exhausted all other options (i.e. the professor, the Director of Nursing, Director of Student Affairs and the Provost). I then e-mailed Dr. Boyl, asking not for action, but for an explanation. Dr. Boyle took the time away from her family, on the New Years Day holiday, to call me. I was assured, at that time that she would look into the matter. I was told the punitive actions that had been placed on the entire class would cease, as these actions were in direct conflict to the student handbook, BUT it was also made very clear that if she found any specific academic improprieties, those involved would be dealt with to the fullest extent allowed by the handbook. I cannot say if Dr. Boyles motivation in this situation was the best interest of FKCC or the best interest of us students, but by protecting the one she protected the other. I am now asking you to act in the best interest of FKCC and Monroe County, support Dr. Landesburg-Boyle.

Thank you,

Robert H. Guhl Jr. RN. 2009 FKCC Nursing Class President 305-304-3578 rbtguhl@aol.com

BRYAN GILCHRIS: TIMELINE DATE Date/s? EVENT Report of First Independent Technology consultant firm: indicates that there is a breach in the system, that the breach is most probably from within, that the IT department is not administering the system in a way which is standard operating for IT. Also note IT is not securing the system, and that the computer systems are highly vulnerable 1. Telephone call with Bob Norton re: mounting evidence that anonymous emails are coming from IT; RN: Visit with Dir of IT 2. 3:02 PM: Email to Bryan from his supervisor, Dave Monroe: If I can get these today or tomorrow (attach email). 3. 4 PM -Dave goes to IT Office No one is in the office and it is unsecured. 4. Around 5pm Dave sees Sherri Boyer (IT) in the parking lot and asks for the administrative code. She asks why he needs the code. Dave responds he is checking the presidents computer; Sherri responds that he doesnt need the Admin Code for that . Dave replies he would like the admin code regardless. Sherri states that she thinks it is all CAPS learn or password but if those are wrong (they are) then Cal may have changed it. 5. Meet with second Independent IT Consultant Firm (John, Jill, Dave) review Jills computer and determine approx. 20 problems with the computer including lack of security, viruses, lack of updates, etc. Consultant also indicates that his research shows the anonymous emails are coming from within the college physically originating at 5901 College Rd. and that it has to be coming from someone with the administrative password. If he has code, he can determine more specificity. Dave meets with Joanne and agrees that Daves request was reasonable and Shed tell Bryan to move forward. Joanne asks Dave to write a policy on passwords Jill and John discuss re: go to Bryans office Joanne leaves a voice mail for Bryan F/U or Questions Name of Firm? Other important remarks?

Wednesday August 9, 2009

Wed or Thursday? Thurs about 3pm

Bob Norton: Not an HR issue. Issue of supervisory directive.

Wed or Thurs? What exact wording? Did she give a deadline? Any indication or acknowledgement that he recd the voicemail?

Thursday at 4:45pm Friday

Dave meets with Joanne: Should I expect this stuff today? Joanne states that she called Bryan and left him a voicemail asking him to do what his supervisor asked him to do. Still no password: Bryan was in the office. At around 3:33pm email to Bryan, cc Joanne: Just checking on when I will get these? Mentions that he spoke with Joanne and her voicemail for Bryan saying he should fulfill the

39

Friday at 3:42pm 4:02 pm

request. Bryan emails Dave: Youll have it Monday. I need these today Bryan answers: Well I had a meeting at 4pm and it is 4:02 pm and Im late. Dave answers: Well, alright (intonation indicating otherwise). Dave goes up to the IT Office and it is closed, locked, lights out. Staff have left for the day without requesting time or filing appropriate paperwork. Bryan is seen at Beachside with Randy Charles, Erika, Gavin, and others Controls system and, if there is remote access, administrator can be off-site and control actions; Vulnerability of all emails and records of any issues or technological sabotage. John and Dave plan to go to campus today; Where did this conversation occur?

Friday 4:05 pm Friday Afternoon ADMIN CODE

Work hours are until 4:30pm Indicate time