Florida State College at Jacksonville Office of the College President Response to Allegations April 2012 On March 26, 2012,

Celine McArthur distributed to members of the Colleges District Board of Trustees and several state leaders a letter in which she made 31 false and unfounded allegations of impropriety in the administration of the College and conduct of the Board. The executive leaders of the College who managed the matters referenced therein have reviewed the allegations and characterizations of associated events. The result of this review is that all of the allegations were found to be factually and demonstrably inaccurate. Overall, the letter was found to be replete with distortions, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, fabrications, factual inaccuracies and absurd extrapolations based on substantially incomplete information. It is important to note shortly before Ms. McArthur sent her letter she was notified that her employment with the College would not be continued unless she significantly improved her performance, professionalism and compliance with the direction of her supervisor. This notification was the culmination of many months of effort to help her succeed in her role at the College. Our response to each allegation follows. Allegation: Ms. McArthurs ability to openly communicate with the media, Cabinet, the Board of Trustees, faculty, staff and students has been systematically restricted. This allegation is a misrepresentation of fact and Ms. McArthurs role at the College. Her ability to communicate with others pursuant to the responsibilities of her position was never restricted nor does she present evidence that it was. Further, Ms. McArthurs role has never required or expected such broad communication or communication in the absence of appropriate administrative reviews, including that of her supervisor and collaboration with other administrators and college staff. What she perceives as systematic restrictions are actually reasonable controls to ensure that communication is in the best interest of the College, consistent with College policy and not detrimental or distracting to the ongoing operation of the College. Allegation: Ms. McArthurs media expertise has been used to find out what [Dr. Wallace]and some of [his] cabinet membersneeded to know to conceal these issues from the public, rather than correct them. This allegation is entirely unfounded. The College has complied with every request for information from the public and the media. Her allegation to the contrary is a severe violation of the trust inherent with her position and potentially libelous 1

against the individuals to whom it is directed. The Colleges openness with the Board and the media concerning Ms. McArthurs allegations demonstrates a culture of transparency and cooperation. Allegation: That Ms. McArthur was prohibited from viewing the methodology regarding executive salary study; that the Board was given incomplete information regarding the salary issue; that the methodology for the salary study was faulted, weak, and contained misinformation; that Ms. McArthur observed a disturbing lack of open communication and documentation; that the College failed to respond to a request for a legal opinion from The Florida Times-Union; and that this alleged failure was a dishonest and self-serving interpretation of Sunshine Law. This series of statements represents an unconscionable set of serious allegations with no factual basis. While Ms. McArthur was apparently disappointed with her role in the management of the executive salary equity issue, the facts and actual sequence of events contradict her implications that the Board was uniformed or misinformed or that information was in any way withheld from the media or the public. Appropriate College administrators with detailed knowledge of the salary study, process and results responded adequately to all media requests for information. The College initiated an editorial board meeting with The Florida Times-Union and held a follow-up meeting to make The Florida Times-Union aware of the process and outcome of this matter. The methodology for the salary study was discussed in full with the media and the Board, and, as usual practice, Board members contacted the vice president of human resources individually to address specific questions. The materials provided are public record and are reflected in the August 2010 agenda item. The Florida Times-Unions coverage of this issue is a matter of record indicting the College administrations responsiveness to media communication on this issue. Incidentally, Ms. McArthur stated that College General Counsel Jeanne Miller was in attendance at the first meeting with the editorial board. In fact, Ms. Miller was not at that meeting. This statement represents one of many instances in Ms. McArthurs letter wherein her portrayal of fact is simply wrong. Ms. McArthurs letter, moreover, clearly reveals a lack of understanding of the nature of the salary study. Dr. Chris Arab addressed all of the medias questions regarding the study and spent significant time with Ms. McArthur personally to review the methodology. Ms. McArthur was informed that a salary study is an iterative process that occurs over a duration of time and requires initial review of comparative data. Following initial review, interviews with respondents at comparative institutions were held to determine the degree of similarity of positions, followed by comparisons with statewide and national normative data, such as the HR-CUPA survey document which Ms. McArthur received. Results of this procedure were then subject to compensation analytics for banding and benchmarking. In the Colleges case, the final recommendation included phasing the salary adjustment over two years rather than one due to the range of movement needed to reach a 75% comparable. The recommendations also included increasing 2

the adjustment amount for selected senior managers, such as campus presidents, due to the difference in scope and responsibility of our five campus leaders compared to others. The District Board of Trustees was fully apprised of the study methodology before taking action, and each Board members questions were addressed to their satisfaction. Allegation: That the College withheld relevant information from the Board because Dr. Tracy Pierces significant job change was not approved by the board or related (sic) to the Trustees prior to the August 7, 2010 Board meeting where the raises were approved. This allegation is false and represents Ms. McArthurs lack of understanding of College policy. The expansion of Dr. Pierces job duties to include senior leadership of the new community education division was immaterial to the salary issue. Her allegation that there was a requirement to seek the Boards approval to change a senior management employees title or job responsibilities is uninformed. That responsibility is within the authority of the College President, per Rule 6Hx7-3.23; it is the Boards authority to establish funded positions annually and to establish the minimum qualifications for classes of positions. While Human Resources is significantly behind in posting all the organizational changes of the past 18 months in the job description queue of the College Website and human resources homepage, these clerical revisions and updates are executed as staff resources allow. Since the salary study referenced was conducted over several months, the job designated title, duties and responsibilities for Dr. Pierces position at that time were the ones used. The fact that he has assumed additional duties and responsibilities since that time, and has had his title changed to reflect such, is immaterial to the findings of the original study or the Boards action in August 2010. Allegations: That Ms. McArthur was denied more information about this budget (the Foundations hospitality budget) so [Ms. McArthur] could effectively determine if this budget was going to become a public scandal; that Ms. McArthur discovered meetings where alcohol was provided and paid for with the Florida State College Foundations Cultivation/Hospitality fund; and that information regarding the benefit to the College was left empty (on the expense form). These allegations represent Ms. McArthurs misapplication of her role at the College. The statements are also a highly distorted and inflammatory description of a common mechanism for institutional hospitality. Ms. McArthurs role at the College has never entitled her access to the budget or expenditures of any department or entity associated with the College. Financial control responsibilities begin with department and budget administration and are continuously monitored through internal financial controls, external state and federal audit controls and policy governance. Ms. McArthur was informed that state law prevents the purchase of certain products, including alcohol, from state funds. She was also informed that it is common and appropriate to use direct support organizational funds and privately 3

donated funds for such purposes that include the entertainment and hospitality of College guests in the pursuit of College initiatives and objectives. She was informed that the existence of these budgets and their use is common knowledge among appropriate administrators and policy makers. She was further informed that the accounts containing these funds are annually audited. In the performance of her role, she had no justification for any additional access to the use of these accounts. That certain information was missing from reimbursement forms represents a trivial administrative matter. The available evidence makes it clear that the benefit to the College included a significant partnership in our Sirius Academics initiative and a significant partnership with the United States Telecommunications Training Institute. Allegations: Dr. [Don} Greens leave time and emails suggested he, in fact, was using Florida State College at Jacksonville resources for his contract work at Essex County College; that she was told she would be Dr. Greens spokesperson to the media and that she was told to say that the College found no evidence of inappropriate or illegal behavior; that Dr. Green was never reprimanded, despite the evidence; that Dr. Wallace never issued a formal finding or accepted any requests to be interviewed on the matter; and that my media strategy demonstrated a serious lack of operational transparency and accountability and created fear and/or suspicion among internal and external stakeholders. Her allegations against Dr. Green represent, at a minimum, a serious breach of professional trust and quite possibly a violation of law. Her allegations about her role as spokesperson are completely false. Her commentary on the Colleges media strategy again may represent her dissatisfaction with her limited role in this matter but fails to comprehend the amount of time and effort the College expended to comply with media requests for information and comment. The relationship between Dr. Green and Essex County College has been exhaustively reviewed by both external and internal investigators. The Board has been fully informed of the matter, and the matter has been handled in a method completely consistent with the highest standards for personnel issues of this magnitude. The College has responded to all media requests with regard to this matter and has supplied the media with numerous public records, fully complying with public records law. Public records that are by law to be withheld from the public were withheld. These records are available to the Board and state officials who have a legal right to review them. Allegations: That Ms. McArthur was prohibited from inquiring about the status of the baccalaureate in nursing program; that Dr. Pierce stated that a plan was not needed because the college technically didnt have to tell the students or the graduates about accreditation status of the program; and that the programs accreditation is unresolved and impacted students have not been informed. These allegations are completely false, reaffirming the pattern that Ms. McArthur either failed to grasp or failed to appreciate her role as the leader of strategic communications. 4

The accreditation process and communication with students regarding the accreditation status of the program were always under the domain and control of North Campus President Dr. Barbara Darby and the nursing program leadership on the campus. Ms. McArthur was not prohibited from inquiring. She was told that given the scope of her position, she had no professional role in this process. The details of the accreditation and communication process are as follows. Throughout the 2008 2012 period, faculty and administration have informed BSN students of the programs accreditation status in multiple ways: initial orientation to the program, acceptance letters, catalog, student handbook, program acceptance statement and more. Furthermore, students were prepared for each National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission (NLNAC) review for accreditation visits and participated in meetings with the NLNAC site visitors in 2010 and 2011. The BSN program admitted its first cohort of students in fall of 2008. The NLNAC approved the program for candidacy status in December 2008. A new program is not eligible for consideration for full accreditation until the program has a cohort of students who are one term away from graduation (Spring 2009). Upon the award of candidacy status, the program is required by NCNAC to note its status for potential students and interested members of the public as follows: The nursing education program is a candidate for accreditation by the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission. The College prepared the requisite self-study and was visited by NLNAC site visitors for the purpose of determining if the program met all of the standards for accreditation. The program did not meet all of the six standards and was denied accreditation in July 2010. The programs candidacy status was valid for 2 full years (4 consecutive accreditation cycles) from when initially granted and thus could continue to note its status as quoted above. Immediate steps were taken to revise the program to meet the standards, and a new self-study was completed and submitted. The NLNAC visited the BSN program in the fall of 2011, and the program was granted full accreditation in 2012 to include graduates of the program beginning July 1, 2011. Communication with students regarding program characteristics including accreditation status has never been within the purview of Ms. McArthurs role or that of the department of strategic communications. Campus and program leadership, along with college advisors, perform this function. Allegations: Ms. McArthurs experiences with the nursing program referenced above and two other programs indicate a lack of program integrity and disrespect for students. The information on which Ms. McArthur bases these allegations is completely false and the conclusions are erroneous. 5

Ms. McArthurs allegations disregard an extensive history of college program development up to and including recent success in managing baccalaureate degree development through rigorous state approval processes. While any employees input relative to program deficiencies is appreciated, such information should be provided in an appropriate and professional manner to appropriate administrators. These allegations were not handled in an appropriate and professional manner, and the expressed deficiencies lack basis in fact. The aircraft coating educational facility opened on January 2, 2011, and the inaugural class of nine students then began the 16-week curriculum as designed by subject matter experts and an external program developer. This team constructed all courses, learning objectives, assessments, lab assignments, and material and equipment lists from May 2010 to October 2010. The College constructed the equipment and material list as a direct result of the development team recommendations and purchased all equipment and materials in a timely manner. Ordering commenced in October 2010. Expenditures for this program totaled $266,917.39 and included an entire airplane. Ms. McArthurs suggestion that the baccalaureate degree in public safety management was expedited without due process through the system is nothing more than an egregious insult to the College, the District Board of Trustees, the Florida State Board of Education, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. All of these entities have separate and distinct processes for ensuring program quality and integrity. Ms. McArthur correctly expressed that this degree shares curriculum with other degrees at the College. While her letter suggests that a co-curricular model is inappropriate, it is instead a highly responsible approach to program design that ensures efficiency and appropriate stewardship of resources, as well as a heterogeneous classroom environment in which students pursuing varied career paths accomplish common learning objectives and gain from one anothers diverse perspectives. Allegations: That Ms. McArthur did not have the information she needed to determine whether or not Florida Sate College at Jacksonville had one of the highest rates of tuition and student fee increases; that Dr. Wallace misinformed the Board regarding this matter; and that senior leadership is unable to compile basic, yet critical information about Florida State College at Jacksonville. These accusations are entirely untrue and provide evidence of Ms. McArthurs unwillingness to respond to directions from her supervisor. Senior leaders were fully aware that the federally published rates were not the actual rates and had complete, detailed information regarding the accurate rates. Therefore, Ms. McArthur was directed by Dr. Wallace and by her supervisor to work with appropriate college staff to correct the inaccuracies in reporting and media coverage. On the issue of misinforming the Board, the email Ms. McArthur presents in her letter affirms clearly that Dr. Wallace accurately presented this situation to Trustees in a full and timely manner. 6

Allegation: The College cant produce an accurate completion rate because it would contradict other informationand that the situation is a mess Cabinet has been unable to sort out. Ms. McArthurs characterization regarding completion rates is incomplete, misleading and grossly inaccurate. The College is in full compliance with federal laws regarding program integrity and representation. The Colleges overall completion rate is a matter of public record and is among the highest in the nation for colleges of its size and population. Reported data are accurate and are frequently revalidated. Ms. McArthur claims that Cabinet involvement distorts the reality of the important, positive and ongoing efforts of College leadership to fully understand nuances of completion rates related to program groupings and student sub-populations. As she has been informed, the Colleges upcoming Quality Enhancement Plan topic focuses on the success and completion of college ready students. Allegation: Dr. Pierce prohibited [Ms. McArthur] from securing any information from any of [the] cabinet members or internal subject matter experts regarding an assignment to draft a letter to the editor in response to media coverage and that Dr. Pierces behavior demonstrates gross incompetence. Ms. McArthur correctly points out that her supervisor assigned her to draft a letter to the editor on behalf of College administration in response to media coverage regarding the rising cost of college education and student debt. Such an assignment is highly consistent with her role and generally consistent with the role of lead organizational communicators. The expected competencies of her position at the College should have prepared her to perform this function independently. She was specifically directed to deliver a draft to her supervisor. She did not do so. Instead, she delivered a draft to every cabinet member causing an operational disruption among the Colleges senior leaders. Allegations: That the College has mishandled or misled the Board, media and/or the public with regard to recent audit findings; that her requests for information were denied or disregarded; and that a Board meeting may have been held without public notice. There is no basis in fact to support these allegations. The recently released financial aid audit findings are the result of the routine statewide audit of federal funds performed annually by the Florida Auditor Generals office. College administration had found and corrected the appeals processing problems -- the basis of the finding -- prior to the audit. The Colleges Board Chair and senior administrators were present for the exit conference discussion of the finding, and the full Board was briefed, in detail, before the audit report was published on March 20, 2012. Dr. Wallace received a general media inquiry about the availability, not the content, of the audit report prior to its publication. Dr. Wallace responded accurately that the report was expected to be 7

made public in about two weeks and Dr. Wallace informed the reporter about how to gain access. When asked if this is a routine audit, Dr. Wallace accurately responded Yes, this is an annual audit. Upon publication, audit reports are made public and sent to media outlets. We have received no media inquires about the audit finding. The Board then engaged in a long, detailed public discussion of the audit finding and its implications at its regular monthly meeting on April 3, 2012. Accordingly, the Colleges handling of this audit issue is beyond reproach. The College continues to follow appropriate procedures regarding the administration of the state federal funds audit and the annual college operational audit. Ms. McArthur also calls into question whether the Board held meetings contrary to Sunshine Laws. All meetings of the Board are properly noticed and held in full accordance with Floridas open meeting statutes. This is a matter of documented record. In her letter she also mentioned several findings in the Colleges most recent operational audit but, again, the implied allegation(s) of impropriety lack clarity, substance and validity. The findings from the operational audit have been covered in detail by The Florida Times-Union. In working with the reporter, Dr. Wallace explained the Colleges position on the sick leave issue precisely as stated in his internal email on January 20, 2012 (copied in Ms. McArthurs letter). The Presidents response was publically praised by Senator Thrasher. It continues to be the strongly held position of the College and its legal counsel (Foley and Lardner) that all provisions in the Presidents employment contract conform with Florida law. Allegation: That the Colleges President asked the Board to increase potential retirement benefitsand the potential retirement benefits of him and 16 Cabinet membersby participating in the Optional Retirement Program. The characterization of this item is grossly inaccurate. Ms. McArthur has misinterpreted the facts and has arrived at conclusions that contradict the truth. The action actually represents a decrease to college-provided benefits. The recommendation would not have increased the retirement benefits for any member of senior administration, including the College President. The recommendation, subsequently approved at the April 2012 Board meeting, establishes the required employee contribution to retirement benefits for senior management members. What Ms. McArthur perceived as an increase in benefits was quite the opposite. Allegation: The Board has been provided inaccurate or incomplete information regarding a cost comparison display of Florida Coast Career Tech program costs against local competitors.

Again, this statement is completely false. The information provided to the Board was accurate and complete and was available at the time of the meeting on the web through the QR code in the literature provided. Allegation: Expectations for [Ms. McArthurs] role have evolved into publically defending or disguising what [Ms. McArthur] consider[s] to be unethical and potentially illegal behavior by the Board and/or the administration. This allegation is entirely false and potentially libelous. Ms. McArthur has never been directed to make any misleading or false statements or representations on behalf of the College. Ms. McArthur references a breakfast meeting with the College President on November 14, 2011. The real focus of the conversation that morning pertained to the need for her to perform the full role for which she was hired and the importance of her working more collaboratively with her supervisor. The President had the same conversation with her on the telephone in early March of this year. That call concluded with what he thought was a clear mutual understanding that Ms. McArthur would work more collaboratively with Dr. Pierce and that the three of them would meet to discuss a positive way forward when the College President returned from Spain. Instead, he learned upon his return that while he was gone, Ms. McArthur had sent a letter to the Governor in which she made outrageously false and unprofessional allegations about the Colleges leaders. She then communicated blatantly false allegations to Trustees and additional state leaders. A particularly troubling discovery from the Colleges review of her allegations is that it is now clear that she conducted a secret investigation of her own organization for many months and that content of her letter (and other information she has sent to various people) are the product of that investigation. This conduct alone represents an egregious violation of accepted ethical and professional standards for employment. In sum, the invalid and unsubstantiated allegations made in Ms. McArthurs letter of March 26, 2012, affirm the recommendation to terminate her employment at Florida State College at Jacksonville on the basis of deficient performance, gross insubordination, unprofessional conduct and violation of Board rules.