[Speaker 7] (0:01 - 0:08)
I call this meeting of the Lee College Board of Regents to order. The time is 4.30 and a quorum of the board is present.

[Speaker 8] (0:09 - 0:12)
We will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance in prayer by Regent Weston Cotton.

[Speaker 10] (0:51 - 1:18)
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[Speaker 7] (1:19 - 3:32)
Thank you very much. At this time I'm going to take the agenda item out of order. We're going to move straight to public comment.

So we will now take public comments from those individuals that signed up according to the meeting notice. Because this is a special called meeting, comments will be limited to the items on the agenda. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes to speak.

Mr. Molman, do we have anyone signed up to speak? No one signed up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

All right, the next item on the agenda is to conduct a hearing on the President's recommendation to terminate the contract of non-faculty member Sella Tacconi. A request has been made by the employee for this hearing to occur in open meeting. Ms. Tacconi, is that still your desire?

All right. The time is 4.32 and the Lee College Board of Regents is present in open session for the purpose of hearing evidence on the proposed mid-contract termination of non-faculty contract employee Sella Tacconi. I'm Gilbert Santana, Board Chair.

This hearing is being conducted pursuant to board policy DMAA legal and local and a recording is being made. For the record, a quorum of the board is present and the following board members are in attendance. We have with us Regent Daryl Fontenot, Regent Mark Hall, Regent Gina Guillory, Regent Pam Warford, Regent Weston Cotton, Regent Herron Thomas, Regent Judy Geralds, Regent Mark Hemsel, and myself, Regent Gilbert Santana.

Also present at the table with the board tonight is Kelly Karczewski, who will serve as board counsel. She is not a voting member of this board. Rather, Ms. Karczewski will preside over the hearing and rule on objections. Policy DMAA local dictates the procedures for tonight's meeting. Policy provides that the board chair may set reasonable time limits and guidelines for the hearing. I will now ask the parties how long they believe they will need to present their cases, including opening and closing statements, if any, as well as direct and cross-examination.

So, counsel for the administration, how much time do you wish to request of the board?

[Speaker 3] (3:34 - 3:36)
The administration would like to request three hours.

[Speaker 7] (3:37 - 3:37)
How many?

[Speaker 3] (3:37 - 3:38)
Three hours.

[Speaker 7] (3:38 - 3:39)
Three for your?

[Speaker 3] (3:40 - 3:44)
To include cross-examination and openings and closings. Yes.

[Speaker 8] (3:44 - 3:45)
Your side.

[Speaker 3] (3:45 - 3:46)
Correct.

[Speaker 8] (3:50 - 3:54)
Counsel for the employee, how long do you believe you will need?

[Speaker 2] (3:56 - 3:57)
Duplicate that, I believe.

[Speaker 8] (4:01 - 4:03)
Thank you. All right.

[Speaker 7] (4:03 - 4:31)
Before initiating the hearing, the board would like to meet privately with counsel. As such, we will now convene into closed meeting pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.071. Following the board's private consultation with counsel, the board will return to open session to hear evidence at the request of the employee. At that time, I will advise the parties of my decision concerning time limits.

Are there any other legal issues concerning procedure that you wish the board to consider during this initial deliberation?

[Speaker 3] (4:33 - 4:34)
Nothing from the administration.

[Speaker 7] (4:36 - 6:19)
Very much. All right. The time is 434 on February 2nd, 2026, and the board has entered closed session.

The time is 458 on February 2nd, 2026, and the board is reconvening into open session. The board took no action while deliberating in closed meeting. With input from the parties as well as my fellow board members, I, as chair, I have determined that the employee and administration will have no more than two and a half hours each to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses.

This time limitation will include opening and closing remarks. Notably, the hearing has been posted for two days. Ideally, the board would like testimony to be concluded today.

We will have Mr. David Momin will be keep time and convey status as requested by the parties. Mr. Momin, you clear on what you've been asked to do? Got two stopwatches or?

All right, you got it. Good. All right.

All right, good. As indicated previously, the board is represented tonight by counsel.

[Speaker 9] (6:20 - 6:28)
I should ask, clarify for me if there is a cross-examination. I will clarify. Okay.

[Speaker 7] (6:28 - 6:38)
Opening statement. Whoever is speaking, it's their time. Opening statement.

Presenting witnesses. Cross-examining belongs to whoever is speaking.

[Speaker 9] (6:39 - 6:39)
It's off and on.

[Speaker 7] (6:40 - 6:56)
It's off. It could be off and on. And yes, do the best you can.

We appreciate it. All right. As indicated previously, the board is represented tonight by counsel Kelly Karchesky.

I will now turn the hearing over to Miss Karchesky, who will serve as presiding officer for this meeting.

[Speaker 5] (6:58 - 8:21)
Good evening. My name is Kelly Karchesky. And as Mr. Santana indicated, I will serve as counsel to the Board of Regents this evening. And in that role, I will preside over the hearing. In overseeing matters, I will rule on objections. And I will also advise the board concerning any legal issues that occur in their deliberation process.

Importantly, I'm not a voting member and will not be voting in this matter. Before we ask the parties to introduce themselves or their representatives, please note that we have a court reporter here this evening. She will be seated at the table here to the employee's right.

Witness chair is directly next to Regent Cotton. And the court reporter will be taking down testimony as well as any dialogue between the parties and the regents or myself. It's important along those lines that everybody speak loudly and clearly and that we not talk over one another so that she is able to keep an accurate reflection of the proceeding.

I'm going to begin with the administration's table. The representative for the administration, if you'll please introduce yourself, state whether you are a licensed attorney, introduce who you have at the table with you and what role they play in this evening's hearing.

[Speaker 3] (8:22 - 8:35)
Thank you, Miss Karchesky. My name is Stephanie Ham with Thompson and Horton. I am a licensed Texas lawyer.

With me on behalf of the administration is Dr. Linda Villanueva, the president of the college.

[Speaker 2] (8:37 - 8:39)
You have one Armstrong.

[Speaker 5] (8:49 - 9:52)
Thank you. Oh, for the board members policy, D.M.A.A. and titles non-faculty contract employee who's been proposed for termination, a hearing before an impartial hearing panel at this time. Therefore, I ask each board member whether you are able to serve as an impartial member of this hearing body, which means that you come to the table without bias and you commit that you're able to arrive at a decision this evening based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing.

Any member who's not able to act in such a manner must say so now, excuse themselves from this hearing and abstain from voting. Starting with Mr. Cotton, we'll start on the left. Please state your name and whether you can make a decision based solely on the evidence presented at this hearing.

Weston Cotton. And you'll need to turn your microphones on. I'm sorry, I think they were we turned them all off.

He's off. OK, good. All right.

Interrupt. Please continue. Yes.

Sorry.

[Speaker 6] (9:52 - 9:55)
Weston Cotton. And yes, I can render.

[Speaker 2] (9:56 - 9:56)
Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (9:57 - 10:00)
Aaron Thomas. Yes, I can render an impartial.

[Speaker 2] (10:01 - 10:02)
Judy Gerald. Yes.

[Speaker 7] (10:03 - 10:07)
Mark Hemsel. Yes. Gilbert Santana.

Yes.

[Speaker 2] (10:08 - 10:10)
Pam Warford. Yes.

[Speaker 8] (10:10 - 10:11)
Gina Guillory. Yes.

[Speaker 9] (10:12 - 10:15)
Mark Hall. Yes. Daryl Fontenot.

Yes.

[Speaker 5] (10:19 - 10:59)
In order to make the best use of everyone's time, we ask the parties to invite to their table all individuals who will be testifying in this matter so that the court reporter who's a notary public can swear all witnesses in at one time. You'll just come to your respective table if you are a witness in this evening's proceeding. Sam, can you identify your witnesses and just ask that they remain standing, please?

[Speaker 3] (10:59 - 11:04)
Yes. We have Mr. Brian Waddle and Leslie Gallagher.

[Speaker 5] (11:05 - 17:58)
Oh, Miss Armstrong. Can you identify your witnesses? I'll let Tony and.

Court reporter will now swear in witnesses. Thank you. I'm gonna ask to Mr. Joseph Graves to, you know, further educate him following up with other breakout witnesses and kindly, we could screen it, if that's okay?

At the appropriate time. I will not be far from that. Is that okay?

witnesses that happen to pop in during the course of the hearing, please let us know. We'll get them sworn in at that time and escort them out as well. I will now instruct the parties on the procedures to be followed in this hearing as, again, outlined in policy DMAA local.

As previously discussed, a record of the hearing is being made so that a certified transcript can be prepared if necessary or required. First of all, the hearing shall begin with an opportunity for each party to make opening statements. Again, you've been given a certain amount of time, a two-and-a-half-hour maximum time period, so it's completely your election as to whether or not you want to utilize any of your time for opening remarks.

The administration will then begin its presentation, supported by such proof as it desires to offer. Importantly, the administration bears the burden of proof in this instance, which is why it begins. The employee will be permitted to cross-examine any witnesses who testify for the administration.

The employee may then present such testimony or documentary proof as desired to offer in rebuttal or general support of the contention that the contract not be terminated. The administration will be permitted to cross-examine any of the employee witnesses. Presentation of additional information in rebuttal to either party's presentation may be requested by either party prior to closing arguments, again, assuming time allotted.

After both parties have presented their evidence, board members may ask questions to clarify points made by each side. Deliberations of the board may be held in closed session privately with its counsel, and again, closing arguments may be made by either party at its election. As indicated earlier, the board chair, with input from the regents, has determined that the following time limits are reasonable and will apply to this matter.

Fourth parties will have a total of two-and-a-half hours to present its case. Opening and closing statements, as well as direct and cross-examination, will be counted, and Mr. Momin will keep track of time. Counsel, you're free to ask at any point in time where your time allotment currently stands.

Importantly, this hearing is conducted as an administrative hearing, but we are not in a formal court of law. As such, and again, consistent with policy DMAA, the rules of evidence do not apply and are used as guidance only. The board may consider all evidence that is relevant to the reasons for the recommended termination.

Any objections made during the hearing will be ruled upon by me as the board's legal counsel. I will also maintain decorum. The hearing participants will conduct themselves with common courtesy and respect for others.

Witnesses or non-participants may not interrupt the proceedings. Any disruptive behavior by anyone during the hearing may result in his or her removal from the proceedings. Policy DMAA provides that any contract employee may be dismissed for good cause before the completion of the term date identified in his or her contract.

As such, board members, after all of the evidence has been presented, the board will determine whether good cause exists to terminate the employee's contract and what action, if any, will be taken on the recommended termination. Written notice of the board's decision will be provided to the employee within 10 business days once the hearing has concluded. Of course, the board will announce its decision as well and simply follow up in writing within that 10-day period.

Board members, good cause is generally defined as the employee's failure to perform the duties that a person of ordinary prudence in the industry would perform under similar circumstances. As each industry varies, an employer may identify good cause in its policies or in the employment contract. Here, also in Policy DMAA, the Lee College Board of have identified 31 actions rising to the level of good cause sufficient to terminate an employment contract of a non-faculty member.

In this instance, your administration has selected or identified five of the 31 as applicable to her recommendation. I will now read those specific policy reasons identified. Number one, deficiencies documented in observation reports, appraisals, or evaluations supplemental memoranda, or other communications.

Number two, neglect of duties and or failure to fulfill duties or responsibilities. Number three, incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of required or assigned duties. Number four, insubordination or failure to comply with official directives.

And number five, failure to maintain an effective working relationship or maintain good rapport with students, the community, or colleagues. Importantly, the administration did not prove all five, but merely proved one of the five or one or more of the five by preponderance of the evidence. With that background in mind, administration, do you have any opening remarks?

[Speaker 3] (17:58 - 23:40)
Yes, we do. Thank you. I begin.

Good evening, Chairman Santana, Regent Stephanie Hamm, on behalf of the administration. We're here this evening because the administration has recommended the mid-contract termination of Sela Taccone, the college's chief advancement officer and executive director of the Lee College Foundation. This recommendation was not made lightly, nor was it made hastily.

It follows an extended period during which the administration made repeated good faith efforts to support Ms. Taccone in meeting the reasonable and clearly communicated expectations for her position. As you'll hear over the course of this hearing, the administration's recommendation is based on extensive documentation, repeated supervisory intervention, and sustained performance deficiencies that have persisted over a significant period of time, despite clear direction, coaching, and opportunities to improve. The evidence will show that Ms. Taccone has consistently failed to meet the fundamental expectations of her position. These failures span multiple core performance areas, including leadership and team collaboration, basic job knowledge, decision-making, communication, reliability, professionalism, and follow-through. Collectively, they demonstrate a pattern of unsatisfactory performance, insubordination, and either an inability or unwillingness to maintain effective working relationships. With respect to leadership and team collaboration, the administration will show that Ms. Taccone has not demonstrated the interpersonal or leadership skills necessary to build trust or sustain a functional, high-performing team. Despite direct feedback that her department was experiencing significant dysfunction, Ms. Taccone failed to recognize or meaningfully address those concerns, and rather than fostering open communication and accountability, Ms. Taccone instead suppressed dialogue, escalated the conflict, and contributed to an us-versus-them environment within her department and with senior leadership. She also refused to follow Dr. Villanueva's directives aimed at repairing straight relationships, further undermining collaboration and trust. And Ms. Taccone's failure to follow Dr. Villanueva's directives was not an isolated incident. Rather, in multiple instances, Ms. Taccone disregarded explicit executive direction, failed to comply and complete with assigned tasks, and continued to pursue actions she had been clearly told not to take. This included refusing to complete required evaluations, ignoring instructions related to organizational responsibility, and declining to carry out directives intended to resolve internal conflicts. In the areas of job knowledge, judgment, and initiative, particularly in her oversight of the Performing Arts Center and college advancement activities, the administration will present evidence showing a lack of strategic understanding, poor decision-making, and minimal follow-through.

And despite repeated guidance and the provision of additional resources, including offers of support from other members of the college, Ms. Taccone failed to demonstrate any learning or growth or accountability. Her actions required repeated intervention by senior leadership and resulted in frustration, loss of confidence, and negative operational and other relational consequences for the college. The administration will further show that Ms. Taccone has demonstrated serious deficiencies in planning, communication, and professionalism in high-profile public-facing events, including major fundraising and donor engagement activities. These deficiencies included making unilateral changes without approval, failing to communicate critical information, misrepresenting facts, and shifting responsibility to others. Such conduct is inconsistent with the expectations of a senior administrator entrusted with representing the college, its leadership, and its mission. Finally, the evidence will establish a pervasive pattern of unreliability, lack of accountability, and poor follow-through.

Assigned tasks were frequently incomplete, late, or of unacceptable quality, requiring repeated follow-up and, quite frankly, micromanagement by the president of the college. Feedback was met with defensiveness rather than correction, and responsibility was often deflected rather than assumed. As a result, the administration has lost confidence in Ms. Taccone's ability to perform her essential duties or to effectively represent the president and the college. A public community college depends on leaders who exercise sound judgment, follow directions, and collaborate effectively and act in the best interest of students, employees, and the institution. When sustained efforts to correct performance and behavior fail, the administration has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the college, its employees, and its students. And so, at the conclusion of this hearing, the administration is going to ask that you find the recommended termination is supported by good cause, is consistent with college policy, and is a reasonable and necessary response to the documented performance issues in this case.

Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 5] (23:41 - 23:50)
Thank you. Ms. Armstrong, do you have any opening remarks? And if so, would you like to make them now or would you prefer to reserve them for your case-in-chief?

[Speaker 2] (23:54 - 29:30)
Members of the board, Ms. Garshafsky, are here today under executive of the college, employed under a current term contract, recommended for mid-term understand this board has likely never been asked to consider recommendation this that is because a poor cause termination high-level administrator is not simply an employment decision, it is a career-ending stigma mark that follows a professional for the rest of her working life. The board accepts President Villanueva's recommendation. Sela Taccone will be required to explain over and over again why she was terminated for cause from a senior leadership public institution.

At consequence, that is why Lee College has rules governing when a contract can be terminated mid-term. It's not optional. College policy, a mid-term termination potentially work performance deficiency.

Pfizer, that would be Dr. Villanueva, has first considered three factors whether the employee received notice of that deficiency, whether the employee was given a reasonable opportunity, requirements are not technicalities, they exist precisely because a forecast termination lasting reputational harm. Before bringing this recommendation to you, Dr. Villanueva was required to ask herself and be able to show whether the concerns she perceived were serious enough to justify that harm, whether she clearly told Ms. Taccone what was allegedly wrong and whether she gave her a fair chance to correct it. Evidence will show that she did none of these things, none.

No documentation of poor performance, there is no documentation of counseling, there is no documentation of human resources, no documentation of clear expectations, deadlines, or corrective guidance, but exists instead are after-the-fact descriptions of ordinary workplace disagreements, many of them subjective, many of them involving last-minute executive reversals that were never framed, never framed as disciplinary.

And were never accompanied by any instruction on how to improve. More troubling, the president's own termination letter admits that the decision termination was made and documented before October 24, 2025, before any evaluation meeting, or any chance to respond, and before Ms. Taccone's serious medical leave currently in place had even begun. In other words, there was no process left to give.

Not how forecaused terminations work under the League College rules, especially not where, as here, Ms. Taccone was formally approved for medical leave related to a serious health condition that human resources recognized and documented before the process even began. Question before you is whether Dr. Villanueva was frustrated, disagreed with the management style, or preferred different execution. Presidents and executives question is whether the mandatory prerequisites for midterm termination for cause were met.

They were not. Under these facts and this record, the board has no discretion to affirm this recommendation. The only action consistent with League College policy is to reject it, permit Ms. Taccone to complete her approved medical leave, and allow her contract to continue accordance with its terms. That is what fairness requires. That is what the rule requires. That is why we are here.

[Speaker 5] (29:33 - 29:47)
Thank you, Ms. Armstrong. By way of an example, let's just give each party status on their time. How much time did the administration take for their opening, Mr. Moehlman?

[Speaker 9] (29:48 - 29:52)
Five minutes for the administration, six minutes for the employee.

[Speaker 5] (29:53 - 31:55)
Okay. Thank you so much. Before we begin testimony, board members, I wanted to just provide a little bit of a background to you as well as the parties on the binders in front of you.

We have worked hard to try to resolve any prehearing issues of dispute or concern prior to this evening's hearing such that the matters can be presented by counsel in as productive a means as possible. That included preadmission of exhibits. And so what you have in front of you tonight is a binder of administration exhibits and a binder of employee exhibits.

I believe that administration is white and employee is black. At the beginning of each binder is a table of contents that identify the exhibits. There were just a handful of objections made regarding the exhibits, which I ruled upon this morning.

If I granted the objection and excluded the exhibit, it has been folded back in the binder. So that has already occurred for you. We did not take it out, but rather it simply folded so that we do not review it in the event there's reconsideration of one or more documents in the binders.

They are tabbed by exhibit number. They also are Bates labeled. The parties may or may not elect to utilize or require or request your attention on any particular one of these, but they are all there in the event that they do.

The binders are yours to mark up and to take back in the deliberation process with you. You have in front of you highlighters, pens, flags, markers, post-it notes, et cetera. So feel free to take notes as testimony is being presented regarding the documents.

Any questions about the exhibits? I'll ask counsel first. Are there any questions regarding the exhibits?

[Speaker 3] (31:57 - 32:00)
Are there exhibit binders up at the witness? Yes.

[Speaker 5] (32:00 - 32:13)
Okay. Yes, there are. In fact, the court reporter will be able to take those with her if they're at the exhibit at the witness table as well.

Ms. Armstrong, do you understand the exhibits? Do you have any questions?

[Speaker 2] (32:14 - 32:17)
No questions about the exhibits. I just don't see them up by the podium.

[Speaker 5] (32:19 - 32:41)
They're right here where the witness is. At the podium, if you need to use technology tonight, they're actually on the desktop, the exhibits are. Both parties are free to use the computer if you want to project the exhibits onto the screen, but the board members have them by hard copy as well.

Regents, any questions about the exhibits or how to interpret?

[Speaker 9] (32:41 - 32:45)
You did say the white binder was for administration?

[Speaker 5] (32:45 - 33:04)
I believe so. Is that right? Let's look at the table of contents in the front.

Yes, white is administration, black is employee. Any questions, Regents? Oh, hearing none.

Ms. Hamm, you may begin.

[Speaker 3] (33:04 - 33:05)
Present your case.

[Speaker 5] (33:06 - 33:07)
The floor is yours.

[Speaker 3] (33:07 - 33:36)
Thank you. The administration calls Dr. Linda Villanueva. Good evening.

Can you please state your full name for the record?

[Speaker 1] (33:37 - 33:38)
Do you need my middle name too?

[Speaker 3] (33:40 - 34:06)
Linda Villanueva. Thank you. Do you mind if I call you Dr. V?

Yes, that's fine. Okay, so we are here because the administration has proposed the termination of Ms. DeConny's employment contract midterm. Can you please, for context purposes, explain to the Regents sort of the purpose and duties of Ms. DeConny's position as the Chief Advancement Officer and Executive Director of the Lee College Foundation?

[Speaker 1] (34:06 - 34:51)
Sure. So, as the Chief Advancement Officer and the Executive Director of the Foundation Board, her primary roles and essential duties are to provide executive leadership of the Foundation, and that means serving as the Executive Director of the Foundation Board. It also means providing strategic structure and development of donor relationships as well as fundraising strategies, but it also includes leadership of high-profile events and public events such as the Foundation Gala.

She also supervises the Performing Arts Center and is responsible for ensuring that she leads a high-performing, high-functioning team based upon trust and collaborates well with them.

[Speaker 3] (34:53 - 35:53)
And if you turn in the white binder in front of you to the administration's Exhibit 4, so let me know when you're there, is this a copy of Ms. DeConny's job description? And so, if the Regents wanted to look at what her essential duties are, they could refer to administration's Exhibit 4. Is that right?

Correct. And it looks like there are several essential duties and responsibilities listed. Advancement and strategic planning, Lee College Foundation, grant management, alumni engagement, and the Performing Arts Center.

Do you see that? I do.

[Speaker 1] (35:53 - 36:00)
So are those all the duties that you just described? I left out grant administration, but that's part of college advancement. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (36:00 - 36:03)
Okay, but then otherwise, those are her essential duties.

[Speaker 1] (36:03 - 36:21)
Correct. Okay, and so when did Ms. DeConny begin to work in her current role? So, she began in the role of interim, the interim role in, I believe, July of 23, and she was named permanently in the next year.

[Speaker 3] (36:24 - 36:29)
So, when Ms. DeConny first began working in the role, what was her position before interim?

[Speaker 1] (36:31 - 36:33)
Director of Grants Administration.

[Speaker 3] (36:34 - 36:44)
So, as the Director of Grants Administration, did she have experience with all of the different areas of responsibility that fall under her current role?

[Speaker 1] (36:45 - 36:50)
Can you repeat the question, whether she had responsibility or knowledge of?

[Speaker 3] (36:50 - 37:01)
Did she have experience, other than the grants, the Performing Arts Center, the Foundation, did she have any experience with those areas of responsibility before she took on the role?

[Speaker 1] (37:01 - 37:25)
I know she worked collaboratively with other team members under the previous Foundation Director, and she, you know, supported gala efforts, etc. So, yeah, she did know and was aware of things that were happening around the office, if that's what you're asking, and other duties.

[Speaker 3] (37:26 - 37:34)
So, what were your expectations for Ms. DeConny that first year that she was in the role?

[Speaker 1] (37:34 - 38:14)
So, in the first year, I made it pretty clear, and we discussed the fact that my primary goals and expectations were to, one, focus on developing relationships with the Foundation Board, and I will say, you know, before that, it was kind of keeping things steady with regard to the Foundation Board and the PAC. In addition, though, it was to establish strong relationships with the Foundation Board and among the community, but also to ensure that she had built, she was building a high-performing, high-functioning team based upon trust. So, those were my initial expectations in the first year.

[Speaker 3] (38:15 - 38:20)
And just so the record's clear, when you say PAC, we're talking about the Performing Arts Center?

[Speaker 1] (38:20 - 38:21)
Performing Arts Center, correct.

[Speaker 3] (38:21 - 38:26)
How did Ms. DeConny perform that first year from your perspective?

[Speaker 1] (38:27 - 38:40)
So, based upon the expectations was significantly changed subsequent to that, she performed duties, you know, as required, and they're reflected in the performance appraisal I provided that year.

[Speaker 3] (38:41 - 38:43)
So, you were happy with her that first year?

[Speaker 1] (38:43 - 38:43)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (38:43 - 38:47)
Okay, and that's reflected in her 23-24 performance evaluation?

[Speaker 1] (38:48 - 38:48)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (38:48 - 38:53)
Did you receive any complaints about Ms. DeConny or her performance during that first year?

[Speaker 1] (38:54 - 39:10)
Nothing that I can think of right now that, well, there were some complaints about overreach in other departments, and then inability to work collaboratively with other team members.

[Speaker 3] (39:11 - 39:25)
And I want to talk to you a little bit more about those in a moment, but you mentioned in your answer a moment ago that your expectations for the role substantially changed after the first year.

[Speaker 1] (39:25 - 40:33)
Can you explain to the regents what you mean by that? Sure. So, as you advance in an executive role, I expect that you have increased your capacity to exercise independent executive leadership.

I expect that your judgment skills and communication and all of those things increase. But additionally, I asked CELA to focus on a few different priorities in the second year. The first was to cultivate corporate and industry relationships so that we could expand and improve the contributions that were provided to the foundation.

The second primary goal was to really nurture and focus on current donor relationships that are longstanding that needed to be nurtured. And the third was to focus on increasing the performance of the PAC, most notably by having performers that were more notable and also just increasing the attendance and engagement of the community with regard to the Performing Arts Center.

[Speaker 3] (40:33 - 40:40)
Did you communicate to Ms. DeConny that these were your expectations going into her second year in the role?

[Speaker 1] (40:40 - 40:48)
On multiple occasions. From the beginning of her second year? Yes, it was in the beginning of the year.

[Speaker 3] (40:50 - 40:56)
Did Ms. DeConny continue performing well during her second year in the role?

[Speaker 1] (40:58 - 41:24)
So, what I will say is that I learned of performance deficiencies earlier on, but it was pretty concrete and very well defined into the August time period, and so around that time, and it just escalated over time.

[Speaker 3] (41:25 - 41:34)
You mentioned something about complaints, dysfunction, or encroaching on other areas.

[Speaker 1] (41:34 - 43:05)
Can you tell us a little bit more about what you mean by that? So, primary complaints revolved around two different issues, and one was the over-involvement in her role and her staff members' role into activities that did not directly pertain to or support the priorities of the foundation. So, for example, I had concerns from instruction, academic affairs, that either she and or her director were wanting to be included in such events as advisory council meetings, which are designed to connect our instructors and division chairs with those individuals in industry who are the ones who are hiring our entry-level students, and that advisory council is focused on reviewing what we do in our programs, looking at instructional content, curriculum, the ways that we teach them to review our equipment and to provide honest and candid feedback about what's working well and what's not working well in the talent that we're producing for them. That was one area, and then the other was an unwillingness to work with others because of conflict.

[Speaker 3] (43:06 - 43:27)
Let's talk a little bit more about the first example you provided, the instructional that you refer to it as an advisory council. Yes. And you said Mr. Coney wanted to- Committee, and Ms. Taccone wanted to participate in certain meetings with outside industry?

[Speaker 1] (43:28 - 44:11)
Yes, and in fact, she contacted outside industry partners without letting our instructional lead for workforce development. So, there was no continuity of communication. There was no being on the same page, and industry partners then shared with us that they were confused about, okay, we have two people talking to us.

They're talking about different needs, and so how does that- where do you stand? And so, it was not the best look for the college to have that divided communication. What would be the purpose of someone in Ms. Taccone's role meeting with these individuals who are involved in hiring?

[Speaker 3] (44:12 - 44:14)
So, they're involved in hiring students?

[Speaker 1] (44:15 - 45:07)
So, no. It's- the purpose of the advisory committees is, again, to focus on program improvement and how we are responding to the industry partners' needs to create that talent pipeline. And so, that is an opportunity for frontline hiring managers to visit with us regularly, both as our division chairs, which oversee our areas of faculty, and these are in workforce and technical programs.

So, each area has one, and they meet regularly to provide those kinds of evaluations, again, of our actual curriculum, our student learning outcomes, to understand whether or not they're being met and mastered, to review our equipment, and to provide ongoing feedback and invitations to help us improve.

[Speaker 3] (45:08 - 45:12)
So, what would be the point of Ms. Taccone participating in that process?

[Speaker 1] (45:13 - 46:10)
So, purportedly, as shared with me, it was to learn more about the college itself, and I very clearly explained, though, that, you know, again, you know, with the feedback I received from the workforce development lead, my vice president of academic affairs, and our provost, Dr. Walsers, that those were not areas that they should have involvement in, because they don't directly relate to requests for funding. They're not aligned with, and as such, you know, it's the- a prerequisite is determining what our foundation, you know, what our priorities needed for the college at large.

Do they fit with our strategic plan? Do they fit with the long-term needs of the college? Do they fit with the priorities that we have in place over the next several years?

So, no, there was no reason for them to be present.

[Speaker 3] (46:11 - 46:25)
Did you receive any complaints about the fact that Ms. Taccone was attempting to engage in fundraising requests with these low-level, I guess not low-level, but you said, like, entry-level individuals?

[Speaker 1] (46:26 - 48:03)
I did, because I think that there was, unfortunately, under Sella's leadership with regard to the establishment and the functioning of her team, that there was not appropriate role clarity, and when you do not have that kind of table set where you outline what the priorities of the college are long-term, determine how you and your department fit with those long-term priorities, and when you're not able to set that table, then you're not able to clearly define what the priorities are for any given year, too, to ensure that the priorities for future needs are met. So, there's a clear connection between those needs, and as a result, the department, without those kinds of priorities and without planning and, you know, production of a strategic planning document, which I was attempting to do with Sella in creating and drafting mission statements and vision statements, et cetera, that led to, again, a lack of role clarity, which results in role ambiguity, and when that exists, employees don't feel like they are supported. They're confused about what decision-making levels they have. They're confused about what they're actually supposed to do.

They're confused about what decisions they're allowed to make and who is the person ultimately in charge of any single, you know, project and or decision as it relates to working with other employees.

[Speaker 3] (48:04 - 48:21)
The individuals in these outside entities that the advisory committee was meeting or instructional committee were meeting with, I mean, would those be the people who would be pledging funds for fundraising on behalf of their company?

[Speaker 1] (48:22 - 49:34)
So, it happens in a number of different ways, but certainly our faculty members have contacts. Our division chairs and faculty members have longstanding relationships with industry partners because of both their subject matter expertise, but many of them come from industry after retiring from industry and have those established relationships, and we're able to use channels like the advisory council to clearly demonstrate, you know, what we're doing, but also to hear from them what their needs are, and it's not but it's not done, you know, solely by them. You know, it's discussed with leadership to determine whether or not the things that we might want to solicit or elicit from industry partners is in line with our long-term priorities. Often, we will accept equipment, and that helps promote the program needs and helps to helps to ensure that industry has what they would expect in terms of the appropriate equipment to train our students to ensure that they have the appropriate talent pipeline.

[Speaker 3] (49:34 - 49:46)
And maybe I'm misunderstanding, but my understanding was that the folks, the outside folks that were being met with were more curriculum-focused rather than fundraising-focused. Is that am I?

[Speaker 1] (49:46 - 49:48)
For the advisory committees, yes.

[Speaker 3] (49:48 - 50:02)
Okay. So, the curriculum people or the people that are helping the college make sure you have the right curriculum, are those the people who would be pledging significant funds on behalf of their employer?

[Speaker 1] (50:02 - 50:02)
No.

[Speaker 3] (50:03 - 50:03)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (50:04 - 50:11)
The front-line supervisors who are individual, the first hiring level. So, no.

[Speaker 3] (50:12 - 50:19)
So, that's why I was asking, did it make sense for Ms. DeConey to be involved in those meetings that were supposed to be curriculum-focused?

[Speaker 1] (50:19 - 50:20)
No.

[Speaker 3] (50:20 - 50:28)
Okay. You also spoke about dysfunction in her team and with other people. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

[Speaker 1] (50:29 - 51:40)
So, let me start with a conflict that occurred with the vice president of academic affairs at college where there was significant conflict between the nursing shortage reduction program, which the CELA side was very adamant that that should be controlled by the foundation. And we made it clear, both Dr. Norris, Dr. Walters, and myself that because it was not a grant, maybe perceived as one, it is a state, it's a state funding program and there's no application process whatsoever. So, everyone is able to receive those funds, but based upon differing demographics and student outcomes.

So, it's literally just a form you fill out that says this is how many, you know, students you have, this is how many are completers, and they provide funding based upon those numbers.

[Speaker 3] (51:41 - 52:05)
My understanding correctly that there became a conflict over who was supposed to be in charge of this program, who would essentially own it, and who would ensure that there was compliance. And so, what did you do to try to address this conflict?

[Speaker 1] (52:05 - 52:23)
Well, the outcome was I said no. This is not, you know, this is not, you know, something that we consider to be a part of this. And CELA was able to provide ample, you know, feedback, you know, to support her contention.

It was listened to.

[Speaker 3] (52:24 - 52:29)
Did it create any tension between Ms. DeConey and Dr. Norris?

[Speaker 1] (52:29 - 55:57)
Significant. Okay. And so, tell us a little bit about that.

Sure. So, there was significant tension there that both CELA and Dr. Norris expressed. For, I can't speak for Dr. Norris, but I will say what she expressed to me is that this is a program that she's always been involved with, and she's had numerous, numerous years of experience with it as of high, and it's never been a part of any grant administration team that I've worked with, so, or she had worked with. So, she was very frustrated by the, you know, the pushing, you know, to insist that that be a part of that. So was Dr. Walzers. But as it relates to Dr. Norris, when CELA came to me and expressed, you know, some frustrations in working with Janina, I had asked her and actually suggested to her and directed to her that she involve and meet with Janine, Dr. Norris to address the team issue, right, the partnership, because coming to me is not clearly addressing the issue at hand. It's better to go directly to the individual that you have a difficulty with, and CELA made a statement like, fool me once, you know, shame on, you know, shame on you, fool me twice, whatever the statement is about that, and at that point said that she was not willing to go to Dr. Norris, and, but I directed her to do it, and she failed to do so. So, you're saying she did not meet with Dr. Norris after you directed her to do so? No.

I also, during that time, wanted to, you know, the coaching part of it was me clearly explaining that as simple as it sounds, you know, what we learn sometimes even in elementary school is that, you know, there are, that we deal with human beings, right, and so as we're dealing in the human being business, there are going to have, you're going to have differences, but often people just want to hear that their feelings are hurt, right? They just want to be able to say my feelings were hurt, you know, this is, you know, I was bothered by this, let's talk about it, right, and to be able to express when someone's trust has been broken and to be able to talk about that.

I also underscored that spending time by spending time focusing on one's pain and not talking to Dr. Norris is a lack of time that is needed to spend on focusing on the needs of our students, and I literally, in that meeting, said I'm just going to count. One, you're a student. Will you be willing, you know, to focus more on your self-interest related to this conflict, or are you going to focus on establishing a stronger relationship with your colleague and do what's best for the college and your relationships with that, with your team?

[Speaker 3] (55:59 - 56:15)
Well, I'd like to direct your attention to that same white binder in front of you to the administration's exhibit five. Can you identify what this document is?

[Speaker 1] (56:17 - 56:22)
This is the, my performance evaluation comments.

[Speaker 3] (56:24 - 56:27)
For the 24-25 academic year?

[Speaker 1] (56:27 - 56:27)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (56:28 - 58:05)
Okay, and if we look at this, it's several pages long. It looks as though you've broken things out into seven different categories. Is that accurate?

Okay, and so what I'd like to do now is really to have you walk the regents through the main areas of CELA's, Mr. Coney's performance evaluation and explain to the regents why this is in her performance evaluation and why you believe it helps support the good cause grounds for her proposed termination, okay? No, no, no, so I'm going to ask you questions, but I just want you to help the regents explain what these issues are so they have some context as they consider it. The first category is team collaboration, leadership and coaching, staff development, and interpersonal skills.

So the first paragraph states, CELA has not demonstrated the leadership or interpersonal skills required to build trust and sustain a high-performing, high-functioning team. Of major concern is her lack of recognition that her team is dysfunctional, despite direct feedback that the team is dysfunctional. She has not demonstrated the knowledge, skills, and abilities to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and needs of individual team members or to evaluate the effectiveness of the team as a whole.

Despite two years in her role, persistent dysfunction remains within her department. Can you explain to us what you're talking about here? What dysfunction in her team?

[Speaker 1] (58:07 - 58:47)
So dysfunction in the team was brought to my attention in a couple of different ways. One was that information was shared through Leslie, my chief of staff, which often people go to, you know, when they can't either access me or they feel comfortable talking to Leslie and know that she'll be able to translate things to me. The other is that I had direct interaction with another member of her team who explained to me frustrations about the team.

[Speaker 3] (58:48 - 58:54)
Can you tell us a little bit more about what your chief of staff relayed to you?

[Speaker 1] (58:56 - 1:00:54)
So what she relayed to me were, I want to think about the most salient points. So one of the biggest, most salient point to me was that when shared concerns with their supervisor, Cella, that they were not, you know, Cella would respond and say, I will do this, this, this, and they were never acted upon. And so it led to a lack of trust, an erosion of trust because, you know, their needs were not being supported and they did not believe that they had the support from their supervisor to carry out and support the needs that they had.

So that was significant. There again was, because there was role ambiguity, there, it created tension among the team about who is supposed to do what, who has the authority to do what, and it created a, overall there was a sense of an us versus them mentality related to Cella and her director of donor relations and the rest of the department. And that was very concerning to me because she had staff that had been there that predated her and that had been long-term employees of the and they provided rich history and, you know, really expertise in how to do many of the things that were done and they weren't relied upon based upon the feedback that I was shared.

There, you know, were reports of lots of gossiping, talking behind each other's backs, demeaning people's reputation, and again, the sense of feeling that there was an in-group and an out-group and if you weren't in the in-group that you were going to be treated differently and more negatively.

[Speaker 3] (1:00:54 - 1:01:14)
Is this the type of issue that you generally expect to be brought in on as the president of the college? No, not unless it's related to my own executive team. Who would you expect to manage those sorts of personnel disputes within a department?

[Speaker 1] (1:01:14 - 1:01:19)
So, it would be Cella with her own team. That would be my expectation.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:20 - 1:01:29)
You mentioned that your chief of staff came to you, but you also mentioned that you spoke to someone directly. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

[Speaker 1] (1:01:29 - 1:02:13)
So, I had lunch with the director of donor relationships and what she expressed to me was, you know, a concern about how things operated here at the college and within the department and expressed concerns about how other employees would respond to her requests or her direction and just being unsure about how things were run, you know, what exactly her role was and how she could best contribute to the college's mission as well as supporting the foundation. So, did you have that guidance?

Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:13 - 1:02:20)
Did you consider this issue to be significant enough to warrant some sort of action or directive to Ms. Taccone?

[Speaker 1] (1:02:21 - 1:03:35)
I did, and in fact, I directed her to meet and address, to develop a plan, and to meet with her team to address the team dysfunction, and they did have a meeting, and what was reported back to me was that she admonished them for airing their internal strife and admonished them for talking to me as the president, and I was very concerned about that because we never want to suppress communication, whether it's HR or if you have a concern with your supervisor, you're able to jump that, and in this case, it was to me, so, but they were left with the feeling that they were, that their communication was not valued and that they were, you know, behaved inappropriately, which is absolutely not the case. They have the right, you know, to express that, communications, concerns, and they have a right to, you know, to expect that those concerns will be addressed by the supervisor.

[Speaker 3] (1:03:35 - 1:03:49)
So, when this came to your attention, you considered the nature of the issue, yes, you gave Ms. Taccone notice of the issue, and then you gave her an opportunity to improve, correct?

[Speaker 1] (1:03:49 - 1:03:54)
So, said that I was there to provide support and coaching should she need it.

[Speaker 3] (1:03:55 - 1:04:04)
But rather than take this opportunity for learning and growth, she admonished her team for airing their complaints outside the department.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:05 - 1:04:29)
Well, first, she refused. She denied that there was any dysfunction in the team, and it's very little, you know, it's hard for a person to, I guess, engage in efforts to create a high-performing, high-functioning team based upon trust if you don't accept that there is a problem.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:35 - 1:05:04)
Your performance evaluation in this first section goes on to state, for example, Cella has demonstrated ongoing difficulty in effectively leading and collaborating with her team. Do you see that paragraph? Yep.

And I just, take a quick moment to look at that paragraph. Is this reflecting what you just explained to the regents? I don't want to go over it again if we've already covered it, but if I'm missing something, please let me know.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:06 - 1:06:16)
I would just add that, you know, an executive is expected to set the table, as you will, to clearly outline expectations of individuals that are in her department, to outline in accordance and in alignment with the college's mission and strategic plan, the priorities for a particular department. That was not done. Priorities were not set, and it was reflected in visits with marketing to help them design marketing materials that would outline priorities for the upcoming year.

So, if you do not have that, if you are not able to clearly define roles, and it leads to confusion about an individual's role, then you're not able to really create that high-performing, high-functioning team. And I think that, based upon the feedback that I've received, that that was just lacking in a major way. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:17 - 1:07:01)
And if we look at the following paragraphs in this first section, again, if you need to take a moment, they refer to the morale and issues with collaboration, people having to come to you to lodge their complaints, talks about the issue with Dr. Norris, and then Ms. DeConey's failure to follow your directive on how to repair her relationship with Dr. Norris. Again, is there anything beyond what you've already explained to the regents about this first category that you haven't already covered? And if you need to take a moment, please do.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:17 - 1:07:54)
I would underscore that this entire issue with addressing team dysfunction really reflects a lack of understanding about the importance of creating trust, because, as Steve Covey told us very clearly in his book, you can only move at the speed of trust. And the importance of being a member of a high-performing, high-functioning team, the leader sets that tone. The leader manages the model's accountability, the leader models judgment, decision-making, how we operate as a team, all of that.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:55 - 1:08:00)
How often would you say that you had conversations with Ms. DeConey about her leadership?

[Speaker 1] (1:08:04 - 1:08:36)
Well, a lot. I mean, a lot. And, you know, in the first year, you know, they were more of a mentoring-type set of conversations, you know, based upon my expectations for that first year.

And I think that was part of that, but the guidance I provided later was different, because the nature of her performance changed, and the expectations for her second year of performance were considerably higher.

[Speaker 3] (1:08:41 - 1:10:03)
If we look at the second category of the performance evaluation, number two, it's entitled Performing Arts Center, Decision-Making, Job Knowledge, Communication Skills, Initiative, and Follow-Through. The first paragraph states, Sella has demonstrated a consistent lack of sound judgment, strategic understanding, and follow-through in her leadership of the Performing Arts Center. Despite repeated guidance, she has not demonstrated the knowledge, initiative, or communication skills necessary to fulfill her essential duties.

It goes on, for example, when the PAC director position became vacant, Sella requested to back fill the role. It was communicated to Sella that the position would not be filled until she conducted an evaluation of the PAC's effectiveness and established the PAC's long-term direction. As part of the evaluation, she was directed to conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of existing PAC staff to determine whether PAC staff were focused on the most pressing priorities and effectively using their time to meet the PAC's needs.

So, this evaluation and analysis that you directed Ms. DeConey to perform before filling the PAC director position, did she ever do that?

[Speaker 1] (1:10:03 - 1:11:07)
No, and I provided very clear guidance, both myself and Leslie, as to how to do it. And we even provided guidance on saying, you need to be physically present to observe and visit with the staff there to ensure, you know, that you could see with your own eyes where they spent their time to discuss what priorities were being evaluated and to determine strategically what things could, you know, were a priority to on first, whether or not things needed to be arranged differently and to determine, you know, again, what was the effectiveness of the staffing that she had in place then. Do you recall when you had these conversations with Ms. DeConey, roughly? About the PAC, you know, again, I would say that this was happening towards the end of the summer, early fall of 2025.

So, end of summer, I believe the PAC director left in July of 2025, does that sound correct?

[Speaker 3] (1:11:08 - 1:11:32)
So, it would have been sometime after that, if she was asking to fill the position, okay. So, from the time you had this conversation with Ms. DeConey, either end of summer or early fall, through the time she went out on leave in early November, did she ever conduct this analysis? Not.

Okay. And the paragraph goes on to state.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:32 - 1:11:52)
I would also say, so we asked on a number of occasions, where are we at? And the responses were, I believe, two, which was not yet, not yet, or I'm about to. Okay.

And yeah, so that's exactly what it goes on to state.

[Speaker 3] (1:11:52 - 1:12:21)
So, it was asked multiple times if she had completed the analysis, the responses included not yet, and I'm just about to start. And then it goes on, and despite being told that the position would not be filled until she completed the plan, Sela disregarded my decision in executive direction and twice requested to backfill the PAC director role. So, am I correct in understanding that she continued to request that the position be filled, even though she wasn't doing what you told her to do in order to fill?

[Speaker 1] (1:12:21 - 1:14:29)
And two, this position will not be filled until we establish the effectiveness of the PAC and determine the long-term priorities of the college so that we know whoever is going to be in a position is going to best address those needs. So, and in fact, instead of just accepting that, not only did she request the position again, but she also shared with at least one individual, Brian Waddell, that she should have had that, that that was a complaint of hers and a frustration of hers. And so, she didn't let it go, and she knew that that decision came from me.

So, that to me is, we operate on a currency of trust. That was a lack of trust, you know, for me, a breach of trust. And, you know, again, kind of throwing me under the bus by saying, you know, we don't have this.

It's not supported. So, she told Brian Waddell that she was frustrated that she wouldn't fill the position. She, from what I understand, she told Brian, and this, this is the part that's most difficult for me, and she said this to me and Leslie as well, that she had no understanding of how to operate the PAC, how to, no bandwidth to do it, but, but no leadership, you know, to understand how to run a PAC at all.

So, so, that was very concerning. I've never heard that in the past, and I was very surprised, but she shared that also with Brian Waddell, in addition to complaining about not having a green room in there and the lack of the director position and other, and other complaints, like, you know, just not know, and saying not knowing what she was doing with regard to the PAC. But running the PAC was one of her essential duties, is that right?

[Speaker 3] (1:14:29 - 1:14:32)
Correct. It's listed in her job description? Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:32 - 1:14:32)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:33 - 1:15:12)
So, the evaluation goes on to say, during the same meeting, I provided CELA with my vision for the Performing Arts Center and explicitly shared the desired direction, and I believe you testified about this a moment ago, to secure more notable performers, increase community attendance, and engage corporate partners. I directed CELA to draft a mission and vision for the PAC incorporating my vision and aligning with the college's broader goals. At the conclusion of that conversation, CELA asked me to share my mission and vision for the PAC so she could understand what she needed to do, despite the fact that this had just been discussed.

So, can you tell us a little bit more about that conversation?

[Speaker 1] (1:15:13 - 1:16:01)
Yes. So, the very same things that I listed, to secure more notable performers, to have increased community engagement, and to pursue whether or not it was feasible to seek underwriters for individual shows. So, those three things I conveyed, and same, that question came up, like, well, what is your vision?

When I had clearly outlined those three things, same meeting, which to me outlined, or I concluded with the fact that she was, wasn't attentive even, or comprehended what I was saying, and that was concerning.

[Speaker 3] (1:16:02 - 1:16:59)
The next paragraph then talks about the mission and vision statement that she put together. If you could actually grab the other binder in front of you, the black binder, and turn to Exhibits 12 and 13. This is one of Ms. DeConey's exhibits that she's offered. Let me know when you get there. Let's start with Exhibit 12. Okay, because if you look at the table of contents, it says Exhibit 12 is Ms. DeConey's first draft of the PAC mission statement, and then 13 is her second draft. So, the performance evaluation reflects that she was unhappy with this first draft that Ms. DeConey put together. Can you explain to the Regents what's wrong with Exhibit 12?

[Speaker 1] (1:16:59 - 1:20:28)
Could I provide a little bit of background that leads to that? Sure. Yes.

So, the background is that, you know, again, in her second year, I expected for her to develop strategic direction for the foundation, and that would be aligned with the college's strategic plan and its long-term priorities. I also asked that to do this, that one of the helpful exercises is to develop your own program and department's mission and vision, right? So, the foundation board has a mission, but, you know, for her to develop her own, you know, and look at this with regard to the PAC.

So, the specific guidance I also gave, though, was to start with, you know, understanding that a mission statement is based upon three factors, right, or answers three questions. Who are we, what do we do, and how do we do it, right? And I said it often starts with in support of the college's mission, Department of the, you know, the office of the foundation exists to fill in the blank, right, and, you know, that it's not a long thing, and then to focus on the vision, again, which is based upon long-term priorities of the college and how they fit in.

Instead, what I was given is a, as you can see in Exhibit 12, an overview of just what the PAC Center actually is about, the number of seats that are there. There was a performing arts center mission below that, and so my concern there was it focused, I think, overly on the educational aspects of the PAC instead of me, you know, voicing that we needed to focus on being the cultural hub because the vision, you know, to being the cultural hub of the community, and that involved, again, more community involvement and performances, attending performances, and in addition to continue the educational mission and the partnerships that we had as well. So, but that was a something that I did not see reflected, and then there was a dual purpose, which I didn't think served anyone.

If you're just going to look at an overview of the mission and vision, and then there was the core values that were given, and the core values that were given do not align, you know, specifically with the college's mission, purpose, and core values because what she provided was just five quality service standards that the college has been engaged with to improve quality at the college, but she basically kind of copied that, and I don't think I didn't see the relevance of that to what I had asked her to do, and then at the end, she simply pasted the college's mission statement, its vision statement, and Lee College's core values.

[Speaker 3] (1:20:29 - 1:20:37)
Do you know why she included the Lee College mission statement and vision statement in her draft of the PAC vision and mission statement?

[Speaker 1] (1:20:37 - 1:21:16)
Based upon the direction and the guidance and the coaching that I gave her, no, and during, so in this process too, though, I literally, with her in the office, I got on AI, and I said, let's just punch a couple things in, and you know, five minutes later, we had, you know, a pretty decent mission statement that we agreed upon was reflective as an example, and as, again, a coaching measure to help her understand, again, my vision and the way we could best describe it for audiences.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:19 - 1:21:30)
So, you met with Ms. DeConey to discuss your issues with her first draft, right? So, you put her on notice of what the your concerns were.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:30 - 1:21:32)
I would not have requested a second draft.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:32 - 1:21:46)
All right, and so, if we flip to the next exhibit, which is exhibit 13, is this the second draft that she provided? Correct. Yes.

Okay, and so, what were your thoughts on the second draft?

[Speaker 1] (1:21:47 - 1:22:41)
So, you know, again, I wanted to reflect that it was in line with the college's mission, you know, a simple line saying in, you know, in support of the college's mission, the department exists to do all the things that I just said, describe what they do, how they do it, who they are, what they do, and how they do it. I provided feedback that the very beginning of the statement, as I had also provided earlier, is that it should, you know, it should prominently state that we, you know, are to be the cultural hub, but the mission statement is different than the than the vision, and in this document, there was no vision statement. So, this gave me two options for a mission, but did not provide a vision statement.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:42 - 1:22:49)
So, this second draft did not reflect the very specific feedback that you gave her in response to the first draft?

[Speaker 1] (1:22:50 - 1:22:51)
Yes, it did not.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:53 - 1:22:56)
Did y'all ever decide on a mission and vision statement for the PAC?

[Speaker 1] (1:22:56 - 1:22:57)
No.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:58 - 1:22:58)
There still isn't one?

[Speaker 10] (1:22:58 - 1:22:59)
No.

[Speaker 3] (1:23:03 - 1:24:39)
I want to go back, if you can, sorry to make you flip around so much, but if you go back to the administration's exhibit binder, back to exhibit five, the performance evaluation, okay, and if you go back to that page that has section two at the top relating to the Performing Arts Center, if we go down to the last paragraph, in a separate meeting, Sella acknowledged that she was not an expert in the operations and supervision of the PAC. She also stated she did not have the bandwidth to fulfill her duties overseeing the PAC.

I provided assistance and guidance from the Executive Director of Marketing and Public Affairs and directed Sella to reach out to him and establish a plan to support her. Despite the additional resources provided, Sella did not reach out to the ED for more than a month. When Sella reached out to the ED, she did the same thing.

She is not the expert, does not have the bandwidth, is not comfortable running the operations. She never asked him for specific support guidance or marketing suggestions. She has since shown no evidence of learning, growth, or understanding of PAC operations.

Her lack of initiative to gain even basic operational understanding demonstrates a serious gap in job knowledge and professional accountability. You can explain to the Regents a little bit more about this conversation you had with Ms. Taccone about the opportunities for support within the college if she was struggling with her duties relating to the PAC.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:39 - 1:25:33)
So, yes, you know, as part of my ongoing efforts to provide real-time coaching, feedback, set expectations, and provide support, I provided support in the form of Mr. Brian Waddell, who oversees marketing and public affairs, as well as community engagement. And he has background in some of the areas of the PAC operations, and so we thought it was a good pairing. And I directed Sella to reach out to Brian and to work with him as part of support.

She did not follow my directive to receive support from Brian Waddell, and that was very concerning to me, as it was a directive to receive support that she refused.

[Speaker 3] (1:25:33 - 1:25:36)
Recall when you had this conversation with Ms. Taccone?

[Speaker 1] (1:25:38 - 1:25:56)
This would, again, have been after the PAC director had left, and so maybe within a month to two months' time. Early fall? Yes, I would say that that's right.

[Speaker 3] (1:25:56 - 1:26:00)
And so how do you know that she never reached out to Brian Waddell?

[Speaker 1] (1:26:01 - 1:26:39)
Well, I know from Brian, who let me know that, you know, he was waiting, and he was available, and that they met once by phone after a month. But he did still provide feedback when asked around, for example, marketing materials from the PAC, and I asked him to review them independently and to take that off the back of Sella and her team there, and he provided significant feedback and, you know, to those programs and was there.

[Speaker 3] (1:26:42 - 1:27:09)
If you flip to Exhibit 18 in that same binder, 18, Administration 18, this appears to be an email from Mr. Waddell to you dated October 10, 2025. Can you please read the email to the Regents?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:10 - 1:27:22)
The email reads, Dr. V, I've had no contact from Sella regarding the PAC mission, vision, the way forward, nothing since you mentioned that she would be reaching out to meet about it, Brian.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:23 - 1:27:33)
Okay, so about how long after would you say you received this email as compared to when you first directed Ms. DeConey to reach out to Mr. Waddell?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:35 - 1:27:42)
It took her a month to actually phone him, so I think shortly before that.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:44 - 1:27:50)
Do you have an understanding of what the conversation was when she did make the telephone call to Mr. Waddell?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:51 - 1:28:26)
Yes, so as I indicated earlier, it was more of a conversation related to frustrations, expressing her lack of expertise and lack of knowledge about how to operate the PAC, lack of bandwidth, complaints, again, about not having adequate staffing, needing the director of the PAC, even though that decision had already clearly been made, and just expressions of discontent.

[Speaker 3] (1:28:26 - 1:28:38)
So she called him to complain about the PAC, but did she ever call him or meet with him to actually discuss the substance of what you directed her to discuss with Mr. Waddell?

[Speaker 1] (1:28:38 - 1:28:46)
Not to my awareness. To your knowledge, to this day, the conversations never happened? No, it has not.

[Speaker 3] (1:28:51 - 1:29:11)
Moving to the next page, well, the page after section two begins. The first full paragraph says, CELA's handling of the PAC director's procedure regarding engagement with artists also revealed major deficiencies in and ownership.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:12 - 1:29:14)
What number, I'm sorry, Stephanie?

[Speaker 3] (1:29:14 - 1:29:49)
Oh, sorry, so we're back on exhibit five. I may not have mentioned that. I'm sorry.

That's okay. Back to the performance evaluation in section two, but the second page of section two. CELA's handling of the PAC director's procedure regarding engagement with artists also revealed major deficiencies in judgment and ownership.

So rather than me read all of this, can you explain to the regents what the PAC procedure is and what the issues were?

[Speaker 1] (1:29:49 - 1:31:23)
So it was presented to me as a policy. It's not a policy. Only the board can set policy.

So it was a procedure regarding engagement with artists and development of contracts. The draft that she had sent to me that came, that was developed by Noah Dobbs, her director of the Performing Arts Center, it was sent to me, and it was very clear to me that it had not been reviewed prior to coming to me. And as an executive, I expect for anything to come to me to be near complete and maybe only requiring subtle changes, edits, et cetera, minor.

What came to me, though, was something that was not complete, was not in line with our other operating procedures. And I worked with our chief operations officer, who also was our former CFO, my chief of staff, and myself, and we spent several hours, because I'm not the subject matter expert on everything related to that particular procedure, but I know enough about our own board policy and our procedures to know that I had significant questions and enough about the operations to know.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:23 - 1:32:01)
So I'm going to stop you there before we move on, just so we can, again, provide the regents with context. If you flip in that same binder to Exhibit 14, there's an email, the subject, draft of new PAC policy, and if you look at the third page of the email, you can see that Mr. Dobbs sends it to Ms. DeConey July 1st at 1247 p.m. Do you see that?

[Speaker 1] (1:32:02 - 1:32:04)
So at the back, is that what you're talking about?

[Speaker 3] (1:32:04 - 1:32:09)
Yeah, the third page of the email, so the last page of the thread before the attachment starts.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:09 - 1:32:14)
Uh, yes, the email on July 1st, is that what you're referring to?

[Speaker 3] (1:32:14 - 1:32:27)
Yeah, so he's, Mr. Dobbs sends it to Ms. DeConey at 1247 p.m. She flips it to you and Leslie Gallagher a few hours later at 329 p.m. You see that?

[Speaker 1] (1:32:27 - 1:32:38)
Yep. Which indicated to me that there was very little opportunity for her to thoroughly review it before sending it on to me a few hours later.

[Speaker 3] (1:32:38 - 1:32:47)
Sure, she says, hello, this is the policy that NOAA has been working on to tighten up our guidelines for the PAC. Will you please review and let me know if you have any concerns?

[Speaker 1] (1:32:48 - 1:32:57)
I mean, was that your job or Leslie's job to review the policy in the first instance? Absolutely not. It was her responsibility to review it before it came to me for consideration.

[Speaker 3] (1:32:58 - 1:33:21)
If we look at the first two pages of the email, there appears to be substantive feedback that you're providing, Ms. DeConey. I guess, are these the the questions that you started talking about that you had a lot of questions? So, who did you review the policy with or the procedure with?

[Speaker 1] (1:33:21 - 1:33:29)
So, again, with my chief operations officer, former CFO, my chief of staff, and myself. How long did that take y'all?

[Speaker 3] (1:33:32 - 1:33:57)
Oh, probably 20 hours, honestly. And if you look towards the end of your feedback, it appears that, you know, you had questions, not really differences of opinion, but you had concerns that the procedure was not in compliance with college board policy, is that correct? Correct.

And that would be policy GD local?

[Speaker 1] (1:33:58 - 1:33:58)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (1:33:58 - 1:34:02)
I mean, is that a problem if a procedure doesn't comply with a board policy?

[Speaker 1] (1:34:02 - 1:34:03)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 3] (1:34:03 - 1:34:12)
And when you have an executive level employee sending you a proposed procedure, would you expect that they ensure that it is in compliance with board policy?

[Speaker 1] (1:34:13 - 1:34:13)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 3] (1:34:15 - 1:34:21)
So, what happened once you provided Ms. DeConey with this feedback?

[Speaker 1] (1:34:23 - 1:34:55)
I believe her response was, thank you for the feedback. And, again, there was no acceptance of, yes, I should have done it this way. I, you know, I take accountability for this.

When we did meet in person to discuss this, and I shared concerns about this, her response to me was that I should have sent it back to her. My response to her was, no, it should never have been sent to me without her review.

[Speaker 3] (1:34:57 - 1:35:08)
What then happened in terms of efforts to revise the procedure based on the feedback that you and your team put together?

[Speaker 1] (1:35:09 - 1:35:15)
Bella indicated that she would make the revisions, and nothing was presented. No follow-up.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:16 - 1:35:18)
So, this was in?

[Speaker 1] (1:35:19 - 1:35:22)
She was directed to do this, to change it.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:22 - 1:35:42)
So, you provide your feedback on July 7th, 2025? And to date, I have no changes to this. So, the procedure still hasn't been updated?

None. How did Ms. DeConey handle relaying this feedback to Mr. Dobbs?

[Speaker 1] (1:35:46 - 1:37:37)
Well, first, I will share with you what CELA said to me. CELA said, because, well, I started the discussion with, it's clear to me that you did not review this in advance, that it shouldn't have come to me, and then she said, well, you should have sent it back to me. I expressed that I should never have to take this kind of review on my own and actually complete her work, and in fact, this was the completion of work for the director, not even CELA.

So, I conveyed that there were, you know, numerous concerns that needed to be addressed, and that I had learned that the director of the Performing Arts Center, Noah Dobbs, had gone to, was resigning, and had accelerated his resignation agreement, citing that I attacked, in essence, his policy, and that was damaging to him, upsetting, and as a result of that, but it was me. And so, based upon that information, I came to the conclusion that CELA directly shared the feedback. What she shared to me is that she did not, and that she took, you know, that she summarized things, but it was very apparent to me that not only did she share it directly, but that she used my name and said, Dr. V's comments are here, and I made it very clear that she is not to misrepresent me or to, you know, in essence, throw me under the bus. She's to take responsibility for the products that come out of her office.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:42 - 1:37:58)
Move on. In the interest of time, we're going to look at number three, Event Management, Job Knowledge, Quality of Work, Initiative, Decision Making, Attitude, and Communication Skills. Five.

Oh, yes, back to five. I apologize.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:01 - 1:38:02)
So, where are you at?

[Speaker 3] (1:38:02 - 1:38:57)
Section three. This section outlines several issues with the Foundation Gala and some issues with a Lunch and Learn donor event. So, if we could just, can you summarize for the Regents what were the issues, the internal, behind-the-scenes issues leading up to the most recent Foundation Gala?

[Speaker 1] (1:38:58 - 1:39:43)
Sure. So, the first one was the program itself as articulated and operationalized by the run of show, and Selah and I had sat down together to discuss the overall program, and it was at that time that we both agreed when Selah presented the idea that we had kind of a two-set of podiums with kind of a back-and-forth between her and I on stage, and I was supportive of that, and that's what I expected in the run of show and the resulting program because that's what we agreed upon.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:45 - 1:39:49)
So, did you find out that that plan had changed?

[Speaker 1] (1:39:50 - 1:40:46)
I did. I found out that as I was reviewing the draft that I had, and I had serious concerns about that itself, that run of show, I asked my executive assistant, Vanessa, if we had received any updated run of show. She looked through everything.

We had not. She went to the department just down the hall and asked if there was an updated run of show, and Selah provided it to her the day before the gala, and when I reviewed that run of show, it essentially had very limited, my role was completely different than the first run of show that we discussed in the plan, and it limited my role to simply introducing the board of regents and other dignitaries that were present.

[Speaker 3] (1:40:47 - 1:40:49)
Why did you consider that to be a problem?

[Speaker 1] (1:40:50 - 1:41:28)
I considered it a problem for a couple of reasons. One, it was not in keeping with our agreed-upon strategy that we both agreed to, and I expected to have more of a role in being able to support the foundation gala, and it was a complete surprise without any approval communication whatsoever that she not only limited my involvement in the actual program but replaced me with her.

[Speaker 3] (1:41:32 - 1:41:39)
Were those changes communicated to you before you had your executive assistant go track down whether changes had been made?

[Speaker 1] (1:41:39 - 1:41:40)
No. I found out the day before.

[Speaker 3] (1:41:41 - 1:41:50)
Were you given an explanation as to why you were suddenly not playing a significant role in the program?

[Speaker 1] (1:41:52 - 1:42:20)
Her ultimate explanation was that I was not available to answer her questions about the gala run of show, and then so on her own volition she decided to change materially that run of show, but her excuse or her rationale was that I was not available to respond to her.

[Speaker 3] (1:42:20 - 1:42:25)
Had she made efforts to track you down either directly or through your chief of staff?

[Speaker 1] (1:42:26 - 1:43:16)
Sent an email once, but it's commonly known, especially among my direct reports, that if you can't get a hold of me, if something is a priority of yours, don't assume it's a priority of mine. It's your responsibility as an executive to make sure you make a priority aware to me. This office is literally just the next door down.

You can literally just walk down and either sit down on the couch there, demand to talk to Leslie or myself, and literally say, this is an urgent decision that needs to be made. I need her time right away. And whether you can access me, you can access Leslie in a timely manner, and we will get that information to you.

[Speaker 3] (1:43:17 - 1:43:31)
If you had already gone through and agreed to the general concept, what questions were left unanswered that would warrant just removing a good portion of your involvement?

[Speaker 1] (1:43:32 - 1:43:35)
So you're asking what questions for my perception?

[Speaker 3] (1:43:35 - 1:43:45)
I'm just wondering if y'all had met and discussed, this is how we're going to do it. We're going to have this back and forth. Y'all go through an initial run of show.

You come up with a concept. What?

[Speaker 1] (1:43:46 - 1:44:37)
I have no understanding whatsoever why my speaking roles were limited from there and replaced by Cella. There was no explanation given to me other than that I didn't make her a priority and that she didn't hear back from me. But there was no explanation given from a strategic standpoint or from a goal of the foundation or anything else as to why the run of show was changed dramatically or explaining to me why it was done without collaborating with me, my expressed consent and approval.

And it was not given to me. We had to go and get it ourselves.

[Speaker 3] (1:44:39 - 1:44:48)
Why is it important for you to be present and visible at the gala?

[Speaker 1] (1:44:50 - 1:46:31)
As the face of the college, it is very important that I demonstrate commitment to the foundation gala, to the foundation itself, and that I'm able to represent the college in that way. But also from a strategic standpoint, it provides me the opportunity to continue to relationships, especially those that are at my table, which is something that should be very strategic in terms of determining. Instead, what happened was my table, the day before the event, I was given I was sent a text by her director of donor relations, and it literally said, it said, Dr. V, you have, you know, who do you want to sit at your table?

This is the day before. And it said, you have six seats open. What was given to me was, what was assigned to me was my neighbor, a colleague, members of my executive team.

And instead, it should have focused on using that time with me at the table to focus and nurture relationships with either current donors, new, you know, prospective donors, industry partners, dignitaries, and everyone knows how much I love to sit and visit with the students.

[Speaker 3] (1:46:31 - 1:46:36)
So you felt that her table assignments were not strategic?

[Speaker 1] (1:46:37 - 1:46:53)
Not in any way, and not done in a timely manner. And, and again, she is the ultimate person who is responsible for ensuring that the results of things like that and everything else related to the gala are under her supervision, and she's accountable for that.

[Speaker 3] (1:46:54 - 1:47:00)
And did you let her know that you had issues with this important aspect?

[Speaker 1] (1:47:00 - 1:47:04)
I certainly did. After the gala, we immediately met on Monday after.

[Speaker 3] (1:47:05 - 1:47:09)
But did you even at the time push back on who was assigned to your table?

[Speaker 1] (1:47:10 - 1:47:59)
Yes. And when my chief of staff reached out to CELA and said, this needs to be changed, the response was, essentially, can't do it. This has already been in motion.

You know, we have other donors and other people who want to sit where they want to sit. But hey, here's a list of every table, and you can pick on your own. There were a couple of things that were suggestions from CELA, but they were not accepted.

So instead, I had to work directly with Leslie to come up with my own list together. And, and instead of working, we had to do that with Carrie Hurlburt, who ensured that that was done. Those changes were made.

[Speaker 3] (1:47:59 - 1:48:09)
Is there usually a group foundation photo or the foundation board? Was there a photo that was planned?

[Speaker 1] (1:48:09 - 1:49:01)
There was a photo that was planned for that same day earlier, prior to the gala. I was informed by a board member of mine that, well, I was asked if I was going to the photo, and my response was, what photo? And then he had an email, and he said, here's the email.

Doesn't look like your name is on there. So I was not included and asked to be a part of the photo, which, you know, when asked, she said her desire was to have a picture of the foundation board members. And she was reminded by another board that I, as president, was an ex officio member of the foundation board, and that I certainly should have been included as a foundation board member.

[Speaker 3] (1:49:01 - 1:49:06)
Again, why is it important for you to be visible with respect to the foundation?

[Speaker 1] (1:49:07 - 1:49:38)
It's very important because I'm the chief storyteller. I constantly carry the voices of our students with me. I am the person who conveys the needs of the college and the top priorities of the college, and my presence shows an important commitment to the foundation and is strategically designed to help increase the success of the foundation and the goals of the foundation itself.

[Speaker 3] (1:49:40 - 1:50:02)
If we look back at Exhibit 5, the performance evaluation, and go back to Section 3, it discusses these issues with the gala that you've already talked about. It then talks about similar performance concerns with respect to a Lunch and Learn donor event. Can you please tell us a little bit more about that?

[Speaker 1] (1:50:03 - 1:50:22)
I just also say that in having to address this entire run of show with the gala, that it involved my CFO, my chief of staff, and me together spending, again, numerous, numerous hours of our own to completely redo.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:23 - 1:50:25)
That's something you've had to do in the past?

[Speaker 1] (1:50:26 - 1:50:26)
Never.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:29 - 1:50:33)
So tell us a little bit more about the Lunch and Learn donor event.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:33 - 1:51:07)
So the Lunch and Learn donor event was a program that was designed to provide interested community members with information on estate giving, and our subject matter expert and main speaker there was Jennifer Marcantel, a member of the foundation board who has extensive experience in this, and so that was the purpose of it. How would you like me to proceed next, Stephanie?

[Speaker 3] (1:51:07 - 1:51:22)
Were there any issues, because the performance evaluation talks about performance concerns, so can you tell us a little bit about your issues with how Ms. DeConey handled this donor event?

[Speaker 1] (1:51:23 - 1:54:58)
Yes, so we actually talked about this, again, in advance, and, again, providing real-time coaching and feedback. It was clear to me that the entire program was put together without intentionality. So if the goal is to provide knowledge to individual community members on the specific way of donating to the college through an estate, then the goal would then be to increase giving from estate planning, and one of the things that I expressed very early on was that it would be important to identify a person who had already given of their estate or was a representative of a family who had given their estate to the college, so that they could provide a testimonial and, notably, their presence on the program that would go publicly out would demonstrate that we had someone there to speak about it and might provide more community members to participate, but that, so, and I directed her to do that, to find a donor who had provided part of their estate as part of the program, and it eventually was done, but it was not done in a way that I would expect for it to have been done and performed, and so when asked, because, again, there was, I had to micromanage things by that point, and so we directly reached out to her and asked, you know, do you have, do you have that donor identified, and we talked about the importance of having that established before you actually put that into a program, because why would you have a program out there that doesn't reflect the actual agenda and the actual speakers and the content, so, so, so first she said that she was waiting on RSVPs, and that was, to me, a very, that was a poor lack of judgment.

If you wait on RSVPs and you're using that as your pool to identify a donor who was given as part of their estate, you're not going to find that, because these are people who are interested in learning more about their estates instead of, you know, I've already done this, and so I'm just going to go ahead and attend, and there are very few individuals who fit that category of providing parts of their estate to the college, and so it was very important to establish who that might be and to do that early on, so, so she indicated that she was waiting on RSVPs, and then only two days before sending the draft invitation, still no donor had been identified, two days prior to sending out the draft invitation, so I've covered some of this, but, you know, again, what it also illustrates as an executive, and in my role, it's not my, it is not my role to provide that level of direct guidance and then to have to follow up repeatedly to determine where we are at.

[Speaker 3] (1:55:03 - 1:56:34)
In the interest, just to help move things along, because we are tight on time, I just want to direct the region's attention to Administration Exhibit 7 is the invitation for the Donor Lunch and Learn, and then Exhibits 24 and 25 are the feedback that Dr. V provided, and then the changes, you can see a red-lined version of the changes that needed to be made to the invitation. What was the second one, Stephanie, besides 24 and 25? 24 and 25, thank you.

And if you could turn to 24 briefly, I mean, in this email, you sort of lay out a lot of the feedback that you just discussed, but you also say the last bullet point, should you need my guidance or feedback, reach out to me and copy Leslie. If I'm unavailable, contact Leslie, who will ensure that I respond to you as soon as possible, and is that the first time you had ever told her, if you can't get in touch with me, reach out to Leslie? Multiple, multiple, multiple times.

Okay, and then you say, Leslie and I have spent our own time to rewrite a document that should be near final and only require minor edits from me if necessary. Is this the only time you had to completely redo Ms. DeConey's work product?

[Speaker 1] (1:56:35 - 1:56:42)
No, there were numerous times that I had to completely on my own for work products for her.

[Speaker 3] (1:56:43 - 1:56:50)
And in fact, if you turn to Administration Exhibit 44, want any background on this particular one with the right of the board?

[Speaker 1] (1:56:50 - 1:56:54)
No, we got it. Got to keep going. Got it.

So, what number?

[Speaker 3] (1:56:54 - 1:57:23)
Exhibit 44. It's an email. Feedback and expectations.

Harvest of Hope campaign materials. Do you see that? So, is this yet another example of a time that you gave Ms. DeConey very specific notice of performance issues and very specific feedback on what your expectations were?

[Speaker 1] (1:57:23 - 1:57:31)
I very clearly, you know, in saying moving forward, note the following expectations, but I and my chief of staff changed the entire program.

[Speaker 3] (1:57:32 - 1:58:05)
And in fact, if you look right under the bullet points, it says, once again, Leslie and I invested time rewriting materials that should have been submission ready. Going forward, please ensure all drafts meet an appropriate level of completion before submission and follow the review timelines outlined above. So, at this point, we've already looked at three separate exhibits where you tell Ms. DeConey that she needs to be sending you work product in near final form. And are these the only three times or are these just three examples of times?

[Speaker 1] (1:58:06 - 1:58:13)
Three examples of time when she was supposed to send me near final products or fail to deliver a directive in which I asked for a product.

[Speaker 3] (1:58:17 - 1:58:58)
If you go to the next exhibit, Administration Exhibit 45, we can see Ms. DeConey's response to your feedback. If you go to the second paragraph, sort of starting in the middle, it says, regarding your final bullet point, which we just looked at was the bullet point instructing her to reach out to you or Leslie. It says, regarding your final bullet point, I am not always aware when you are available and not, so it is difficult for me to figure out when to wait for your response and when to go to Leslie.

What did you make of that statement?

[Speaker 1] (1:58:58 - 1:59:30)
What I made of that is that this is not an individual who possesses the knowledge, skills, and abilities to exercise executive judgment and to understand that if something is a priority, it needs to get out there, it needs to get in front of me, and you should not wait, you know, to hear from me and instead, if something is a priority to you, it needs to be made a priority to me as we're all balancing numerous things.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:31 - 1:59:42)
I imagine as the president of a college that's rapidly growing, increasing its student enrollment, that you are fairly busy on a day-to-day basis.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:42 - 1:59:45)
I am fairly busy, yes.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:46 - 1:59:54)
And so, is it your expectation that your executive leadership or the high-level employees do what they need to do to get their jobs done?

[Speaker 1] (1:59:54 - 2:00:33)
One of my cardinal rules, and when I mentor others, especially those who are aspiring presidents, is that a president is not a vice president on steroids, and in this case, a president is not an associate vice president on steroids. My job is to set priorities, work with my team to execute a plan, and then assign a single-point accountability, determine how we work together, outline, you know, the entire process, including how we will measure effectiveness, and then to get out of their way and let them do their jobs by providing ample resources as well and being there for support.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:35 - 2:01:09)
We go back to Exhibit 5, the performance evaluation. We're going to try to wrap this up. Category 4 discusses some issues with reliability, accountability, and follow-through.

Number 5 is communication and professionalism. On that point, what was Ms. DeConey's response or her demeanor whenever you provided constructive feedback or coaching or anything of that nature?

[Speaker 1] (2:01:10 - 2:01:55)
Well, again, there was no accountability. You know, there was an expression of, I appreciate your feedback. Thank you for your feedback.

But there was also, again, no accountability. I should have done this. I should have done that.

In the future, I will do this differently, you know, et cetera. And then there was no corrective action taken. Even when directives were delivered.

And so, but to say that she's not a priority of mine is not sufficient, you know, to account for the expectations of the essential duties of her job to not be performed.

[Speaker 3] (2:01:56 - 2:02:38)
So in Section 5, the second page, it discusses that you had concerns with Ms. DeConey's truthfulness and trustworthiness. What pages or what number is that? Section 5 of the performance evaluation, the second page of that section, the second full paragraph.

You said you had concerns with Ms. DeConey's truthfulness and trustworthiness. You cite her handling of the negative feedback to the PAC Director as one example. Said she also misrepresented the actions of the Chief Financial Officer when telling me that he, quote, gave her the okay for a foundation brochure that I directed her to correct.

Can you tell the Regents a little bit about that situation?

[Speaker 1] (2:02:39 - 2:04:01)
Sure. So the Marketing and Public Relations Department, as part of our marketing cycle of producing materials, met with individual departments to discuss the priorities for their upcoming year and to offer support and guidance on ensuring that their departments were being adequately represented in marketing materials. And so that resulted in the meetings that Marketing and Communications had with Sella and her team were ones in which they described no priorities were provided to them.

And instead, the request of Marketing and Public Affairs, after multiple times being told, this is probably not, you know, let's focus on priorities. And instead, what they desired was just a general overview of the foundation that, you know, was, again, a poor product. And there, that was when Jacob was asked to apparently review it.

And I was told, as she walked into my office, that Jacob was good with it.

[Speaker 3] (2:04:02 - 2:04:03)
Was that true?

[Speaker 1] (2:04:03 - 2:04:09)
That is not true. I visited with Jacob directly to confirm that.

[Speaker 3] (2:04:13 - 2:05:05)
If we move forward now to Section 6, again, in the interest of time, we're going to have to get through this a little bit more quickly. But the first paragraph discusses some issues relating to enhancing the effectiveness of the foundation. And sort of midway through the paragraph, it says, Sella created a list of corporate partners and other entities to receive letters of support for a federal funding request.

This list was to be used as a basis for developing strategic corporate partnerships at my level. She was asked by my chief of staff to conduct research on the organization's philanthropy history and provide a prioritized list to recommend for my meetings. This was never provided.

Is that an accurate statement? Yes, it is. Okay.

So, this is another example of a directive that she disregarded? Correct. Okay.

Are your directives optional?

[Speaker 1] (2:05:06 - 2:05:06)
They are not.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:11 - 2:05:22)
This section goes on to criticize Ms. DeConey's level of community engagement. Can you just briefly explain to the regents? Briefly.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:23 - 2:06:45)
Yeah. Basically, it is an expectation for Sella and her role to be the face of the foundation, right? And the foundation meaning that she is very visible at community events.

It was clear from feedback that had been shared with me from others that she was not. And, in fact, when Lauren came along, it was expressed that it was her responsibility to be more out in the community. I very clearly, again, in coaching and in feedback, real-time feedback, said, no, it is your responsibility to be the face of the foundation.

And I shared with her, and she was present at a foundation board meeting when Lauren was providing an update on her outreach activities in this particular case with the Trinity Valley Exposition, in which she said that industry partners referred to her as Lee College, indicating to me that Sella was not being perceived as the face of the foundation. And I pointedly asked Sella if she thought that that was an issue, if she had a concern with that, that others might perceive that, and she said she did. And I directed her to engage in more events in the community.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:49 - 2:07:18)
Speaking of the foundation, if you could move next to Exhibit 32. I want to quickly go over this with you. Exhibit 32 relates to an exchange that you had with Ms. DeConey after you discovered that she had unilaterally eliminated your report from a foundation board meeting. Do you recall that?

[Speaker 1] (2:07:19 - 2:07:19)
Yes, I do.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:20 - 2:09:28)
Okay. And so, if we look at the, you explain that, you want an explanation why that happened, and then you go on to say, when I was unable to attend the foundation board meeting on August 13th, how often does the foundation board meet? Every other month.

Okay. So, August 13th would have been the last meeting before October? Correct.

Okay. So, basically, when I was unable to attend the last foundation meeting, my report was not only listed, but included Leslie as my designated representative. If you followed the directives you have been given to ensure I make decisions regarding my role as your supervisor and president, you should have asked me if I had a designee that was assigned to report on my behalf.

Do you see that? I do. And then you go, last paragraph, you again tell her, and I think you've mentioned this before, you shouldn't infer that a priority, you know, is for you, is for me, and it's your job to make it my priority.

I want you to compare your email to Ms. DeConey's response, which is in Exhibit 34. In her response on October 31st, I want to focus on the second paragraph. Vanessa let Norma know several weeks ago that you would not attend, so she knew for several weeks, correct?

Jacob, who's the CFO, correct? Jacob told me last week that he also could not participate in the meeting and that I was, quote, on my own, so I proceeded based on the information I had. It has not been your precedent to designate a proxy when you have not attended foundation board meetings in the past, thus I was not aware this was a priority for you.

Okay, compare that sentence, you have no precedent, to the sentence we just looked at in your email where you said, when I was unable to attend the board, the last board meeting, my report was listed and Leslie was there. Okay, so what do you make of the fact that in response to you telling her that very specific fact, her response is, well, you've never done that before, so I didn't know to ask.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:30 - 2:10:52)
So, again, what that leads me to and what I, what my conclusion was, this was not executive level leadership. So, when she explained that she was simply reflecting the order of the agenda, it didn't reflect the, what I, you know, what we knew was a sensitive nature of the foundation board and my desire, as I expressed to her on a number of occasions, to have a more visible presence with the foundation and to be more fully available to the foundation. And removing my name looks as if, can be perceived as if, I either chose to not attend and to not include myself, but that was not a decision that was to be made by CELA.

So, the. And, by the way, it's not to her to decide who my proxy might be. So, in talking to Jacob and presuming that he might be there as my proxy and when he was said, you're on your own, I'm not going to be there, that was not something that I had stated would be a proxy for me.

So, section seven deals with marketing and public affairs, which I believe we'll address with Mr. Waddell.

[Speaker 3] (2:10:52 - 2:11:54)
So, I want to go ahead and just switch gears a little bit and talk to you about the actual decision to recommend Ms. Taccone's mid-contract termination. Administration exhibit two, of course, contains DMAA local, which is the policy in which the board has defined for us what good cause to terminate means, correct? Yep.

Okay. And exhibit six is the notice of a termination that accompanied the written performance evaluation, correct? And so, this letter outlines the five specific grounds from DMAA local, correct?

Okay. And we won't repeat them because, you know, we heard them from board counsel at the beginning of the hearing, but can you explain to the regents why you believe mid-contract termination is necessary as opposed to some lesser discipline?

[Speaker 1] (2:11:56 - 2:12:54)
Sure. So, the decision, the recommendation for mid-contract termination was a result of my concern that this position was, and her performance, was simply becoming, you know, there's a difference between an employee who's just kind of coasting along and one who's actually creating damage. And the fact that I had to be not just overly involved, but actually performing work for her, and given my ongoing feedback, coaching, setting of expectations, outlining, you know, directives, et cetera, with no change in behavior, led me to the result, led me to the conclusion that this was not a relationship that was going to be in the best interest of the college.

[Speaker 3] (2:12:55 - 2:13:00)
Some might criticize the fact that you did not put Ms. DeConey on a performance improvement plan.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:00 - 2:13:01)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (2:13:01 - 2:13:03)
Okay. What's your response to that?

[Speaker 1] (2:13:03 - 2:14:00)
So, my response to that is a performance improvement plan is a tool that is predicated on the basis that an employee accepts accountability, is able to take direction and follow directives, and finally, to make corrective actions on the basis of what's provided, right? In this case, if you're not willing to acknowledge and take accountability, if you're not willing to follow directives, and if you're not willing to make corrective action, what purpose does a PIP serve? So, I used management decision making in determining whether or not a PIP was going to be productive or counterproductive.

And in this case, I had no trust and no evidence at this point that would indicate a PIP would be helpful to correct the deficiencies.

[Speaker 3] (2:14:00 - 2:14:13)
Do you believe that in all your years of experience supervising, do you think a PIP can be effective when the employee already has a documented pattern and history of not following directives?

[Speaker 1] (2:14:14 - 2:14:15)
So, I'm sorry. Say that again. Do I believe that?

[Speaker 3] (2:14:16 - 2:14:31)
Based on your years and experience supervising, do you believe that a PIP is effective? Because a PIP gives directives, like you must do this. You must improve these areas.

Do you believe that a PIP is effective when the employee has a history and a pattern of not following directives?

[Speaker 1] (2:14:32 - 2:14:48)
It can be if the employee accepts accountability and is willing to engage in corrective action. But if there's a preponderance of evidence suggesting that they are failing, then it may not be in the best interest of the college to engage in a PIP.

[Speaker 3] (2:14:51 - 2:15:01)
And so, was it your intention that you were going to discuss all these performance issues and your decision to recommend Ms. DeConey's termination at her performance evaluation meeting?

[Speaker 1] (2:15:01 - 2:15:01)
It was.

[Speaker 3] (2:15:02 - 2:15:04)
Okay. And did that evaluation meeting ever occur?

[Speaker 1] (2:15:04 - 2:15:05)
It did not.

[Speaker 3] (2:15:05 - 2:15:07)
Okay. And is that because she went out on leave?

[Speaker 1] (2:15:07 - 2:15:09)
It was because she went out on leave.

[Speaker 3] (2:15:09 - 2:15:14)
At the time she went out on leave, was she aware that you were trying to schedule her performance evaluation?

[Speaker 1] (2:15:14 - 2:15:32)
Yes. As late as Saturday night, we had reached out to Selah to talk about, to respond to a message and to talk about the fact that we would, that I would be visiting with her at our upcoming evaluation the next week on Friday.

[Speaker 3] (2:15:34 - 2:16:02)
And that wasn't the first time that she had been told that she was having an upcoming performance evaluation, correct? Because I believe when she responded to one of your emails with your feedback, it was actually Exhibit 34, she said, you know, she responds and you said, I acknowledge receipt of your email. We will discuss further at your upcoming performance appraisal evaluation on Friday.

So, that was the email you're discussing. Yep. I can't find it.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:02 - 2:16:05)
Which every employee is expected to review their emails.

[Speaker 3] (2:16:06 - 2:16:15)
So, just to dispense any concern, did you decide to terminate Ms. DeConey after she requested protected leave?

[Speaker 1] (2:16:16 - 2:16:16)
Absolutely not.

[Speaker 3] (2:16:16 - 2:16:22)
That decision was made and you were simply trying to schedule a time to communicate that to her?

[Speaker 1] (2:16:22 - 2:16:39)
The documented information that we have goes to, is listed on October 10th, I believe. And that outlines the determination to proceed and recommend mid-contract termination.

[Speaker 3] (2:16:42 - 2:16:44)
I have no further questions at this time.

[Speaker 5] (2:16:46 - 2:16:52)
Thank you, Ms. Hamm. I think this would probably be a good time to take a break. Do you concur, Regent?

Yes.

[Speaker 7] (2:16:52 - 2:16:58)
We will take about a seven minute health break. Please allow the Regents to access the facilities first. All right.

[Speaker 5] (2:16:59 - 2:17:31)
Please stay seated until all Regents have exited the stage. I would also like to remind the audience of the parameters of the rule. We're obviously operating under the honor code this evening.

So, please, if you happen to interact with a witness in the lobby or outside, you do not discuss with them what testimony you have heard, nor should there be any text dialogue going back and forth and so forth. Thank you for your cooperation. We will return in seven minutes.

[Speaker 7] (2:17:32 - 2:17:41)
Folks, we're going to reconvene this hearing. Please take your spots, let them know to close the door, whatever we need to do.

[Speaker 5] (2:17:52 - 2:17:55)
Carmen, if you'll let council know where she stands time-wise.

[Speaker 9] (2:18:00 - 2:18:07)
So, the total at this time on the part of the administration is 108 minutes.

[Speaker 5] (2:18:12 - 2:18:13)
Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (2:18:14 - 2:18:22)
Out of 150? Yes. Two and a half hours.

So, 42 minutes. 42 minutes short of two and a half hours.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:25 - 2:18:30)
Armstrong, are you ready to begin with Cross? I am ready. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:18:31 - 2:18:48)
Oh, yeah. If we could just address one matter before, housekeeping matter before we move on. Given the time constraints, and then I prepared a three-hour presentation that may not fit in two and a half, we are going to release Leslie Gallagher as one of our witnesses.

[Speaker 5] (2:18:48 - 2:18:59)
Okay. Ms. Armstrong, do you intend to ask Ms. Gallagher any questions? Not today.

Tomorrow. I mean, tomorrow, I guess. In other words, I'd like to release her from the rule so that she's not.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:59 - 2:19:03)
No, I don't want her released from the rule. I think we've designated her.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:03 - 2:19:05)
Oh, you have designated. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (2:19:05 - 2:19:06)
Okay. All right. Sorry.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:06 - 2:19:10)
I'm not sure she is on their exhibit list. I mean, witness list.

[Speaker 2] (2:19:10 - 2:19:36)
I've identified all of your designated witnesses as also fine. Okay. I'll begin with your cross-examination then.

First, I apologize for my voice. Allergies are just terrible these days. I'm hoping you can all hear me all right.

Actually, we're in the evening. Good evening, Dr. Villanueva.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:37 - 2:19:37)
Good evening to you.

[Speaker 2] (2:19:38 - 2:19:39)
Still holding up?

[Speaker 1] (2:19:39 - 2:19:41)
I'm doing just great. Thank you for asking.

[Speaker 2] (2:19:42 - 2:19:44)
Do you mind if I call you Dr. V as well?

[Speaker 1] (2:19:44 - 2:19:46)
A lot of people call me.

[Speaker 2] (2:19:46 - 2:19:59)
Thank you. A lot of syllables to get in. Are you aware of Ms. DeConey's credentials for fundraising?

[Speaker 1] (2:20:00 - 2:20:00)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:01 - 2:20:03)
And what are those credentials if you know?

[Speaker 1] (2:20:04 - 2:20:19)
The CRFE. She has a master's background as well, but the CRFE is a significant one as it relates to foundation. That's the certification for fundraising.

Ms. Armstrong, we're having a little bit of difficulty hearing you. Are you?

[Speaker 2] (2:20:19 - 2:20:20)
I was worried about that.

[Speaker 5] (2:20:20 - 2:20:22)
Microphone closer or down?

[Speaker 2] (2:20:23 - 2:20:27)
I'll aim it at me. A little closer. I apologize.

[Speaker 5] (2:20:27 - 2:20:32)
It just needs to be closer to you if it's movable. Yes, it is.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:32 - 2:20:50)
I can. I think I'll just talk more clearly. So, Dr. V, you had just said that Selah DeConey had the certification as a fundraiser, correct?

[Speaker 10] (2:20:51 - 2:20:51)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:54 - 2:21:23)
Now, I would like to set the context leading up to the delivery of the final evaluation to Ms. DeConey. And let's start with the fact that you received notice from Ms. DeConey that she had been suffering from a serious medical condition leading up to her November 3rd notice to you of that fact.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:24 - 2:21:47)
Is that correct? I'm not aware of a notification of a serious health issue. Hang on.

She had expressed that she was anxious about her dissertation, and we talked about some female issues. Let's look at DeConey number three.

[Speaker 2] (2:21:47 - 2:22:00)
I think somehow in the black binder, let me look and see if I have that.

[Speaker 8] (2:22:11 - 2:22:12)
Wait a minute.

[Speaker 10] (2:22:13 - 2:22:15)
Hold up my long.

[Speaker 8] (2:22:26 - 2:22:41)
There we go. Now I have it.

[Speaker 2] (2:22:47 - 2:23:37)
Do you recall receiving this email on the morning of November 3rd? You are copied on the email? Remember that?

Yes, I do. Okay. Go to Ms. DeConey's email, which is below that, and it says, Dr. Villanueva, I am writing to inform you that my doctor recommended that I take medical leave. I anticipate needing medical leave starting Monday, November 3rd, which is the day that she's writing this, through Friday, December 5th, 2025. I will provide the necessary medical documentation to HR, and I am available today to talk about coverage plans for my responsibilities during my absence. Does that remind you of receiving this?

[Speaker 1] (2:23:37 - 2:23:39)
Absolutely, I do. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:23:43 - 2:23:51)
It tells you that Ms. DeConey had been advised by her doctors to immediately go on a leave of absence, and she requested FMLA time off, correct?

[Speaker 1] (2:23:52 - 2:24:01)
Correct, but I believe you asked me whether or not she had let me know about serious medical conditions prior to, and that is not, that's what I said, no.

[Speaker 2] (2:24:01 - 2:24:19)
Oh, I think, yeah. I can understand why you might have misunderstood my question. My question was that you had received notice from her that she had been suffering from a serious medical condition leading up to this notification, and this notification talks about having to take time off that day.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:20 - 2:24:53)
So, nowhere did I see anything that she was required to address serious medical issues, just that she was advised and needed, that her doctor recommended that she take medical leave. Family medical leave is referenced in this document, yes? Yes, so she asked, well, that she recommended take medical leave.

She indicated the dates at this point, and we immediately put her in touch with HR to provide, you know, to move forward with accepting and supporting her during this time.

[Speaker 2] (2:24:53 - 2:25:04)
And as a manager, you understand that the family medical leave requires that a serious medical condition exists before that leave can be approved as a family medical leave.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:05 - 2:25:23)
So, I'm not aware of all of the different details that are required, but I know in working with my, the expertise of my HR team, that they would have ensured, and in working with legal as well, that we were operating under the appropriate criteria.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:23 - 2:25:31)
And you understood that she was taking leave for more than a month as of 8 a.m. on November 3rd?

[Speaker 1] (2:25:32 - 2:25:34)
That would be a month, correct.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:36 - 2:26:22)
Let's look at Taconi Exhibit 4 now. Now, this has been a pre, this is a pre-admitted exhibit referring to or representing text messages between your chief of staff, Leslie Gallagher, and my client beginning the afternoon of November 3rd. Do you see that?

And they show that on the same day you received notice of Ms. Taconi being out sick for a serious medical condition, for which HR had issued FMLA rights, your office tried to force a same-day evaluation at 4.45 p.m. that afternoon. Accurate?

[Speaker 1] (2:26:23 - 2:26:58)
What's not accurate is I was not made aware that she was experiencing a serious medical condition. Taking a medical leave for a month, approximately, you would not consider serious? It's not for me to say serious.

I would have to know the surrounding details, and nothing was given to me, so I was not aware that she was dealing with a serious medical condition. As I said, in previous conversations, we discussed, you know, concerns around anxiety. She was working with her dissertation, as well as some female things that we both shared in common.

[Speaker 2] (2:26:59 - 2:27:07)
Okay, but so you did understand that she was experiencing some stress from performing or preparing a dissertation for her doctorate, correct?

[Speaker 1] (2:27:07 - 2:27:19)
I knew that she was. That's what I just said. I knew that she was preparing for her dissertation, and that did cause a lot of distress, but we also provided, you know, many opportunities for her to work on that dissertation away from work.

[Speaker 2] (2:27:20 - 2:28:23)
Okay, so this text message from your Chief of Staff, Leslie Gallagher, says, Hi, Sally, because you are no longer available to meet on Friday, Dr. V will meet with you virtually at 445 today to discuss your performance evaluation. I am sending you a WebEx link for 445 p.m., and that was sent to her just a little over one hour prior to that time, correct? Correct.

And she responds, Hi, Leslie, I'm not available at 445 today as I'm out sick. I'm not well. I requested medical leave this morning at 8 a.m. The email is recommended by my doctor due to my health. Additionally, I had no meeting invitation for a performance evaluation meeting this Friday. Typically, with something as important as an evaluation, the employee would have had a calendar invitation with the date, time, and meeting location well in advance. You never sent out a meeting invitation to Ms. Taccone, did you?

[Speaker 1] (2:28:23 - 2:28:34)
We wrote in an email and said that we would be meeting next Friday. That is also notification. And when did you send that email?

The week prior.

[Speaker 2] (2:28:34 - 2:28:43)
I believe we saw an email notifying Ms. Taccone on a Saturday evening.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:44 - 2:29:01)
That was also, I believe that's where we were referencing. So it's approximately a week before. Okay.

Correct. On a Saturday. On a Saturday evening.

And again, as an executive, you are to be available at all times, essentially.

[Speaker 2] (2:29:02 - 2:29:08)
What if you're too ill to be available or to even read your emails on the weekend?

[Speaker 1] (2:29:10 - 2:29:33)
Was I aware then, though, of the family medical leave act that was being taken? If that's the case, so what I'm also going to point out here, though, is that she herself said that she would be available to talk about transition or anything else. Yes.

On the day of the FMLA.

[Speaker 2] (2:29:33 - 2:29:38)
Not to go through a full evaluation, though.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:39 - 2:29:45)
That's different. On the advice of legal counsel, we decided to proceed with that action. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:29:47 - 2:29:58)
But still, nothing was put on Ms. Taccone's calendar prior to her notification of being on leave.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:58 - 2:30:04)
It was not on her calendar. Correct. And that was, you know, an error.

[Speaker 8] (2:30:08 - 2:30:13)
Let's look at exhibit number five.

[Speaker 2] (2:30:18 - 2:30:25)
Are you aware that the college had approved her leave after receiving the information from her physicians?

[Speaker 1] (2:30:25 - 2:30:26)
I was aware.

[Speaker 2] (2:30:27 - 2:30:30)
Have you seen this document before, which is the authorization?

[Speaker 1] (2:30:31 - 2:30:31)
No.

[Speaker 2] (2:30:34 - 2:30:40)
Were you kept informed of the progress of FMLA application and approvals by HR?

[Speaker 1] (2:30:40 - 2:30:40)
I was.

[Speaker 2] (2:30:40 - 2:30:47)
So you were aware that her request for leave was extended on the advice of her physician?

[Speaker 8] (2:30:56 - 2:31:05)
Let's look at exhibit six, Taccone number six. Did you see this letter from her physician?

[Speaker 1] (2:31:11 - 2:31:16)
I don't know for sure if I did, but I was aware that it was approved for another month. I was informed of that.

[Speaker 2] (2:31:17 - 2:31:47)
And this letter, for the record, reflects that her leave was extended through January 2nd of 2026. And I was made aware of that. And the doctor says, and I quote, at this time, she is not medically cleared to return to work.

An extension of her leave is medically necessary to allow for appropriate management of her condition and to prevent exacerbation of symptoms. Did I read that correctly?

[Speaker 1] (2:31:48 - 2:31:49)
That's correct.

[Speaker 2] (2:31:49 - 2:31:54)
And that was sent on December 17th of 2025. Correct.

[Speaker 1] (2:31:54 - 2:32:41)
Yeah, which makes perfect sense if it was being extended. Did you ever contact Ms. Taccone to see how she was doing? No, I did not.

Why not? I didn't think it was, you know, something that I, I was not going to engage with Cella while we were in the middle of this and was not, just did not feel given the issues, but primarily to respect her privacy. You said in the middle of this, what is in the middle of what?

In the middle of her family medical leave act. And it's the same thing I communicated to outside groups that we respect her privacy during the time that she was on leave.

[Speaker 2] (2:32:42 - 2:33:28)
You supervise Ms. Taccone and you authored the November 7th, 2025 evaluation recommending termination, correct? That's correct. And on November 10th, your letter told Ms. Taccone you would recommend termination effective December 31st, correct?

Let's look at exhibit, uh, administrative exhibit number five. That's going to be in your white notebook. White notebook.

White notebook. Okay. Now this evaluation date in November.

[Speaker 5] (2:33:29 - 2:33:33)
It's also in your notebook under tab eight. Is that correct?

[Speaker 2] (2:33:33 - 2:33:36)
Yeah, it's also number eight.

[Speaker 5] (2:33:36 - 2:33:43)
If you want to keep the same binder in front of them, it's just easier. Back and forth. It's in the black binder, tab eight, regents.

[Speaker 2] (2:33:44 - 2:34:15)
You can either look at the black or the white. The black is, uh, eight. You haven't?

Okay. The evaluation dated November 7th, 2025, exhibit five, bears your name as the evaluator. Is that correct?

The evaluation wasn't an opportunity to improve though, was it? The decision had been made. Fair?

Correct. Let's look at administration exhibit 47.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:22 - 2:34:23)
White, I guess the white one.

[Speaker 2] (2:34:46 - 2:34:58)
And I'll represent for the record that this is an email between you, Dr. V, Ms. Gallagher, uh, Ms. Summers.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:01 - 2:35:02)
Director of Human Resources.

[Speaker 2] (2:35:03 - 2:35:09)
Correct. And it's, uh, from Leslie Gallagher to Stephanie Hamm. Is that right?

[Speaker 1] (2:35:09 - 2:35:09)
Correct.

[Speaker 2] (2:35:10 - 2:35:35)
And she writes to Ms. Hamm, who is your counsel today, sitting at council table. It says Dr. V's decision to non-renew is based on, on non-satisfactory performance in her role as chief advancement officer and executive director foundation. Did I read that correctly?

[Speaker 10] (2:35:35 - 2:35:36)
Correct.

[Speaker 2] (2:35:36 - 2:36:12)
Okay. Now, as of September 10th, 2025, at this point, you are only seeking a non-renewal. Is that right?

That non-renewal intent, as of September 10th, 2025, was never communicated to Mista County, was it?

[Speaker 1] (2:36:13 - 2:36:30)
We were not able to meet as we described for the performance appraisal meeting. And why was that? Because she was on family medical leave act.

At September 10th? No, no, no. So, no, the decision to, no, that was not conveyed to her then.

[Speaker 2] (2:36:30 - 2:36:43)
That was my question. Yes. The decision to non-renew had not been conveyed to her.

That was my question. Thank you. And it wasn't, was it?

It was not conveyed.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:43 - 2:36:44)
It was not conveyed to her.

[Speaker 2] (2:36:44 - 2:37:05)
I'm sorry, we're talking over each other and I want to make sure the record's clear. I'll do my best not to do that to you as well. There are no documents referencing a decision to non-renew other than this email.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:05 - 2:37:12)
Is that right? There were conversations that were had with HR and there is documented email, as you said.

[Speaker 2] (2:37:13 - 2:37:20)
Did HR offer to meet with Mista County to correct whatever issues you might be having with her?

[Speaker 1] (2:37:22 - 2:37:40)
HR offered to support. We provide, what we did is we provided the number of concerns that we had, the issues that we were experiencing. And we immediately began consulting with our attorney as well to understand what was the best course of action to take at that time.

[Speaker 2] (2:37:41 - 2:37:48)
But HR was not brought in to visit with Mista County to give her advance notice that her job was in jeopardy.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:50 - 2:37:53)
But it's not a requirement to do so?

[Speaker 2] (2:37:54 - 2:39:07)
The policy, if we look at this policy and let's look at it again, which is I believe administration exhibit number two, you'll look to the dates numbered page admin 14. And the proposal to non-renew or to terminate was, which is where you were leading, is that there must be notice to the employee of the deficiency with a reasonable opportunity to address the deficiency. Absolutely.

At what point would you have involved HR to give Mista County that opportunity to know what her issues were and guidance on how to correct that?

[Speaker 1] (2:39:08 - 2:39:21)
So, it was my responsibility to ensure that that information was the direction, the expectations, and I was still continuing to collect evidence over time.

[Speaker 8] (2:39:26 - 2:39:30)
47. Let's look back at 47.

[Speaker 2] (2:39:40 - 2:40:23)
If you go to page admin 222, that is an email from your chief of staff, Leslie Gallagher, is it not, to you conveying the first draft of Mista County's evaluation? Isn't that correct? That's correct.

And she says, Dr. V, see first draft. This is really just your working notes typed into AI for the narrative. I haven't closely reviewed yet, but wanted to get you something for further direction.

Is that, did I read that correctly?

[Speaker 1] (2:40:23 - 2:40:24)
That's correct.

[Speaker 8] (2:40:28 - 2:40:29)
That's what she wrote to you.

[Speaker 2] (2:40:30 - 2:40:38)
And your outside counsel was looped into this process, correct? I see her in the CC, Stephanie Hamm.

[Speaker 1] (2:40:38 - 2:40:38)
Yep.

[Speaker 2] (2:40:41 - 2:40:55)
And at this point, again, Mista County has not been visited with or by HR to address the overall overarching concerns that you had regarding her performance, had she?

[Speaker 1] (2:40:56 - 2:41:13)
HR wasn't, but I was certainly involved in conveying all of that for months. Verbally. Not just verbally, by email.

So we had written documentation. We met face to face. There were plenty of communications.

[Speaker 2] (2:41:14 - 2:41:24)
There is no written documentation of a formal counseling to give Mista County advance notice that her job was in jeopardy, was there?

[Speaker 1] (2:41:24 - 2:41:39)
If I'm saying, you know, in a series of feedback that I'm lacking confidence and trust, then I think that's a pretty good indicator.

[Speaker 2] (2:41:41 - 2:41:55)
And you had been advised that she was suffering from a medical condition during this period, during at least three months prior to this. You could have thought or considered, or as Mista County, could you not?

[Speaker 1] (2:41:55 - 2:42:00)
Are you saying that three months prior to FMLA, I was aware that she had a medical condition?

[Speaker 2] (2:42:00 - 2:42:17)
No, you were aware prior to giving her this evaluation that perhaps her medical condition might have been weighing on her work performance. That would be a reasonable assumption or conclusion to draw from the fact that she's having to take leave for an entire month.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:18 - 2:42:36)
Is that not reasonable? It's, that's not for me to decide. You know, an alternative explanation could be that it was just a response to not wanting to participate in the performance appraisal.

But, you know, I can't assess why, you know, that occurred.

[Speaker 2] (2:42:36 - 2:42:57)
You have to acknowledge that that was a possibility though, couldn't you? There's a lot of possibilities. Would you not want to know that before taking the drastic measures that we introduced here in my opening that would have marked her career and her reputation for the rest of her working life?

[Speaker 1] (2:42:59 - 2:43:30)
Of course, because I value our employees. I care about their individual contributions and their well-being. And I believe in growth from within the college.

And I certainly, in this case, again, through months and months and months of coaching, ongoing feedback, and institutional support, and, you know, very clearly outlining directives, the performance did not improve.

[Speaker 2] (2:43:32 - 2:43:56)
You gave Ms. Taccone a performance evaluation on December 14th, I believe, mid-December of 2024. Do you recall that? I do.

Look at exhibit number one of Ms. Taccone's documents. You're in the white book now. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:44:05 - 2:44:06)
EMAA under one.

[Speaker 8] (2:44:08 - 2:44:11)
Of the white book?

[Speaker 1] (2:44:13 - 2:44:14)
We need the black book now.

[Speaker 8] (2:44:16 - 2:44:26)
Black book? I think this is Ms. Taccone's exhibit. Yep, I can view it.

[Speaker 1] (2:44:27 - 2:44:29)
You can view it? I can.

[Speaker 2] (2:44:29 - 2:46:08)
And as of December, I believe it's mid-December 2024, your supervisor comments state, CELA has consistently excelled in the area of customer relations throughout fiscal year 23, maintaining a positive and professional demeanor in all interactions, both with internal and external stakeholders. Her ability to connect with students, faculty, staff, donors, and community partners has greatly contributed to strengthening the relationships that are vital to the success of the League College Foundation. CELA actively listens to others, paying close attention to their needs, and takes thoughtful steps to address those needs by soliciting feedback and observing their preferences.

Her proactive approach ensures that no detail is overlooked and that all parties feel valued and heard. She continually strives to enhance the service experience going above and beyond, excuse me, to ensure that each interaction is meaningful and productive, whether through donor engagement, student outreach, or collaboration with colleagues. CELA's professionalism and commitment to build strong, lasting relationships have been instrumental in fostering a supportive and thriving community around the foundation.

Her efforts have helped create a welcoming and responsive atmosphere that reflects positively on both the foundation and the college. I am grateful for her dedication to the exceptional customer relations and look forward to seeing her continued success in this area in the year ahead. You wrote that, did you?

[Speaker 1] (2:46:08 - 2:46:08)
I did.

[Speaker 2] (2:46:13 - 2:47:51)
And in the next section regarding decision-making, you say, and this is on the next page, Taconi 4, CELA has demonstrated exceptional decision-making skills throughout fiscal year 23, consistently analyzing challenges with strategic mindset and determining the most effective solutions. She approaches each situation with a logical, well-reasoned process that ensures decisions are aligned with the college's mission and the foundation's goals. CELA's ability to take decisive action, even in high-pressure situations, has been invaluable.

Whether navigating complex fundraising challenges or responding to evolving community needs, she remains calm and focused, quickly developing solutions that drive success. She anticipates potential roadblocks and proactively addresses them, ensuring that progress is never hindered. CELA's thoughtful approach to decision-making also extends to her leadership of the foundation where she makes informed decisions that balance the needs of donors, staff, and students.

Her ability to evaluate situations and take timely action has been a significant asset to the college, resulting in successful initiatives and positive outcomes. CELA's resilience under pressure, coupled with her clear, logical decision-making process, continues to inspire confidence and trust among colleagues and stakeholders. I am continually impressed with her ability to navigate complex scenarios while delivering impactful results, and I look forward to her continued success in this area.

[Speaker 1] (2:47:51 - 2:47:51)
Correct.

[Speaker 2] (2:47:51 - 2:47:52)
I read that correctly?

[Speaker 1] (2:47:53 - 2:47:53)
Correct.

[Speaker 2] (2:47:53 - 2:47:54)
And you wrote that?

[Speaker 1] (2:47:54 - 2:47:54)
Correct.

[Speaker 2] (2:47:57 - 2:49:26)
The next section is interpersonal relations and communication skills. On that next page, you write, CELA excels in interpersonal relations and communication, establishing strong professional relationships with both internal and external stakeholders. She is approachable and cooperative, always willing to collaborate with supervisors, co-workers, and community partners to achieve common goals.

CELA consistently fosters a positive team environment by encouraging open communication and the sharing of ideas, ensuring that all team members feel heard and valued. Her sensitivity to diverse backgrounds and her ability to navigate varied perspectives have contributed greatly to the inclusion and welcoming atmosphere within the Lee College Foundation. CELA's verbal communication skills are outstanding.

She articulates ideas clearly and persuasively, making her an effective spokesperson for the Foundation at events and meetings. Her written communication is equally strong, demonstrating clarity, accuracy, and organization. CELA consistently tailors her messages to suit the audience, ensuring that her communications are effective and impactful.

Throughout fiscal year 23, she has exemplified the highest standards of professionalism, making her an invaluable asset to the team and the college as a whole. Did I read that correctly?

[Speaker 1] (2:49:26 - 2:49:26)
You did.

[Speaker 2] (2:49:26 - 2:49:28)
And you wrote that, didn't you?

[Speaker 1] (2:49:28 - 2:49:28)
I did.

[Speaker 2] (2:49:31 - 2:52:02)
As for attendance, well, you know, another exceptional review. I won't exhaust everyone by reading that as well, but it does reference handling time off requests and scheduling adjustments with transparency, always following proper protocol for requesting time off or notifying the appropriate parties when she is unable to attend due to illness or other personal matters. Her adherence to these procedures reflects her commitment to the team and her understanding of the importance of maintaining a smooth and efficient work environment.

All right. And again, you commend her for being an asset, a positive asset to the Foundation. With regard to adaptability, that is just an equally glowing report on Ms. Taccone, isn't it?

That's on page six. She says, you say, CELA has consistently demonstrated exceptional adaptability through fiscal year 23. She navigates changes in the work environment with ease, whether it's adjusting to new procedures, evolving responsibilities or shifting priorities.

Her ability to remain flexible and responsive in the face of challenges has been critical to her success as Chief Advancement Officer and Executive Director of the Lee College Foundation. CELA adapts her approach to meet the dynamic needs of the Foundation, adjusting priorities to ensure that projects are completed efficiently and with high impact, whether responding to changes in donor expectations, adapting to new fundraising strategies or proving or pivoting in response to shifts in the College's needs, she does so with professionalism and grace. CELA's ability to manage multiple assignments simultaneously while maintaining focus on the Foundation's overarching goals speaks to her strategic mindset and excellent time management skills.

Her proactive approach to change, paired with her calm and composed demeanor has enabled her to lead effectively through periods of transition. CELA's adaptability has helped drive the success of the Foundation and has made her an invaluable asset to the College. I look forward to her continued growth and ability to meet new challenges in the coming year.

I read that correctly, didn't I?

[Speaker 1] (2:52:03 - 2:52:04)
Correct, and I did write it.

[Speaker 2] (2:52:04 - 2:52:44)
Yes. And her attitude and initiative, equally glowing. And I commend all to read this section of this 2024 performance review.

You also commend her for her leadership on page seven, addressing leadership and coaching. As for staff development, again, you give a glowing report, don't you?

[Speaker 1] (2:52:45 - 2:52:46)
It was positive.

[Speaker 2] (2:52:46 - 2:52:49)
Yes, you use the term outstanding.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:51 - 2:52:52)
Valuable suggestions.

[Speaker 2] (2:52:52 - 2:53:07)
Yes, she makes valuable suggestions for staff growth and has been key maximizing capabilities of her staff. Correct?

[Speaker 1] (2:53:08 - 2:53:08)
Correct.

[Speaker 2] (2:53:09 - 2:54:03)
She takes a thoughtful and individualized approach to training and development, ensuring that each team member has the tools and guidance needed to succeed. I read that right? You did.

Okay. She demonstrates fairness and impartiality when assigning responsibilities, consistently ensuring that job duties are distributed equitably and in alignment with each person's strengths and growth areas. Her objective approach to appraising work performance fosters a culture of accountability and continuous improvement within the team.

Selah's commitment to developing her staff has not only strengthened the foundation's operations, but also contributed to a more engaged and motivated team. I greatly appreciate her focus on building a strong, skilled workforce and look forward to the continued positive impact she will have on the professional growth of her team. Did I read that right?

[Speaker 1] (2:54:03 - 2:54:03)
You did.

[Speaker 2] (2:54:04 - 2:55:35)
Okay. You go on to commend her about budget knowledge, fiscal management, and say that Selah has demonstrated exceptional skill and fairness in managing Lee College Foundation's budget during fiscal year 23. She prepares and administers the budget effectively, ensuring that all expenditures align with the foundation's goals while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

She gives keen attention to detail, has strong organizational abilities, has been crucial in balancing budget expenditures and making sure that the foundation operates within financial parameters. She consistently identifies opportunities for cost-saving measures, successfully implementing procedures to control expenses without compromising quality. You commend her ability to prioritize financial resources strategically and note that she has contributed to the foundation's continued success and sustainability.

She takes a proactive approach. You greatly value her dedication to maintaining fiscal health. You use the term exemplary.

And again, you look forward to working with her. Is all that what you wrote?

[Speaker 1] (2:55:36 - 2:55:37)
It is.

[Speaker 2] (2:55:37 - 2:55:46)
You thought very highly of her in as late as December 2024, correct?

[Speaker 1] (2:55:46 - 2:55:46)
Correct.

[Speaker 2] (2:55:50 - 2:55:57)
You commented that she's had an outstanding year as chief advancement officer and executive director of the foundation, correct?

[Speaker 1] (2:55:58 - 2:55:59)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:55:59 - 2:56:13)
After all this from December, from the end of 2024, she sounds like one of the most valuable employees that you have ever had working for you. Is that a fair assessment?

[Speaker 1] (2:56:14 - 2:56:16)
It's a positive evaluation.

[Speaker 2] (2:56:17 - 2:56:22)
I can't imagine how you could make that even more positive than what you've written.

[Speaker 1] (2:56:23 - 2:57:22)
What is the difference is that when you compare this performance evaluation and the newest one that recommends mid-contract termination is to keep in mind that these are two different moments in time. They reflect two different periods of time. They reflect differing expectations.

And as I had outlined before, the expectations of her role in year two had greatly been expanded. And as a result, when I saw that the performance deficiencies arose, that's when I had more evidence. I had more data that was difficult for me.

And that is a determination. It's my responsibility to accurately represent that performance. And so the change reflects a different time and a different set of measures and expectations.

But again, performance changes as well.

[Speaker 2] (2:57:23 - 2:57:42)
And those performance changes come with itemized instances of maybe, I don't know, five to 10 instances where she disappointed your expectations in specific isolated instances. Isn't that true?

[Speaker 1] (2:57:44 - 2:57:56)
I'm not going to say five to 10 because I haven't verified that myself. But there were multiple pieces of information in which I conveyed expectations and provided feedback.

[Speaker 2] (2:57:57 - 2:58:04)
Ms. Staccone's position would very nearly qualify as almost a C-suite executive.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:05 - 2:58:10)
Would you agree? Well, she had the title of Chief Advancement Officer. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:58:11 - 2:58:29)
And most organizations that have found such a valuable employee will go to extraordinary lengths to assist them and support them in recovering whatever lost abilities that you may have perceived.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:30 - 2:58:47)
Do you understand that? I do understand that. And those investments were made.

Unfortunately, the bottom line is she did not possess the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other traits and attitudes or dispositions to fulfill the essential responsibilities of her job.

[Speaker 2] (2:58:47 - 2:58:50)
Identify those additional responsibilities.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:50 - 2:59:05)
So what I'm talking about as other attributes are trust and just attitude with accepting accountability, et cetera. Those are the kinds of non-tangible outside of knowledge, skills, and abilities. And those KSOs.

[Speaker 2] (2:59:05 - 2:59:29)
And you are saying that with respect to each one of those instances, you sat down with Ms. Staccone for the express purpose of addressing not only your concern over one aspect of what she had done or not done, but you sat down with her and said, I have serious concerns about how you are performing overall.

[Speaker 1] (2:59:29 - 2:59:45)
Absolutely. And that's what you said to her? I absolutely did.

Would you be surprised if she disagrees with you? I'm not surprised by anything at this point. I don't know what's going to occur.

All right.

[Speaker 2] (2:59:46 - 3:00:10)
We'll be going through those items that you referenced. Let's go back to the exhibit five in the black book, which is that performance evaluation. I'm not going to go into it in any great detail, so you don't need to.

[Speaker 5] (3:00:12 - 3:00:14)
Is it eight in the black book, Regents?

[Speaker 2] (3:00:14 - 3:00:23)
I think it's five in the black book, isn't it? Oh, no, it's eight. I get mixed up.

Which one am I? I'm the black boy, the black hat.

[Speaker 4] (3:00:23 - 3:00:23)
Oh, dear.

[Speaker 2] (3:00:24 - 3:00:37)
Okay. So it's eight. Okay.

Now you minimally edited that AI generated narrative before sending the November 7th evaluation. True?

[Speaker 1] (3:00:37 - 3:00:38)
Sorry, what?

[Speaker 2] (3:00:38 - 3:00:46)
You minimally edited that AI generated document that Ms. Gallagher presented you with.

[Speaker 1] (3:00:47 - 3:00:54)
No, that's not true. And the entire information was based upon extensive notes of mine.

[Speaker 2] (3:00:55 - 3:00:57)
Okay. So you changed.

[Speaker 1] (3:00:57 - 3:01:04)
So it was my words and I used AI to help me clean things up. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (3:01:05 - 3:01:11)
And now you're telling us that you significantly revised those notes that show up in the initial draft.

[Speaker 1] (3:01:12 - 3:01:23)
Is that true? What I'm saying is the basis of even the first draft was my notes carefully reviewed with all of the documentation that I had.

[Speaker 2] (3:01:23 - 3:01:33)
So apart from cosmetic changes, what changes did you make? The AI generated version and your final version that Ms. Taccone was...

[Speaker 1] (3:01:33 - 3:01:39)
I collected more evidence and had more and was able to review it and so made changes from there. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (3:01:39 - 3:01:48)
And you were collecting evidence to support your decision to escalate from a non-renewal?

[Speaker 1] (3:01:48 - 3:01:56)
No, I already had the evidence. I was gathering it so that I could put it in a comprehensive overview and the performance appraisal.

[Speaker 2] (3:01:58 - 3:02:25)
Between September 10th, when you were wanting a non-renewal of her contract and this date, November 7th, less than, well, less than two months for sure, less than two months later, what caused you to move from a non-renewal of contract to the termination, to the midterm for cause termination?

[Speaker 1] (3:02:26 - 3:03:10)
For me, the straw that broke the camel's back were the outcomes related to the gala. And you believe those outcomes were poor? In terms of the behind the scenes, aspects of what needed to be done, all of the changes that needed to be made and omitting me from parts of the program.

And then, yeah, so yes, I believe that those were significant concerns. And again, this is not an isolated event. This is a recurrence and a pattern of not performing and engaging in her ability to perform her essential duties.

[Speaker 2] (3:03:10 - 3:05:02)
Now, let's look at Taconi 19. And I'm gonna guide you to the exact page because this is a large exhibit addressing all gala issues. And if you'll turn to page Taconi 113, actually turn, well, let's see, turn to 113.

Because this is, this thread begins from Ms. Taconi on that page halfway down. And it says, dear foundation members, board members, excuse me. Hello, I am eager to share some of the successes of our recent 38th annual gala.

And she compliments the board on their participation. And she congratulates her own team of people who attention to detail and commitment were unmatched. And she describes that gala.

It's last Friday night. We hosted over 430 people committed to the mission of Lee College Foundation, serving the students and staff of Lee College. I continue to be humbled and grateful for your support and the ongoing love shown to the foundation by our surrounding communities.

The energy in the ballroom was palpable. People connected, danced, enjoyed the food and drink and made generous donations. Do you take contest with any of that description?

[Speaker 1] (3:05:03 - 3:05:31)
No, it was a great foundation. When it occurred live, we received great feedback. I was very grateful for the efforts of all parties to put that together.

But again, behind the scenes, it took incredible effort on my office and the other two other executives to completely fix the run of show, which is then again, a public facing document that becomes the actual program.

[Speaker 2] (3:05:31 - 3:05:39)
How are you certain that it was your contributions that resulted in the better outcome?

[Speaker 1] (3:05:40 - 3:05:47)
I didn't say that my contributions led to this outcome. I never said that.

[Speaker 2] (3:05:47 - 3:05:56)
You said that had it not been for your fixing problems that you've accused my client of creating, this could have been a disaster.

[Speaker 1] (3:05:57 - 3:05:58)
It could have been.

[Speaker 2] (3:05:59 - 3:06:01)
So you are taking credit?

[Speaker 1] (3:06:01 - 3:07:23)
No, I'm not. I'm not taking credit. Like I said, there was many positive aspects to the event.

These numbers are what they are. But if you want to get into these numbers, I can comment on that as well. So for example, it's not appropriate to compare gross numbers, especially as they relate from 2023, which when you think about it is just past COVID.

So those COVID years don't really, shouldn't be considered. The other is that when we look at the effectiveness of a foundation gala or anything else that's for fundraising, it's important to look at the expenses. If you go back to when I was here, when I was not here in 2019, the net revenue was actually higher than the latest revenue that was provided to me by the foundation office.

So I collected information there and I also examined to look at what was the efficiency. So if it takes you, for example, 33% more time or money to raise say a dollar, then that's not the best measure of efficient. That is a measure of efficiency that also reflects on the success of the gala.

And it also demonstrates whether or not we are in compliance with steward standards.

[Speaker 2] (3:07:23 - 3:07:58)
Okay. And so you've said that it was unfair or not accurate or inaccurate for Ms. DeConey to compare the last three years, that would be 23, 24 and 25 to because it was just following COVID. Let me finish.

And COVID-19, the coronavirus 19 had pretty much been under control by the end of 2021, early 2022 at the latest. Isn't that right? And she does not include any period, anything during that period.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:59 - 3:08:27)
So what the largest issue here is that it doesn't accurately reflect the percent. I mean, to say 24.5% growth is gross. It doesn't include actual investments, right?

That needed to be made expenses that had to be paid. And that detracts from the amount the foundation is able to then deliver to students or lowers that.

[Speaker 2] (3:08:28 - 3:08:35)
But she does reflect the gala net income as being $190,538. Is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:08:35 - 3:08:48)
The net that she reported there. And it is again, the latest numbers that I have from the foundation office, the latest number is 185, I believe, which is lower than the net of 2019.

[Speaker 2] (3:08:53 - 3:08:57)
You haven't provided that documentation.

[Speaker 1] (3:08:57 - 3:08:58)
I have the documentation.

[Speaker 2] (3:08:59 - 3:09:40)
Okay. I might ask you for that one. I call you in my case and shoot.

Thank you. Okay. Okay, let's compare 47 and five.

There's no introductory statement heading in the AI draft pages produced, but the final begins with a new introductory statement.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:40 - 3:09:47)
Is that correct? It does. I thought it was appropriate to have the introductory statement as a background and context.

[Speaker 2] (3:09:47 - 3:09:54)
And that is where you introduced the specter of a four cause. Is that correct? Good cause.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:54 - 3:09:57)
What is the, you said exhibit five, which is.

[Speaker 2] (3:09:58 - 3:10:06)
Exhibit 47 is the AI draft and exhibit five. I'm sorry. It's eight.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:06 - 3:10:07)
That's eight.

[Speaker 2] (3:10:07 - 3:10:09)
Let's stay in the same book. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:10 - 3:10:12)
And then you said the other to look at was.

[Speaker 2] (3:10:13 - 3:10:13)
47.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:14 - 3:10:23)
47. That's in the other book then. 47 and I thought.

[Speaker 2] (3:10:24 - 3:10:31)
Yeah, it's exhibit five in the black book is the final version, not eight.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:32 - 3:10:42)
It's no, it's exhibit eight in the black folder. Yes, that's in the folder for the white one. It is exhibit five, I believe.

[Speaker 2] (3:10:42 - 3:10:44)
I'm sorry. And that's right.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:44 - 3:10:49)
So if we're sticking in the white folder and you want me to look at exhibit 47 and compare it.

[Speaker 2] (3:10:49 - 3:11:33)
I'll make a note of that. I'm there. Administrative exhibit in my white book.

Sorry. That's my confusion. So I'll refer to it as exhibit eight from this point forward.

Just to keep us all from shuffling notebooks. I apologize. Although it may be easier to have two books side by side to compare.

All right. Okay. In the draft section one, that's exhibit 47.

Customer relations. The final retitle section one to interpersonal skills. And you changed that category label, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:11:34 - 3:11:37)
What what tab are you on? And are you looking at the performance evaluation?

[Speaker 2] (3:11:38 - 3:11:41)
Looking in the draft. And yes, in exhibit 47.

[Speaker 1] (3:11:43 - 3:11:57)
I I'm not seeing a draft of performance evaluation. That's not worth it. This was email that was going.

[Speaker 5] (3:11:58 - 3:12:02)
It's page two, two, three. Bottom right hand corner. Two, two, three, two, three.

[Speaker 1] (3:12:04 - 3:12:08)
Okay. Thank you. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (3:12:09 - 3:12:23)
So in the draft section, one is a titled customer relations and the final retitle section one to interpersonal skills. So with regard to that change, you just changed the the title, the category label, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:12:27 - 3:12:38)
That appears to be yes. I mean, the goal was to have a polished product. And you know that that means you know, looking at a draft and building upon that.

So yes, it's a reflection of that.

[Speaker 2] (3:12:39 - 3:12:53)
But you raved about Ms. Taccone's interpersonal skills just the prior year in 2024. How could someone's interpersonal skills deteriorate deteriorate to such a degree?

[Speaker 1] (3:12:53 - 3:13:02)
Again, they cover two different periods. They have two different sets of expectations and performance notably changed.

[Speaker 2] (3:13:04 - 3:13:11)
Did you not consider the possibility that something drastic was going on in Ms. Taccone's life that might have been assisted by coaching?

[Speaker 1] (3:13:13 - 3:13:23)
I provided that coaching. I was there for individualized support. I provided timely feedback.

I set expectations. I was there.

[Speaker 2] (3:13:24 - 3:13:28)
And you're saying that you did not see any improvement. Is that right?

[Speaker 1] (3:13:29 - 3:13:32)
As in the record, no, I did not see any improvement.

[Speaker 2] (3:13:34 - 3:13:50)
Could it have been that it was your coaching and her ability to connect with you that was not meshing? And perhaps you should have invited HR to come in and have an attempt at improving or addressing whatever your concerns were.

[Speaker 1] (3:13:53 - 3:14:08)
I did not think that was necessary at the time. Sela didn't express to me that she needed, you know, she wasn't receiving the special, I guess the specialized kind of support that you're asking for. So I guess I'm not clear.

[Speaker 2] (3:14:09 - 3:14:31)
We'll get there. We'll get there. So you held this woman's career in your hands and because she was not responding to how you were coaching her, you were willing to go from non-renewal all the way to let's terminate the contract right now without giving her a written performance evaluation first.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:32 - 3:14:40)
I disagree. She held her performance and reputation in her hands. She owns that.

[Speaker 2] (3:14:43 - 3:15:07)
In the draft section three, you open with quote, poor planning, lack of attention, inadequate communication. And in the final section three, it begins Sela is unable to competently fulfill and uses insubordination. That's new severity language added after the AI draft.

Is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:15:09 - 3:15:18)
You're referring to admin 225. Is that what you're saying? Is that where you're at?

And you are where?

[Speaker 2] (3:15:18 - 3:16:07)
Well, in section three, the draft section three in exhibit 47 compared to eight. Right. Which paragraph are you referring to?

I'm preferring to see foundation performance, job knowledge, quality of work, initiative, decision making, attitude and communication skills. Yes, ma'am. Which paragraph under that?

Well, poor planning. Where is that? You wrote this.

I would imagine you would know where you had that.

[Speaker 1] (3:16:11 - 3:16:20)
In the very first paragraph, it says Sela's performance in managing foundation activities continues to demonstrate poor planning, lack of attention to detail and inadequate communication.

[Speaker 2] (3:16:22 - 3:16:34)
Okay. And in the final, which is exhibit eight, you changed all of that, combine it to being just unable to competently fulfill her duties. Is that right?

[Speaker 1] (3:16:35 - 3:16:37)
That's correct. And that's what it boiled down to.

[Speaker 2] (3:16:38 - 3:16:47)
There's no standalone marketing and public affairs section in the AI draft, but the final adds a brand new section seven.

[Speaker 1] (3:16:47 - 3:17:02)
I want to be clear that it's not an AI draft. Okay. That's the tool that is used.

It was not produced to create or invent materials that it was based upon my notes.

[Speaker 2] (3:17:02 - 3:17:31)
That's fair. That's fair. Because what you put in is what you're going to get out though in some form, right?

Because you added that new section that addresses the marketing and public affairs issues. And I believe that is what involved Mr. Waddell. Is that correct?

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:17:32 - 3:17:37)
But it also involved marketing materials related to Mr. Waddell's supervision. Right.

[Speaker 2] (3:17:43 - 3:17:56)
Okay. You did not provide Ms. Deconi any written notice with a date certain to cure these newly framed headings and added allegations before October 24th. Did you?

[Speaker 1] (3:17:58 - 3:18:04)
Let me make sure I understand your question. You're saying prior to October 24th, I did not what?

[Speaker 2] (3:18:05 - 3:18:09)
You never addressed any of these other issues with her with regard to marketing.

[Speaker 1] (3:18:10 - 3:18:12)
I did on multiple occasions.

[Speaker 2] (3:18:13 - 3:18:21)
As they occurred and as they occurred to you, you would shoot her an email. Is that what you're talking about?

[Speaker 1] (3:18:21 - 3:18:43)
And publicly visit and provided tangible support directing her to work with Brian as support. And she did not adhere to that directive for support. But the addition of that was again building upon a first draft and improving it and including areas that were relevant.

[Speaker 2] (3:18:53 - 3:19:09)
Can you point to me the first written notice that you provided to Ms. Deconi that said you are deficient in X and you have until Y date to fix it or face discipline.

[Speaker 1] (3:19:11 - 3:19:15)
The very first date in which I pointed out a deficiency.

[Speaker 2] (3:19:15 - 3:19:23)
And said you've got only this much time to correct this deficiency that I'm noting. Or you can face disciplinary action.

[Speaker 1] (3:19:24 - 3:19:45)
So that's kind of the language we would use in a PIP. And so that is not what I did. I did clearly outline expectations and I clearly outlined that she was to complete those things.

And even without a deadline, though, I would point out that she did not complete any of the directives that I outlined for her.

[Speaker 2] (3:19:46 - 3:19:50)
And again, remind us, why did you not engage a PIP?

[Speaker 1] (3:19:51 - 3:20:55)
So again, a PIP is a performance tool that can be used for management when three conditions are met. The first is when an employee takes accountability for their actions. The second is when they adhere to directions and directives.

And the third is their willingness to engage in corrective action. None of her behaviors in all of the experiences that I had with her and the ongoing coaching, on-time feedback and expectations, and the directives I gave to her indicated that a PIP would be useful. And it's important that a leader determine whether or not a PIP would be productive or counterproductive.

In this case, when she's not taking accountability for any of the things that have occurred, she is not completing the directives at all, and she's not taking actions to truly correct them, a PIP would not have been useful.

[Speaker 2] (3:20:55 - 3:21:12)
Isn't a PIP designed to give counseling and structure to the issues that the employee is having, to raise that issue to a level of priority that demands attention and gives the employee an opportunity to save their job?

[Speaker 1] (3:21:12 - 3:21:14)
It is under those conditions.

[Speaker 2] (3:21:16 - 3:21:27)
But you didn't think that Ms. DeConnie would be able to address a specific category of issues that you had with her under a PIP?

[Speaker 1] (3:21:27 - 3:21:55)
Again, she took no responsibility and said, I did this wrong. I should have done this differently. You're right.

I accept full responsibility. There was no accountability. There were several directives that were given.

None of them were complied with. And she demonstrated no actions to correct the behavior because she didn't take accountability for them. So what would a PIP have served at this point?

[Speaker 2] (3:21:55 - 3:22:10)
Well, PIP aside, did you ever give her a written timeline that said two weeks, 30 days, whatever, to cure these problems that I've been having with you over the last month?

[Speaker 1] (3:22:10 - 3:22:13)
Not a written timeline in that way, no.

[Speaker 2] (3:22:13 - 3:22:24)
Did you ever tell her that verbally? You've only got so much time because I'm losing patience. You really have to up your game.

Did you ever say anything like that even casually to Ms. DeConnie?

[Speaker 1] (3:22:24 - 3:22:34)
So what I did is we reached out over and over and over again. And yes, there was at least a couple of times that I recall where we set a deadline.

[Speaker 2] (3:22:38 - 3:22:50)
Let's look at- And it was not followed. Let's look at DeConnie Exhibit 7. That's going to be in your white book.

Black book. I'm regardless. Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

[Speaker 8] (3:22:57 - 3:23:00)
That's going to be the November 10th termination letter.

[Speaker 2] (3:23:12 - 3:23:34)
Now, in this letter that you've identified and talked about earlier, this is the letter where you announce your decision to seek her midterm termination. Is that right? And it states that the decision to pursue termination was made and documented on or before October 24th, 2025.

[Speaker 1] (3:23:35 - 3:23:36)
That is correct.

[Speaker 2] (3:23:38 - 3:23:40)
What was the documentation?

[Speaker 1] (3:23:41 - 3:23:44)
The documentation is everything that you see in the record.

[Speaker 2] (3:23:45 - 3:23:46)
Emails, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:23:47 - 3:23:54)
Not just emails, face-to-face meetings that we had. There were a number of opportunities in which we discussed.

[Speaker 2] (3:23:55 - 3:23:57)
Face-to-face meetings are not reflected in this record.

[Speaker 1] (3:23:58 - 3:23:59)
But they did occur.

[Speaker 2] (3:24:02 - 3:24:15)
Now, this October 24th was just a little over a week before the November 3rd FMLA rights communication was received, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:24:16 - 3:24:20)
You're saying that the performance appraisal immediately preceded her?

[Speaker 2] (3:24:21 - 3:24:37)
No, I'm saying that your documented decision to terminate on October 24th. Was about a week or a week to 10 days prior to your notice of a serious medical condition.

[Speaker 1] (3:24:37 - 3:24:41)
It was actually drafted. The first draft was October 10th.

[Speaker 2] (3:24:46 - 3:24:59)
Had you placed any invitation to appear for an evaluation on Ms. DeConey's calendar at this point? I mean, when you got that first draft completed?

[Speaker 1] (3:25:00 - 3:25:07)
I wouldn't have said that because I wouldn't do that until we were ready to discuss it and it was a complete product.

[Speaker 2] (3:25:08 - 3:25:13)
Aren't performance evaluations supposed to be completed in July of every year?

[Speaker 1] (3:25:14 - 3:25:14)
This was not.

[Speaker 2] (3:25:16 - 3:25:24)
Is it your custom to delay finishing your direct report performance evaluations?

[Speaker 1] (3:25:24 - 3:25:54)
My custom is to follow the philosophy of performance management versus performance appraisal. Performance appraisal is a one-time event that's done annually. But I subscribe to performance management, which is ongoing reciprocal meetings and communications in which we discuss what's going well, what's not going well, support that's needed, etc.

And it's based upon relational and not transactional exchanges.

[Speaker 2] (3:25:55 - 3:26:09)
In Exhibit 47, we see the plan to non-renew in September. But within weeks, it became a midterm termination, escalating the sanction shortly after HR recognized her medical leave rights. Is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:26:12 - 3:26:12)
Can you repeat that?

[Speaker 2] (3:26:14 - 3:26:52)
In Exhibit 47, we see your plan to non-renew, not midterm terminate in September. But within weeks, it became a midterm termination, escalating the sanction shortly after HR recognized the medical leave rights. You changed to termination within days following notification that she was out on a serious medical condition, FMLA leave.

[Speaker 1] (3:26:53 - 3:27:17)
I guess I'm confused because, again, in October 10th, it was outlined then that there was the intention to pursue mid-contract termination. And where is that? I don't know what exhibit that is.

47. 47 in our book, the white book. Okay.

47. 47.

[Speaker 2] (3:27:17 - 3:27:43)
That's the one we've been looking at. Okay. I see it.

I see it. It's in the draft. Okay.

So within, okay. But from Ms. Taccone's point of view, that came after her medical leave had started, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:27:47 - 3:27:51)
No, because her medical leave was, we were notified at the beginning of November.

[Speaker 8] (3:27:58 - 3:27:58)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (3:27:58 - 3:28:07)
Let's look at these issues that were raised with your attorney, beginning with the advisory committee. What was that committee again?

[Speaker 1] (3:28:08 - 3:28:14)
These are advisory committees generally for instruction workforce programs, correct?

[Speaker 2] (3:28:14 - 3:28:20)
Okay. And which was the one that you were discussing at length with your attorney, Ms. Hamm?

[Speaker 1] (3:28:20 - 3:28:23)
There were multiple advisory committees.

[Speaker 2] (3:28:24 - 3:28:30)
Ms. Taccone never asked to attend any of the meetings of these advisory committees, did she?

[Speaker 1] (3:28:30 - 3:28:42)
Not to me. To anyone? I'm not aware of her asking, but I am aware of the complaints that were made for her participation and or someone that was a proxy for her.

[Speaker 2] (3:28:42 - 3:28:44)
How many complaints did you receive?

[Speaker 1] (3:28:45 - 3:29:16)
I received a primary complaint from our workforce lead, Fran Parent. I received a complaint from Dr. Janina Norris as the person who oversees instruction. I received a complaint from Dr. Marissa Moreno for interest in outside interference related to her duties as it related to transfer and other areas. But I also received the same complaints from my provost.

[Speaker 2] (3:29:17 - 3:29:22)
Okay. So what are those outside activities that she was trying to get involved in?

[Speaker 1] (3:29:23 - 3:30:00)
So as I described earlier, when Stephanie was talking with me, the advisory councils are there to serve as a mechanism for the college instructional staff to meet with the first line hiring supervisors to provide feedback on the college's curriculum, its student learning outcomes, the performance of students on those student learning outcomes. They review all of that. They provide suggestions.

They review our equipment and our capacity to be able to provide the best talent pipeline. And we rely on them for that feedback.

[Speaker 2] (3:30:01 - 3:30:04)
And those are all outward facing, inter-community?

[Speaker 1] (3:30:04 - 3:30:14)
They're not outward facing. They're internal to the community and we invite industry members to be a part of that group. So it's both.

[Speaker 2] (3:30:14 - 3:30:17)
So it is. There is industry participation.

[Speaker 1] (3:30:18 - 3:30:19)
Correct. The first line supervisor.

[Speaker 2] (3:30:21 - 3:30:29)
And Ms. DeCone as a foundation fundraiser would want to build relationships with those industry reps, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:30:30 - 3:30:38)
That is not the appropriate forum to do that. That serves a very specific purpose for instructional areas.

[Speaker 2] (3:30:38 - 3:30:42)
She has the certification in fundraising though. Not you. Isn't that right?

[Speaker 1] (3:30:43 - 3:30:44)
She has the what?

[Speaker 2] (3:30:44 - 3:30:48)
The certification. The advanced certification for fundraising.

[Speaker 1] (3:30:48 - 3:31:02)
I do not need to be an expert in fundraising to know enough about the workforce advisory councils and to know when it's appropriate to be involved with industry partners in that kind of meeting.

[Speaker 2] (3:31:02 - 3:31:07)
So describe for me the meeting that you had with Ms. DeCone to address this specific issue.

[Speaker 1] (3:31:07 - 3:31:18)
Oh, it was very clear in saying that this feedback was given to me and for her to describe to me why it was important for her and or her proxy to be present at those meetings.

[Speaker 2] (3:31:18 - 3:31:21)
And when did this meeting, this one meeting take place?

[Speaker 1] (3:31:22 - 3:31:26)
It was on more than one occasion, but I don't remember the exact date.

[Speaker 2] (3:31:26 - 3:31:34)
And the meeting was specifically to address this overarching issue of her involvement with advisory committees.

[Speaker 1] (3:31:35 - 3:31:48)
Not just advisory committees, but also going directly to industry partners without informing our workforce lead who has established industry relationships and has priorities that they are acting upon.

[Speaker 2] (3:31:48 - 3:31:58)
Is it not possible that those two purposes coincided? That those industry representatives would have been a potential donor?

[Speaker 1] (3:31:59 - 3:32:43)
It is not because we need to be guided by our college's priorities. And when it comes to seeking donors, we have to be very clear about their giving history. We have to be very clear about what their interests are in supporting the college and their needs and how we can support them.

And we need to be lockstep on any communications we have outside of we're building relationships, letting them know about the college. And before we go for asks, we need to make sure that they're either not redundant or that they're not commensurate with the giving potential that we could have.

[Speaker 2] (3:32:43 - 3:32:48)
Isn't that the decision-making responsibility for your executive director?

[Speaker 1] (3:32:48 - 3:33:05)
It is the responsibility of me to ensure that I have the overall daily operations, which includes when to make strategic decisions about who to pursue with industrial partners. And that starts with communication with me at the top as well.

[Speaker 2] (3:33:05 - 3:33:12)
Did you schedule regular meetings, like weekly meetings or monthly meetings to sit down with Ms. Taccone and go over those priorities?

[Speaker 1] (3:33:13 - 3:33:19)
We talked about priorities. For example, one was in the second year to- Please answer my question.

[Speaker 2] (3:33:19 - 3:33:43)
I'm asking you, did you have a regularly scheduled meeting with Ms. Taccone to go over those priorities? If you're wanting to be in lockstep on what the college is doing and the fundraising efforts, do you have a regular meeting where you ensure that you're all aligned and in lockstep, as you say?

[Speaker 1] (3:33:43 - 3:33:51)
We were and still are developing a comprehensive workforce strategy for our partners.

[Speaker 2] (3:33:52 - 3:34:03)
Objection, non-responsive. I'm asking you, was there a regular meeting date to meet with her on a monthly or weekly? And what was that date?

Was it the first Monday of the month?

[Speaker 1] (3:34:03 - 3:34:09)
It wasn't always on the same schedule or the same cadence as, you know, our schedules were not always the same.

[Speaker 2] (3:34:10 - 3:34:12)
Okay. And so who set those meetings?

[Speaker 1] (3:34:12 - 3:34:13)
My office.

[Speaker 2] (3:34:14 - 3:34:16)
Okay. At your insistence?

[Speaker 1] (3:34:16 - 3:34:30)
At our reciprocal desire, yes. But yes, it's important for me to meet with my direct reports. At approximately what intervals did you meet?

We tried to meet at least once a month. If not more, if it was necessary.

[Speaker 2] (3:34:31 - 3:34:52)
And there are calendar invitations that will reflect that. Is that your testimony? Do you have any written communications from these industry representatives that were so unhappy with Ms. Taccone's interactions with them?

[Speaker 1] (3:34:55 - 3:34:57)
No, I don't have any written communications from them.

[Speaker 2] (3:34:58 - 3:35:00)
And how did you hear about these again? From which?

[Speaker 1] (3:35:00 - 3:35:22)
From our workforce development lead, Fran Parent. From Dr. Janina Norris, who's our vice president of instruction and academic affairs, who oversees that. From Dr. Marissa Moreno, who oversees a different part of the college that relates to transfer and workforce strategies now. And also from our provost, Dr. Walcers.

[Speaker 2] (3:35:23 - 3:35:25)
All right, well, let's talk about Dr. Norris quickly.

[Speaker 1] (3:35:25 - 3:35:25)
Sure.

[Speaker 2] (3:35:28 - 3:35:33)
You described an escalating tension between the two of these women, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:35:34 - 3:35:34)
Correct.

[Speaker 2] (3:35:34 - 3:35:47)
And what did you do specifically to counsel Ms. Taccone on how to approach Dr. Norris so as to deescalate that tension?

[Speaker 1] (3:35:48 - 3:36:11)
So I provided her tangible mentorship in that. One, I provided the context of why it was important because in the beginning, she said that she wouldn't meet with her. And so my goal was to help her understand why it was important to address those types of conflicts directly with the person that you're having them with and instead coming to me.

[Speaker 2] (3:36:11 - 3:36:17)
And your fix for this was simply to tell Ms. Taccone, you have to go talk to her. Is that right?

[Speaker 1] (3:36:18 - 3:36:36)
I did say that ultimately. But again, prior to that, we engaged in a discussion about why it was important and that it was damaging students' success if we engaged in that kind of behavior rather than the work that we should be doing collaboratively.

[Speaker 2] (3:36:36 - 3:36:44)
Did you bring Dr. Norris and Ms. Taccone into your office at the same time to try to resolve whatever this tension?

[Speaker 1] (3:36:45 - 3:36:56)
Since this is something that should be addressed colleague to colleague, I respect the organizational structure. And if that didn't work, then it would be my responsibility to have brought them in together.

[Speaker 2] (3:36:56 - 3:36:58)
But you never did that, did you?

[Speaker 1] (3:36:58 - 3:37:04)
Because she never met with Dr. Norris. She did not comply with my directive to meet with Dr. Norris.

[Speaker 2] (3:37:04 - 3:37:07)
Did you tell Dr. Norris, go meet with Ms. Taccone?

[Speaker 1] (3:37:07 - 3:37:10)
I did. But no, I didn't direct her to do it.

[Speaker 2] (3:37:11 - 3:37:19)
Why not? You directed Ms. Taccone to go meet with Dr. Norris. Why not tell Dr. Norris, you make the first move and go talk to Ms. Taccone?

[Speaker 1] (3:37:19 - 3:37:23)
Because I was handling CELA's performance at that time.

[Speaker 2] (3:37:26 - 3:37:30)
You didn't bring HR into that situation either, did you?

[Speaker 1] (3:37:30 - 3:37:38)
I don't need to bring every matter that I face, you know, develop, you know, in regards to team functioning and conflict.

[Speaker 2] (3:37:39 - 3:37:47)
Even when this arc is moving towards an action, a drastic action that is going to ruin her career.

[Speaker 1] (3:37:48 - 3:37:54)
We're not talking about an isolated incident. We're talking about a pattern of behaviors and performance.

[Speaker 2] (3:37:54 - 3:38:01)
And I believe that your testimony about this Norris situation was, you simply told Ms. Taccone, just do it.

[Speaker 1] (3:38:02 - 3:38:02)
I did.

[Speaker 2] (3:38:02 - 3:38:05)
Fix it. That's not guidance.

[Speaker 1] (3:38:05 - 3:38:14)
No, I said that it was very important to recognize when people's feelings are hurt, to acknowledge them and to rebuild trust.

[Speaker 2] (3:38:15 - 3:38:18)
You simply accused Ms. Taccone of being the problem, didn't you?

[Speaker 1] (3:38:19 - 3:38:19)
No.

[Speaker 2] (3:38:21 - 3:38:24)
Well, I think your testimony is that she was the problem.

[Speaker 1] (3:38:24 - 3:38:52)
I provided mentorship to say, and an executive should know this, that if you have a problem with a team member, you need to speak with them directly. You shouldn't have to go. And again, when you operate on the currency of trust, you don't go behind someone's back and demean their reputation.

You don't have meetings before the meetings. You don't have meetings after the meetings. And you don't need to go to your supervisor unless you're able to address those concerns directly with your teammate.

[Speaker 2] (3:38:52 - 3:39:00)
Well, that sounds exactly like what Dr. Norris did because she came to you complaining about Ms. Taccone behind her back.

[Speaker 1] (3:39:00 - 3:39:03)
And the same thing I said, work it out.

[Speaker 2] (3:39:04 - 3:39:04)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:39:05 - 3:39:24)
And also, well, the other thing I did is I am not Dr. Norris's supervisor. I am CELA's supervisor. So I employed and directed Dr. Walzers to work with Dr. Norris. And through that, that is how communication was addressed or attempted to be addressed.

[Speaker 2] (3:39:25 - 3:39:48)
Let's move on to this issue of the dysfunctional team that Ms. Taccone was supervising over. You were, as of December, 2024, you couldn't say anything nicer about Ms. Taccone's ability to bring that team together in a collaborative, positive contribution to Lee College, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:39:48 - 3:40:01)
Different point of time, different set of expectations, different performance that I monitored. And there were lots of things that I was not aware of until I was made aware of them regarding the team.

[Speaker 2] (3:40:01 - 3:40:15)
In Ms. Taccone's self-evaluation for that 2024 performance evaluation, didn't she raise the issue that she had inherited a somewhat dysfunctional team?

[Speaker 1] (3:40:16 - 3:40:16)
She did.

[Speaker 2] (3:40:17 - 3:40:23)
Okay. So, and you commended her for how she was handling that team, right? In 2024.

[Speaker 1] (3:40:25 - 3:40:39)
Okay. But again, the serious deficiencies that I was made aware of, that's when I acted promptly and made sure that I was much more involved. And then a lot more was uncovered that I was not aware of.

[Speaker 2] (3:40:39 - 3:40:45)
Okay. And you heard this from, I believe you said your chief of staff, Leslie Gallagher, is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:40:45 - 3:40:56)
She was one conduit in which employees came to her and complained. But the other was directly to me from one of her employees.

[Speaker 2] (3:40:56 - 3:40:59)
Okay. And which employee came to you?

[Speaker 1] (3:40:59 - 3:41:02)
The donor relations, her director of donor relations.

[Speaker 2] (3:41:03 - 3:41:10)
Okay. And the person that reported to Ms. Gallagher was Carrie Hurlbut, is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:41:10 - 3:41:13)
She didn't report to Leslie Gallagher. She reported to Cella.

[Speaker 2] (3:41:13 - 3:41:24)
I know who she was reporting to, but she reported the issues to your chief of staff. And you're aware that Ms. Hurlbut is Ms. Gallagher's best friend, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:41:24 - 3:41:26)
No, that is not true.

[Speaker 2] (3:41:26 - 3:41:29)
They go to lunch together almost every day.

[Speaker 1] (3:41:30 - 3:41:38)
That does not mean that they're best friend. You can be good colleagues, you can have lunch, and you can separate the work concerns versus personal.

[Speaker 2] (3:41:38 - 3:41:39)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:41:39 - 3:41:40)
I'm able to do that every day.

[Speaker 2] (3:41:41 - 3:41:46)
Ms. Gallagher is in a senior position to Ms. Hurlbut, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:41:46 - 3:41:47)
She is.

[Speaker 2] (3:41:47 - 3:41:59)
Okay. And as a friend of Ms. Gallagher's, Ms. Hurlbut has not only Ms. Gallagher's ear, she also has your ear indirectly, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:41:59 - 3:42:13)
She does not have my ear. She's never come to me directly about this. But if you're saying, was she able to get information, convey information to Leslie that would get to me, that is Leslie's responsibility to share with me, then yes.

[Speaker 2] (3:42:13 - 3:42:51)
And this problem with Ms. Taccone's not managing the dysfunction or contributing to it involved a meeting that Ms. Taccone had with her staff suggesting that having a close friendly relationship with senior executives such as Ms. Gallagher and conveying information to Ms. Gallagher, the president's office, of what's going on in their department was causing disruption within the department. Did you hear that from Ms. Gallagher?

[Speaker 1] (3:42:51 - 3:43:00)
Can you repeat that? You said Carrie shared information with Leslie and that resulted in the department meeting or?

[Speaker 2] (3:43:00 - 3:43:02)
Yes, that's exactly what I said.

[Speaker 1] (3:43:02 - 3:43:04)
That was partly based upon it, yes.

[Speaker 2] (3:43:04 - 3:43:23)
Okay. And the criticism that you had of Ms. Taccone is that she was, by that, attempting to stop freedom of information or flow of reporting of bad things happening in her department to your office.

[Speaker 1] (3:43:23 - 3:43:40)
When I can, when I, would I infer her telling, admonishing her employees and telling them why do you don't go to the president? Why did you go to the president? And you keep all of our issues here in the department.

You don't take them outside.

[Speaker 2] (3:43:41 - 3:43:41)
Are you sure?

[Speaker 1] (3:43:42 - 3:43:43)
That is absolutely what I would infer from that.

[Speaker 2] (3:43:44 - 3:43:48)
And you heard that from Ms. Gallagher, correct? You heard that from Ms. Gallagher?

[Speaker 1] (3:43:48 - 3:43:50)
I heard that from Ms. Gallagher.

[Speaker 2] (3:43:53 - 3:44:08)
And Ms. Taccone had words with Ms. Hurlbut to not gossip about the operations of her department to her friend, Ms. Gallagher, that got back to you and got Ms. Taccone in trouble, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:44:09 - 3:44:25)
What I was told and what I understood was that they were not to talk outside of the department related to any concerns that they had, which is suppressing their voice and their opportunity to speak to either me or HR, which is inappropriate.

[Speaker 2] (3:44:26 - 3:44:42)
When you learned about this dysfunction in Ms. Taccone's department and clearly the fact that she was not managing it appropriately or correctively, did you bring HR into that situation?

[Speaker 1] (3:44:44 - 3:44:46)
No, I did not bring HR into that situation there.

[Speaker 2] (3:44:47 - 3:44:53)
Yet you cite that as a basis for terminating Ms. Taccone's career, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:44:54 - 3:45:08)
Why does not involving HR mean that I could not make the recommendation to terminate on the basis of my own views of the performance deficiencies and the rationale and documentation that I provided?

[Speaker 2] (3:45:08 - 3:45:21)
Because pursuant to the rule of Lee College, you are to offer an opportunity, a meaningful opportunity to not only just know what the issue is, but to correct it.

[Speaker 1] (3:45:22 - 3:45:31)
And I provided support. I was there, I said it and the meeting, like I said, did occur upon my directive and that's what happened.

[Speaker 2] (3:45:31 - 3:45:33)
Isn't that what HR is there for?

[Speaker 1] (3:45:35 - 3:45:39)
HR is there for a number of reasons to provide support, yes.

[Speaker 2] (3:45:39 - 3:45:41)
But not to Ms. Taccone.

[Speaker 1] (3:45:41 - 3:45:44)
They're there to provide support to anyone.

[Speaker 2] (3:45:58 - 3:46:26)
So you offered to provide support and coaching according to my notes about this dysfunction in her department. Did you sit down with Ms. Taccone in a one-to-one meeting to discuss specifically the dysfunction within her department? Yes.

And when did that, of this long period of time where this dysfunction was occurring, at what point did you sit down with Ms. Taccone and how many times did you sit down with her about that issue?

[Speaker 1] (3:46:27 - 3:46:40)
That came up multiple times. That issue came up multiple times. I did finally direct her and said, you have to address this, it's getting worse.

And we did sit down and discuss it.

[Speaker 2] (3:46:40 - 3:46:53)
Again, I'm gonna ask you, is there any written documentation that Ms. Taccone was provided showing her, this is a serious issue. And unless you fix this within so many days, you may be up for some disciplinary action.

[Speaker 1] (3:46:53 - 3:47:11)
I believe there is an exhibit that does illustrate my concerns about her team and functioning. Yes, I do. Can you point to it today?

Look at the contents again of the entire thing. Stephanie, I don't know if you can see what the heading is or...

[Speaker 8] (3:47:45 - 3:48:08)
While the witness is reviewing the binder, Mr. Melman, could you advise counsel of the status of her time? Has accrued or is remaining?

[Speaker 10] (3:48:08 - 3:48:09)
75.

[Speaker 2] (3:48:17 - 3:48:36)
So 81 minutes total of my total allotment of how many minutes? Thank you. Then in my head.

Well, let's not dwell on that. How did you mentor Ms. Taccone on leadership?

[Speaker 1] (3:48:37 - 3:49:10)
We had many mentorship meetings as I customarily do with those that report to me and those that I support outside of those that report to me who have rising aspirations for leadership. So how did I do it? You know, we discussed various different topics.

We discussed areas under her supervision. We discussed ways that I would handle situations. And, you know, whether it was scenarios or just kind of thinking through different work products, et cetera.

[Speaker 2] (3:49:11 - 3:49:17)
And so these were pre-planned meetings that would appear in the invitation calendar?

[Speaker 1] (3:49:17 - 3:49:58)
No, they were, you know, as needed. Cella would bring things that she wanted to discuss. I was there to also bring things that I needed to discuss, but we didn't always have, you know, an agenda.

Sometimes Cella would say, I would like to discuss with you these, you know, particular bullet points. And that's what you consider a counseling session? No, those are regular performance management meetings.

But in any of those kinds of meetings, I am there to provide mentorship and support, which means if I care about you and care about your growth, then any information I provide, positive or negative, is meant to support you.

[Speaker 2] (3:49:58 - 3:50:20)
Okay. And so let's move to the PAC director backfill issue, where you told Ms. Taccone before you can get a new director, I want an evaluation done of the effectiveness of that department, correct? That's correct.

Okay. Wasn't there already a plan in place?

[Speaker 1] (3:50:20 - 3:50:23)
For the evaluation of the effectiveness of the performance?

[Speaker 2] (3:50:24 - 3:50:36)
That actually does assess the effectiveness of the performance. Was it underperforming? Let me ask you that.

Was it underperforming? And what told you that it was underperforming and needed that revised assessment?

[Speaker 1] (3:50:37 - 3:50:54)
One only needs to look at attendance alone to see that. So for example, at a recent concert that we had, there was such low, there was so few people who bought tickets that we literally gave them away for free.

[Speaker 2] (3:50:54 - 3:50:56)
Okay. And that's Ms. Taccone's fault?

[Speaker 1] (3:50:57 - 3:50:59)
It's under her supervision, is it not?

[Speaker 2] (3:51:00 - 3:51:11)
Did you tell Ms. Taccone in a written documentation that I expect you to bring up the butts in seats, as they say in that business?

[Speaker 1] (3:51:11 - 3:51:17)
At that point, I employed the support of Brian Waddell to provide suggestions as well.

[Speaker 2] (3:51:17 - 3:51:19)
And what is his expertise in running that?

[Speaker 1] (3:51:20 - 3:51:27)
What he did was he provided expertise in expanded marketing and public social media.

[Speaker 2] (3:51:28 - 3:51:29)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:51:29 - 3:51:37)
But at the end of the day, with all of those efforts, we ended up giving most of the tickets away for free, which is a loss of revenue to the college.

[Speaker 2] (3:51:40 - 3:51:49)
And I believe Mr. Waddell gave you a critique, trying to remember what that exhibit was.

[Speaker 1] (3:51:50 - 3:52:11)
I believe it was in relation to marketing materials that were made by the Performing Arts Center. I know those actually- With the guidance of the department, they helped design those.

[Speaker 2] (3:52:11 - 3:52:15)
Those materials actually were designed by Mr. Waddell's staff, weren't they?

[Speaker 1] (3:52:15 - 3:52:26)
But it's not something that's done individually. They're not the experts of all of these different areas. They're done in collaboration with departments who are able to articulate what their needs are.

[Speaker 2] (3:52:26 - 3:52:32)
But Mr. Waddell was critiquing his own staff's work product, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:52:33 - 3:52:35)
He was providing information on how to improve it.

[Speaker 2] (3:52:36 - 3:52:37)
His own staff's work product.

[Speaker 1] (3:52:39 - 3:52:41)
His own staff's work product, if that's the way you want to look at it.

[Speaker 2] (3:52:41 - 3:52:53)
Thank you. And I assume you had received reports on the attendance at the PAC.

[Speaker 1] (3:52:55 - 3:53:03)
I had to be involved in the decision to give the tickets away for free, so yes.

[Speaker 8] (3:53:06 - 3:53:11)
So you heard a lot of the criticisms about the PAC from Mr. Waddell, is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:53:15 - 3:53:19)
I have observed the deficiencies of the PAC.

[Speaker 2] (3:53:19 - 3:53:24)
That wasn't my question. My question was you heard criticisms about the PAC from Mr. Waddell, is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:53:24 - 3:53:25)
Not just Mr. Waddell.

[Speaker 2] (3:53:26 - 3:53:29)
But you did hear criticisms from Mr. Waddell.

[Speaker 1] (3:53:31 - 3:53:34)
I would consider them opportunities to improve.

[Speaker 2] (3:53:34 - 3:53:37)
And who is now overseeing the PAC?

[Speaker 1] (3:53:38 - 3:53:40)
Right now, it's Brian Waddell.

[Speaker 2] (3:53:41 - 3:53:54)
Thank you. That's the same person who told you things that Mr. Coney allegedly said and that upsets you, correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:53:54 - 3:54:07)
That she literally said to me and was repeated to him. And again, after directing her to visit with him and to collaborate with him and only contacting him a month after via phone.

[Speaker 2] (3:54:09 - 3:54:12)
And when was she first supposed to be contacting him?

[Speaker 1] (3:54:13 - 3:54:14)
As soon as possible.

[Speaker 2] (3:54:14 - 3:54:16)
And when did you tell her that?

[Speaker 1] (3:54:16 - 3:54:21)
When we met that day, when I gave her the directive to visit with Brian.

[Speaker 2] (3:54:22 - 3:54:29)
And you produced one email from Mr. Waddell that says, I haven't heard from Mr. Coney. Is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:54:29 - 3:54:31)
I did receive that email, correct.

[Speaker 2] (3:54:31 - 3:54:44)
Would it surprise you to know that there are, I mean, text messages from Mr. Coney to Mr. Waddell asking to meet with him. Throughout that period, multiple text messages.

[Speaker 1] (3:54:44 - 3:54:45)
I'm not aware of that.

[Speaker 2] (3:54:45 - 3:54:47)
Mr. Waddell didn't tell you that, did he?

[Speaker 1] (3:54:47 - 3:54:47)
He did not.

[Speaker 2] (3:54:48 - 3:54:49)
No, and now he's in charge of the PAC.

[Speaker 1] (3:54:51 - 3:54:58)
Again, his knowledge, skills and abilities are the basis for which someone is assigned a position.

[Speaker 2] (3:54:59 - 3:55:00)
He got the job he wanted, didn't he?

[Speaker 1] (3:55:02 - 3:55:08)
I'm not going to speak to ulterior motives or any of that. I'm not.

[Speaker 2] (3:55:10 - 3:55:15)
So there's all of these issues regarding the PAC. Did you bring HR into this situation?

[Speaker 1] (3:55:16 - 3:55:17)
No.

[Speaker 2] (3:55:22 - 3:55:35)
With regard to the mission statement, you said that Ms. Coney cut and paste from the college's general mission statement into her mission statement. Correct. Is that correct?

[Speaker 1] (3:55:36 - 3:55:38)
It's on the first version.

[Speaker 2] (3:55:39 - 3:56:15)
Let me look. Let me direct you to an exhibit. Let's look at exhibit 11 in the white notebook.

While you're finding that, I can tell you that this is a document that's about 26 pages long.

[Speaker 1] (3:56:17 - 3:56:22)
Under tab 11, I'm not seeing anything that's the black one.

[Speaker 2] (3:56:23 - 3:56:35)
Did I say the white book again? I'm used to wearing the white hat all the time. I apologize.

I apologize. Somebody just, you know, if I say black, I mean white and vice versa.

[Speaker 1] (3:56:35 - 3:56:36)
This is the college's strategic plan.

[Speaker 2] (3:56:37 - 3:56:43)
That is known as the Lee College general mission statement. It's entitled that, isn't it?

[Speaker 1] (3:56:43 - 3:56:44)
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 2] (3:56:45 - 3:56:58)
On page 44, Coney 44, top of that page, mission, vision, caring, and expanding opportunity statements. This contains the college's mission statement.

[Speaker 4] (3:56:59 - 3:56:59)
It does.

[Speaker 2] (3:56:59 - 3:57:13)
Thank you. Now, if you look at Ms. Coney's first draft, which is exhibit 12, I'd like you to tell me where she copied from the general mission statement.

[Speaker 1] (3:57:13 - 3:57:14)
Page two.

[Speaker 2] (3:57:17 - 3:57:26)
Page two of what? Her first draft. Yes.

Okay. Page two of her first draft. Exhibit 12.

Yes. Where does she copy word for word from?

[Speaker 1] (3:57:26 - 3:57:32)
To Coney 69, second page of the first draft.

[Speaker 2] (3:57:32 - 3:57:33)
Where is it copied?

[Speaker 1] (3:57:34 - 3:57:35)
The second page.

[Speaker 2] (3:57:35 - 3:57:39)
The second page. I'm looking at the second page. What part of the second page is copied?

[Speaker 1] (3:57:39 - 3:57:42)
It says Lee College mission statement, vision statement, and Lee College's core values.

[Speaker 2] (3:57:43 - 3:57:49)
Okay, but you're ignoring the first page of the statement.

[Speaker 1] (3:57:49 - 3:58:15)
I'm not ignoring the first page, but again, importantly, this was not supposed to be a part of this draft when we discussed it. We discussed, and again, in an educational moment to talk about what a mission statement is, what a vision statement is, and to help her think strategically in terms of the college's priorities long-term and current priorities that this was an important basis to establish.

[Speaker 2] (3:58:15 - 3:58:23)
So your counseling on this issue was leave the general mission statement out, just focus on the PAC?

[Speaker 1] (3:58:23 - 3:58:33)
No, what I said was it generally starts with in support of the college's mission. In this case, it would be the foundation exists to and then fill in the blanks.

[Speaker 2] (3:58:33 - 3:58:49)
That confused me in your testimony, your earlier testimony. You said it should start with the foundation is to do that. It starts with the word the foundation's mission is blah, blah, blah, but this is supposed to be the PAC mission.

[Speaker 1] (3:58:49 - 3:58:53)
Okay, so yes, I mixed the words PAC the same as it is back.

[Speaker 2] (3:58:54 - 3:58:55)
Okay, so you just misspoke earlier.

[Speaker 1] (3:58:56 - 3:58:57)
I just mixed the two.

[Speaker 2] (3:58:57 - 3:59:18)
Yes, it's PAC. Confusion cleared up. All right, that happens.

But she does address, even in her first draft, talks about what a wonderful PAC it is, what a wonderful auditorium with...

[Speaker 1] (3:59:18 - 3:59:29)
That's not what a mission vision statement is, and it's not in accordance with the way we would link that to the college's mission.

[Speaker 2] (3:59:29 - 3:59:33)
You would have just done it differently. Isn't that what your problem with this was?

[Speaker 1] (3:59:33 - 3:59:36)
It was not done in the way that it should have been done.

[Speaker 2] (3:59:36 - 3:59:38)
It's just a matter of style, isn't it?

[Speaker 1] (3:59:39 - 3:59:53)
No, a mission statement is crafted very intentionally, as is a vision statement. And the mission statement is the basis of how we operate and evaluate institutional effectiveness.

[Speaker 2] (3:59:54 - 3:59:55)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:59:55 - 4:00:10)
As the vision statement then is operationalized by our strategic plan. So these are major components, and they allow us to link the college's long-term priorities to the priorities of individual departments, so that we are all aligned.

[Speaker 2] (4:00:11 - 4:00:18)
Were you okay with Ms. Taccone's second draft? Is it in the same... Which is exhibit 13.

[Speaker 1] (4:00:24 - 4:00:44)
I thought it was an improvement. I did. And again, but in between this, I literally sat with her and said, these are the components that should share again, that it should provide.

And we even just quickly did something in AI and said, these are the components. What do you think?

[Speaker 2] (4:00:48 - 4:01:22)
Now I've lost my notes. Hang on. Okay.

Now, I think I'll skip this because I'm going to address this with Mr. Dobbs and his testimony so we can move through that. And we've talked about the gala, that you were not happy with the seating arrangement. What was the issue with the seating arrangement again?

[Speaker 1] (4:01:23 - 4:01:55)
Again, from a fundraising perspective and the strategy that you use to raise funds, the president's table should be strategically designed and placed with individuals who can support the foundation gala and its outcomes. That means that strategically, you would consider individuals like former donors, donors that you might want to cultivate, the corporate and industry partnerships, like dignitaries. Yes.

[Speaker 2] (4:01:56 - 4:01:59)
Did you know that ExxonMobil had their own table? Yes.

[Speaker 1] (4:01:59 - 4:02:00)
That's customary.

[Speaker 2] (4:02:00 - 4:02:02)
Did you know that they all wanted to sit together at their own table?

[Speaker 1] (4:02:03 - 4:02:07)
It doesn't have to be ExxonMobil. We have numerous, numerous industry partners.

[Speaker 2] (4:02:08 - 4:02:15)
Do you know for certain that those people did not express a preference as to who would sit at their table?

[Speaker 1] (4:02:16 - 4:02:43)
I know that ExxonMobil had their own table. But again, I expect for Selah in her leadership role and from a strategic standpoint of what's best for ensuring the success of the foundation gala to know the importance of the president's table and who should be seating there, who should be seated there. And it certainly doesn't include the president's neighbor and their guest or members of my team.

[Speaker 2] (4:02:43 - 4:02:53)
All right. You say you had a counseling session with Ms. Taccone the Monday following the gala, is that right?

[Speaker 1] (4:02:53 - 4:02:55)
A debrief, a postmortem debrief.

[Speaker 2] (4:02:55 - 4:02:58)
Debrief. And do you consider that her counseling session?

[Speaker 1] (4:03:00 - 4:03:12)
I consider that to be a debrief counseling session, if you will. But we went through all of the issues that I had related to the PAC. I mean, sorry, the gala.

[Speaker 2] (4:03:13 - 4:03:26)
Ms. Taccone's recollection of that meeting is that you only addressed one meeting, one issue and one issue only. And that was the fact that you were removed from the gala run of show. Does that comport with your recollection?

[Speaker 1] (4:03:26 - 4:03:29)
Well, I wouldn't say removed. I was limited in my speaking role.

[Speaker 2] (4:03:30 - 4:03:30)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (4:03:30 - 4:03:51)
But it was fundamentally different. And I never received the final run of show, which she was responsible for sharing with me, which was fundamentally different than what we agreed upon. The other thing that we discussed was me not being invited to take a photo with the other foundation board members of which I am also a foundation board member.

[Speaker 2] (4:03:51 - 4:03:54)
And you're saying that that was also discussed at this Monday afternoon?

[Speaker 1] (4:03:54 - 4:03:54)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (4:03:55 - 4:03:56)
And how long had that been?

[Speaker 1] (4:03:56 - 4:03:59)
We also discussed the seating chart.

[Speaker 2] (4:03:59 - 4:04:23)
Is there any documentation of that meeting as a formal counseling, employee counseling meeting where you gave Ms. Taccone the information that her job was in jeopardy? And unless she smartened up and started making decisions more wisely, that she might be disciplined up to and including termination.

[Speaker 1] (4:04:24 - 4:04:26)
No, I did not express that at that time.

[Speaker 2] (4:04:26 - 4:04:46)
Thank you. All right. Now on the Lunch and Learn event, you were upset that Ms. Taccone was waiting on RSVPs when you asked her about a specific donor. Is that right?

[Speaker 1] (4:04:47 - 4:05:01)
It's critical if you're going to have a event that's focused on estate planning, that you would be able to have a person who could provide a testimonial of having donated part of their estate to the college.

[Speaker 2] (4:05:01 - 4:05:03)
And you identified a specific donor.

[Speaker 1] (4:05:03 - 4:05:13)
I did not. I mentioned that there were a couple and because they were so rare in our history that it was very important to identify an individual very soon.

[Speaker 2] (4:05:13 - 4:05:23)
Were you aware that the invitations had already gone out by the time you had said, there's a couple of donors that I'm really interested in connecting with?

[Speaker 1] (4:05:23 - 4:05:27)
I had mentioned a couple of donors in the very first planning meeting.

[Speaker 2] (4:05:28 - 4:05:31)
Would it surprise you that that's not Ms. Taccone's recollection?

[Speaker 1] (4:05:32 - 4:06:13)
No, it wouldn't surprise me or I don't think we'd be here. But to send out a program that is incomplete and that is public facing was not appropriate. It did not contain the speaker, was not run by the featured speaker, Jennifer Marcantel.

Those changes, none of that was communicated. I had to direct that. And in fact, her staff was, they were told to print what was not approved and was inaccurate.

And instead, that whole thing had to be reprinted.

[Speaker 2] (4:06:15 - 4:06:44)
Let's move to Exhibit 44, which is addressing the Harvest of Hope campaign. Again, that's going to be in the white book. And as you said, by this time, you had started micromanaging Ms. Taccone, right?

[Speaker 1] (4:06:45 - 4:06:48)
I would absolutely describe it as micromanaging.

[Speaker 2] (4:06:48 - 4:07:04)
Okay. And she sends to you the materials that are going to be distributed to generate interest in this campaign. Is that right?

And that was dated?

[Speaker 1] (4:07:05 - 4:07:10)
She showed me the draft that she had for the Harvest of Hope campaign, correct?

[Speaker 2] (4:07:11 - 4:07:24)
October 23rd, right? And if you look at admin page 208, admin 208, you see the- There's the, yep, I do.

[Speaker 1] (4:07:25 - 4:07:50)
Okay. And so let me just also comment though that she sent this to me on the 23rd, which was Thursday, and asked that I have my feedback to her by Monday. Okay.

She gave me that deadline. And? And that's not ample time.

[Speaker 2] (4:07:50 - 4:07:53)
She didn't prepare this document though, did she? She had someone else prepare it.

[Speaker 1] (4:07:54 - 4:08:05)
She should make sure, again, that every single product that comes out of her office is of top quality and is reviewed by her. And I should not have to correct the work of her director.

[Speaker 2] (4:08:06 - 4:08:10)
And this comes through the marketing department that actually does this?

[Speaker 1] (4:08:10 - 4:08:18)
No, they had the narrative that was in the Harvest of Hope campaign. The marketing department did not provide that.

[Speaker 2] (4:08:18 - 4:08:25)
Okay, so it's the- Provided the images. Yeah, the images and the verbiage and the presentation of how it looks, correct?

[Speaker 1] (4:08:27 - 4:08:29)
The marketing did just the images.

[Speaker 2] (4:08:29 - 4:08:30)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (4:08:30 - 4:08:40)
All of the content, which is what I was concerned about, was what they provided and was provided to me on Thursday. And I was asked to review it and provide approval by Monday.

[Speaker 2] (4:08:40 - 4:08:46)
Perhaps Ms. Taccone didn't get that out of the marketing department in time to give it to you at an earlier point.

[Speaker 1] (4:08:47 - 4:09:00)
I think that the narrative could have been provided to me in advance and I could have certainly reviewed that and I would have had more time to do the complete change that I needed to do to perform the work myself.

[Speaker 2] (4:09:00 - 4:09:15)
And you know that this campaign was in a limited size publication that was already decided it would have to fit in that format, correct? Did you not know that?

[Speaker 1] (4:09:15 - 4:09:21)
My concern was not the format or the size. It was the substance of the message.

[Speaker 2] (4:09:21 - 4:09:32)
But that decision about the size and the format and the cost, all had been that decision had made before the narrative was written into this, correct?

[Speaker 1] (4:09:32 - 4:09:35)
And I had no issues with that.

[Speaker 2] (4:09:35 - 4:10:07)
Right. Let's look at your proposed change to that, which is on Admin 206. And you give the approved copy for that marketing document, that color, whatever you call it, presentation.

How on earth would all of that verbiage fit into that small space? Were you wanting them to completely revise?

[Speaker 1] (4:10:08 - 4:10:15)
They were essentially some of the same words and it did fit. It went out, updated.

[Speaker 2] (4:10:16 - 4:10:20)
Five point font would have to be pretty small to fit all of that verbiage into it.

[Speaker 1] (4:10:20 - 4:10:37)
My concern is that it was released before it was approved. So it went out about the substantive. So it did go out and they had to read.

They had to redo the marketing materials, reprint them because this was not approved.

[Speaker 2] (4:10:37 - 4:10:41)
And this was so drastically wrong. It would not have worked.

[Speaker 1] (4:10:42 - 4:10:49)
It was not conveying the information that we needed to have the most successful campaign.

[Speaker 2] (4:10:49 - 4:11:12)
Well, I will ask the board to take a good close look at this, because I think what Mr. Coney put in the space of available was a very concise rendition of what yours with more verbiage conveyed. And again, this is part of what Mr. Coney does that she is certified for and has a master's degree in.

[Speaker 1] (4:11:12 - 4:11:29)
So all I can say is her performance. I know her essential duties and I can speak to her performance. And again, she did not possess the necessary KSAOs to demonstrate that she could fulfill the essential duties of her position.

[Speaker 2] (4:11:30 - 4:11:50)
Now, you've also alleged that Ms. Coney was having a problem with accountability. And how did you approach counseling Ms. Coney on accountability and what methods and tools did you use to counsel her?

[Speaker 1] (4:11:51 - 4:12:14)
So I can't force someone to take accountability, right? And an executive should be expected to have those skills intact. If you're not willing to take responsibility for your own actions, how can anything change?

How can you work together with a team? How can you accept directives? Again, that was not my question.

[Speaker 2] (4:12:14 - 4:12:38)
I asked you what tools did you use? How did you set up the meeting? Did you give her any documentation?

Did you give her advice? Why don't you go to HR and let's talk about this? You're walking a thin line, Ms. Coney. You're not taking accountability for your actions. And I will discipline you or recommend disciplinary action if you don't correct within the next 30 days.

[Speaker 1] (4:12:38 - 4:12:52)
Did you do any of that? I made it very clear in documentation written that she was not taking accountability. And I have all of the documentation from her where she says she does not take accountability for any of these things.

[Speaker 2] (4:12:53 - 4:13:08)
Perhaps because she shouldn't have had to take accountability for what the marketing department had done, for what the PAC had done, and for what lay in the responsibility of others that she had to rely upon.

[Speaker 1] (4:13:08 - 4:13:16)
Then I guess I would ask who is responsible ultimately for producing the outcomes from the PAC or the foundation?

[Speaker 2] (4:13:18 - 4:13:34)
If she's accountable for her subordinates, you are accountable for her issues. So all I have heard and all we have seen in the record are emails referencing specific instances that just bothered the heck out of you.

[Speaker 1] (4:13:35 - 4:13:59)
They were significant issues. They were not isolated incidents. They were not small in nature.

They were, there was a pattern and it was very poor performance. To not follow directives, to not take accountability, to not lead with strategic intention, to not have planning in place, and to not correct actions. Those are serious performance concerns.

[Speaker 2] (4:14:00 - 4:14:09)
And those are all the categories that you wrote so glowingly about not that many months earlier.

[Speaker 1] (4:14:09 - 4:14:19)
Again, I will repeat, those reflect different moments of time, differing expectations, and resulting and they resulted in different performance behaviors.

[Speaker 2] (4:14:26 - 4:14:49)
Again, I don't see anything in any of the records, any of the materials that were produced as exhibits, other than one-off emails, certainly not a counseling record that most companies would have for an employee that is needing assistance, support and counseling and coaching. I see none of that in the record. And if you can point to that, please do now.

[Speaker 1] (4:14:50 - 4:15:00)
It was provided real time. It was provided via written documentation. It was provided via, you know, meetings that we had together.

[Speaker 2] (4:15:01 - 4:15:11)
Then why isn't in any of your exhibits? Why is none of that in your exhibits? They're all not emails, the counseling documentation that you're referring to.

[Speaker 1] (4:15:12 - 4:15:15)
I'm not referring to counseling documentation.

[Speaker 2] (4:15:15 - 4:15:18)
And so there is no counseling documentation, is there?

[Speaker 1] (4:15:18 - 4:15:20)
How do you how are you defining counseling?

[Speaker 8] (4:15:30 - 4:15:38)
Okay, just about done.

[Speaker 2] (4:15:41 - 4:16:03)
Exhibit six in the white note, black notebook is the December 17 provider letter that extended the FMLA leave to January 2nd. We've seen that before, haven't we?

[Speaker 10] (4:16:04 - 4:16:04)
Correct.

[Speaker 2] (4:16:07 - 4:16:26)
Dr. Villanueva, the college rules required you to consider whether you provided notice of deficiency and a reasonable opportunity to address. You can't point to a single document, as we've just talked about, setting out what to fix, how to fix it, and by when.

[Speaker 1] (4:16:27 - 4:16:27)
I disagree.

[Speaker 2] (4:16:28 - 4:16:30)
All right, you say we've seen that.

[Speaker 1] (4:16:31 - 4:16:32)
I'm sorry?

[Speaker 2] (4:16:32 - 4:16:36)
You say that we have seen that so far. We've seen counseling documentation.

[Speaker 1] (4:16:36 - 4:17:01)
We have received what you have seen a number of communications that outline my concerns, my expectations, and offerings of support. And the actual contribution in providing institutional support in the form of another person to help her with the PAC. And those are explicit, concrete actions.

[Speaker 2] (4:17:01 - 4:17:24)
And your November 10th letter admits that your decision was made on or before October 24th before, maybe earlier, when you said you had your first draft when you were consulting with Ms. Hamm, that all that was before you had any sit-down evaluation of Ms. DeConey addressing all of these issues. That had not yet happened.

[Speaker 1] (4:17:24 - 4:17:32)
Because it was still occurring, but again, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the gala.

[Speaker 2] (4:17:32 - 4:17:41)
And many of the deficiencies were policy judgments or brand style rewrites by your office, not formal insubordination or refusal.

[Speaker 1] (4:17:42 - 4:17:45)
No, they were not substance. They were form.

[Speaker 2] (4:17:46 - 4:17:55)
You also accused my client of being untruthful. And who was she untruthful to or about? So I think you said the CFO?

[Speaker 1] (4:17:56 - 4:18:15)
Well, yes, she misrepresented the CFO in saying that he gave the marketing materials for the foundation, said they were good to go. And he, when I went to him and verified that, he said, absolutely not. And in fact, I provided extensive feedback and guidance on improvements.

[Speaker 2] (4:18:16 - 4:18:22)
For something as serious as being untruthful, why isn't the CFO testifying in this hearing?

[Speaker 1] (4:18:25 - 4:18:27)
He's not, right?

[Speaker 2] (4:18:27 - 4:18:44)
Ms. DeConey remembers taking all of those materials to his office and showing them to him and him saying, those are good to go. And that is not what you heard. Are you saying that the CFO represented something totally different than that?

[Speaker 1] (4:18:46 - 4:18:52)
I'm saying that the CFO told me that what what Sella said was incorrect.

[Speaker 2] (4:18:55 - 4:19:05)
Hey, well, I would like to call the CFO as a rebuttal witness if we can, if I have any time left, but I will pass the witness back to Ms. Hamm.

[Speaker 1] (4:19:06 - 4:19:26)
I also consider it a lie to have shared information about my review of the PAC policy procedure and sharing that information with Mr. Dobbs and being told that it wasn't and it wasn't even, you know, portrayed as something coming from me.

[Speaker 2] (4:19:26 - 4:19:29)
And Mr. Dobbs will address that tomorrow evening.

[Speaker 8] (4:19:50 - 4:19:54)
I'm allowed and we intend to complete this hearing tonight.

[Speaker 7] (4:19:55 - 4:20:01)
I was told that because my client that I told you exactly what we were doing when I opened this hearing.

[Speaker 2] (4:20:03 - 4:20:09)
My understanding from Ms. Kershavsky client was not feeling well to continue to.

[Speaker 7] (4:20:14 - 4:20:22)
I'm not hurt. Anyone's not feeling well. So if you're telling me that now, we'll take it into consideration.

But that's not what let me jump in.

[Speaker 5] (4:20:22 - 4:20:51)
Let's just take it one step at a time. We've got two and a half hour limitations on both sides, which should not, which should conclude well before 1130. So based on the timelines that have already been taken.

So let's just take it one step at a time. What the chair stated in his remarks was that the board desires for testimony to be concluded tonight. That's ideally their goal.

And so how much time do we have remaining for the employee?

[Speaker 9] (4:20:52 - 4:21:13)
So the time period just completed was exactly two hours. And then adding the six minute opening statement adds up to 126. So that leaves 24 minutes remaining for two and a half hours.

[Speaker 5] (4:21:14 - 4:21:16)
Thank you. Ms. Hamm, do you have any?

[Speaker 3] (4:21:17 - 4:21:43)
Very brief redirect. Um, Dr. V, Mr. Coney's attorney levied some pretty hefty accusations at you talking about how you hold her career in your hands and that you're ruining her career by moving forward with this recommendation. Do you agree that your coaching style is the reason that Mr. Coney repeatedly refused to follow your directives?

[Speaker 1] (4:21:43 - 4:21:44)
Absolutely not.

[Speaker 3] (4:21:44 - 4:21:49)
Do you think that's a legitimate excuse for a high level employee to be providing in this hearing?

[Speaker 1] (4:21:50 - 4:21:50)
I do not.

[Speaker 3] (4:21:51 - 4:21:58)
OK, and are you surprised to hear based on your experience with Mr. Coney this past year? Are you surprised to hear that she blames you for this?

[Speaker 1] (4:21:58 - 4:21:59)
I'm not now.

[Speaker 3] (4:21:59 - 4:22:01)
That she blames Leslie Gallagher?

[Speaker 1] (4:22:01 - 4:22:02)
No.

[Speaker 3] (4:22:02 - 4:22:03)
That she blames Brian Waddle?

[Speaker 1] (4:22:03 - 4:22:03)
No.

[Speaker 3] (4:22:04 - 4:22:05)
That she blames now the CFO?

[Speaker 1] (4:22:06 - 4:22:06)
No.

[Speaker 3] (4:22:06 - 4:22:08)
I mean, is any of that surprising to you?

[Speaker 1] (4:22:09 - 4:22:09)
Not now.

[Speaker 3] (4:22:10 - 4:22:32)
So we talking about either directives that Mr. Coney either didn't follow or projects that she didn't complete. I just want to make sure the regents are aware of all of the things we talked about earlier. The PAC policy.

She never completed that, correct? She refused to repair her relationship with Dr. Norris despite your express directive?

[Speaker 1] (4:22:32 - 4:22:33)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (4:22:33 - 4:22:39)
She never completed the PAC mission and vision statement that we reviewed the drafts, correct?

[Speaker 1] (4:22:40 - 4:22:45)
You didn't complete the changes to the PAC procedure policy either. Right.

[Speaker 3] (4:22:45 - 4:22:51)
And so that was the first one I asked you about. The PAC policy never complete. Mission vision statement doesn't exist, correct?

[Speaker 1] (4:22:51 - 4:22:57)
Analysis of the effectiveness of the PAC employees didn't didn't occur either.

[Speaker 3] (4:22:57 - 4:23:04)
And she never completed the PAC analysis that you told her she needed to do in order to fill the PAC director position. Correct.

[Speaker 1] (4:23:04 - 4:23:08)
In order to even consider what type of human resources would be necessary.

[Speaker 3] (4:23:09 - 4:23:15)
And she never provided you with the specific donor information that you requested, correct? We talked about that earlier.

[Speaker 4] (4:23:16 - 4:23:16)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (4:23:16 - 4:23:26)
And are you aware that Leslie Gallagher actually reached out to Mr. Coney several times, including to provide her a template that she could use for that donor information to be relayed to you?

[Speaker 1] (4:23:27 - 4:23:28)
You did share that with me.

[Speaker 3] (4:23:28 - 4:23:41)
And, you know, we're low on time, so I'm just going to reference the regents to exhibits 28 and 29. You can see where Ms. Gallagher is trying to help her to complete this task, but it was never done. Is that right?

Correct.

[Speaker 1] (4:23:42 - 4:23:59)
And she never coordinated with Brian Waddle about the PAC vision and strategy, correct? Well, and again, it wasn't just that. It was provide any tangible support to provide her both fidelity and bandwidth.

Sure. Whatever she needed.

[Speaker 3] (4:24:00 - 4:24:54)
And, you know, Ms. Armstrong asked you a couple of specific questions. Like, well, did you ever specifically tell her to do this? Did you ever specifically tell her to do that?

If you look at exhibit four, which is Mr. Coney's job description, page four, under Performing Arts Center. One of her essential duties is collaborate with marketing and public relations to develop a marketing and communication strategy to build support for the Performing Arts Center throughout the college's service area. That's exhibit four, administration's exhibit four, white binder, page four, exhibit four.

So you are directing Ms. DeConey to perform an essential function that's listed actually in her job description. I was. And she'd been in that position for two years, correct?

And she still hadn't done it?

[Speaker 1] (4:24:54 - 4:24:54)
No.

[Speaker 3] (4:24:55 - 4:24:59)
And even when you told her, hey, reach out to Brian Waddell for support, didn't do it.

[Speaker 1] (4:25:00 - 4:25:00)
Didn't do it.

[Speaker 3] (4:25:00 - 4:25:06)
She had other communications with him, which I suspect we'll talk about, but not the substantive strategic issues that you wanted her to discuss, correct?

[Speaker 1] (4:25:07 - 4:25:07)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (4:25:07 - 4:25:33)
And then you were also asked, like, well, did you ever tell her that you were, you know, she was responsible for, you know, the attendance of the pack? Look, two bullet points down, evaluates and facilitates sponsorships and underwriter opportunities for performances that allow the college to reach audiences in the college's service area. So again, that was an essential duty.

Okay. So you shouldn't have to handhold her and tell her every single job that she's supposed to do.

[Speaker 1] (4:25:33 - 4:25:35)
Is that fair? Nor should I have to complete it.

[Speaker 3] (4:25:36 - 4:25:51)
And y'all talked at length about her prior performance evaluation, which I believe everyone can agree was very positive. Was that prepared before you were aware of some of the issues going on in her department?

[Speaker 1] (4:25:52 - 4:25:55)
Absolutely, or I would never have written them in that way.

[Speaker 3] (4:25:57 - 4:26:06)
And was that written before you had then personally started observing her performance issues and had to spend hours and hours and hours and hours and hours fixing her work?

[Speaker 1] (4:26:06 - 4:26:11)
That's correct. When I became aware, I became much more involved.

[Speaker 3] (4:26:12 - 4:26:29)
And so do all of those favorable, glowing comments apply equally to her performance during the 2024-2025 academic year? And so your testimony is that not only did your expectations change, her performance decreased dramatically in 2025.

[Speaker 1] (4:26:29 - 4:26:30)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (4:26:30 - 4:26:36)
And did I hear correctly that Ms. Taccone was both working on and anxious about her dissertation in 2025?

[Speaker 1] (4:26:36 - 4:26:37)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (4:26:37 - 4:26:39)
No further questions.

[Speaker 5] (4:26:40 - 4:26:48)
Thank you. Mr. Momin, can you give the administration's attorney a summary of the amount of time she has remaining?

[Speaker 9] (4:26:51 - 4:27:12)
So that was five minutes. So the administration has used 113 minutes, which leaves four, let's see, get my math here. So 157, 37 minutes?

[Speaker 5] (4:27:12 - 4:27:14)
Seven minutes remaining.

[Speaker 9] (4:27:14 - 4:27:16)
37 minutes for administration.

[Speaker 3] (4:27:16 - 4:27:21)
Thank you. Ms. Hamm, you may call your next witness. Administration calls Brian Waddell.

[Speaker 7] (4:27:29 - 4:27:35)
All right, so we're gonna take a quick break before we move on to the next witness. Ms. Hamm, is that okay?

[Speaker 8] (4:28:52 - 4:28:54)
Reconvene from our short break.

[Speaker 7] (4:28:55 - 4:29:01)
Everybody here? Everybody that needs to be here, here? Looks like it.

Okay, right back over there.

[Speaker 5] (4:29:05 - 4:29:17)
We're back on the record at, I guess it's 9.40. Mr. Waddell, were you sworn previously? Okay, Ms. Hamm, your witness. Front.

[Speaker 9] (4:29:19 - 4:29:24)
Button, red light means you're hot. There you are. It's scooted a little closer to you.

[Speaker 10] (4:29:25 - 4:29:26)
All right.

[Speaker 9] (4:29:28 - 4:29:36)
Look at Ramiro, and if he does this, you're not loud enough. But I think you're fine. You're fine.

[Speaker 6] (4:29:39 - 4:29:44)
Yeah, it's Brian Waddell. I'm the Chief Marketing Officer.

[Speaker 8] (4:29:47 - 4:29:48)
Leslie Gallagher.

[Speaker 10] (4:29:51 - 4:29:52)
I am.

[Speaker 6] (4:29:56 - 4:30:09)
Ooh, I mean, since she started, so this is my fifth year, so three and a half years. I'm not exactly sure when she started, so at least.

[Speaker 3] (4:30:12 - 4:30:24)
Mic wasn't on. This may sound like an odd question just coming out of nowhere, but let me just ask you, were you ever out to get Ms. DeConey's job with respect to her responsibilities over the PAC?

[Speaker 6] (4:30:25 - 4:30:26)
No.

[Speaker 3] (4:30:29 - 4:30:41)
In 2025, did you have any conversations with Dr. V about the Performing Arts Center, specifically as it relates to Ms. DeConey reaching out to you for any reason relating to the PAC?

[Speaker 6] (4:30:42 - 4:30:44)
Can you rephrase that?

[Speaker 3] (4:30:44 - 4:30:51)
Sure. In 2025, did Dr. V come to you and say anything to the effect of Ms. DeConey's going to be reaching out to talk about the PAC?

[Speaker 10] (4:30:51 - 4:30:52)
He did, yes.

[Speaker 3] (4:30:52 - 4:30:54)
Okay, and so what do you recall about that conversation?

[Speaker 6] (4:30:54 - 4:31:02)
She told me that she had asked Zella to reach out to me to discuss strategy and a way forward with the Performing Arts Center.

[Speaker 3] (4:31:04 - 4:31:07)
When did that conversation occur to the best of your recollection?

[Speaker 6] (4:31:07 - 4:31:09)
Between Dr. V and myself?

[Speaker 3] (4:31:09 - 4:31:09)
Yes.

[Speaker 6] (4:31:11 - 4:31:12)
Sometime in the summer.

[Speaker 3] (4:31:13 - 4:31:14)
Okay, of 2025?

[Speaker 6] (4:31:15 - 4:31:15)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (4:31:15 - 4:31:22)
Okay, and so did you have an understanding of when that was going to happen, when Ms. DeConey would be reaching out to you?

[Speaker 6] (4:31:22 - 4:31:27)
It seemed urgent to me. I expected it to happen sooner than later.

[Speaker 3] (4:31:28 - 4:31:29)
And why did it seem urgent to you?

[Speaker 6] (4:31:31 - 4:31:53)
Dr. V had come from a campus that had a very vibrant Performing Arts Center and I knew that she had a vision for what she wanted to see on this campus and none of that was coming true and so I think that that's what kind of gave me the impression that it was more urgent than probably maybe her words themselves.

[Speaker 3] (4:31:54 - 4:32:04)
So after Dr. V advised you that Ms. DeConey was going to be reaching out, well and let me back up, what was the purpose of you being involved? Like what were you supposed to do?

[Speaker 6] (4:32:05 - 4:32:27)
I think just brainstorm and just offer some strategic advice. I mean, I've never run a Performing Arts Center either so I think we just wanted to talk about marketing and maybe develop a mission and a vision and develop a strategic plan, put two heads together, you know, come up with some ideas, brainstorm.

[Speaker 3] (4:32:29 - 4:32:34)
When did Ms. DeConey reach out to you to have this brainstorming session about the PAC?

[Speaker 6] (4:32:34 - 4:32:35)
Well, she never did.

[Speaker 3] (4:32:36 - 4:33:00)
Okay, and if we look at, there's a couple of binders in front of you. There's a white binder. If you can open that binder to Exhibit 18, let me know when you're there.

[Speaker 10] (4:33:00 - 4:33:05)
Okay, right.

[Speaker 3] (4:33:06 - 4:33:11)
Okay, so can you read, this is an email that you sent to Dr. V on October 10th.

[Speaker 6] (4:33:11 - 4:33:11)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (4:33:12 - 4:33:13)
Can you read it?

[Speaker 6] (4:33:13 - 4:33:23)
Dr. V, I've had no contact from Selah regarding the PAC mission, vision, the way forward, nothing since you mentioned that she would be reaching out to meet about it.

[Speaker 3] (4:33:24 - 4:33:28)
Is this an accurate statement as of October 10th, 2025?

[Speaker 6] (4:33:28 - 4:33:30)
I would have no reason to make that up.

[Speaker 3] (4:33:31 - 4:33:40)
Was there at any point, was there any point after October 10th, 2025 that Ms. DeConey reached out to you to have this brainstorming strategy session about the PAC?

[Speaker 6] (4:33:40 - 4:33:43)
We talked about the PAC, but not about that subject.

[Speaker 3] (4:33:43 - 4:33:48)
Okay, and is it true that Ms. DeConey would text you at times?

[Speaker 6] (4:33:49 - 4:33:49)
Yeah, absolutely.

[Speaker 3] (4:33:50 - 4:33:58)
Okay, did she ever text you requesting a time to meet to have a strategy session about the PAC or anything along those lines?

[Speaker 6] (4:33:58 - 4:34:01)
I just looked at all my texts from last April and there was no text about that.

[Speaker 3] (4:34:02 - 4:34:05)
So from April, just in April or April through when?

[Speaker 6] (4:34:05 - 4:34:12)
April through October or I don't know the last one, but I can find it.

[Speaker 3] (4:34:13 - 4:34:27)
Well, that's fine. In 2025, were you also asked to review any marketing or promotional materials that were either put together under Ms. DeConey's supervision or at her request?

[Speaker 6] (4:34:28 - 4:34:28)
I was.

[Speaker 3] (4:34:29 - 4:35:20)
And if you look at Exhibit 19 in that white binder, this is an email exchange between you and Dr. V. And if we look at the third page of the email, do you see where it looks like Ms. DeConey sends an email to Dr. V on October 13th saying, hey, I'm sharing the marketing materials created to date by our marketing team for the PAC 25-26 season. Dr. V forwards it to you and says, please carefully review the attached marketing materials and provide your recommendations for correcting and or approval. Please provide extra scrutiny in your review. Do you know why Dr. V was asking you to review these materials with quote extra scrutiny in October of 2025?

[Speaker 6] (4:35:22 - 4:35:24)
Because she likes things done correctly.

[Speaker 3] (4:35:27 - 4:36:04)
And so it looks like you provided quite a bit of feedback if we look at the first two pages of the email. And it looks like you go through, there's some shortfalls and gaps with brand cohesion, hierarchy and readability, emotional and institutional connection going on in the next page. And then you provide specific recommendations for improvement.

And then after all your bullet points, you say, as with the PAC itself, these ads have no strategy or focus. Can you explain what you meant by that in your email?

[Speaker 6] (4:36:04 - 4:36:14)
I was probably referring to the meeting that we were supposed to have to develop a strategy and which had apparently by October the 14th still never happened.

[Speaker 3] (4:36:15 - 4:36:22)
So would you agree that the PAC as of late October 2025 was still lacking a strategy and focus?

[Speaker 6] (4:36:23 - 4:36:23)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (4:36:24 - 4:36:28)
And this was a conversation that you had had with Dr. V?

[Speaker 6] (4:36:30 - 4:36:30)
About?

[Speaker 3] (4:36:30 - 4:36:33)
About the lack of strategy and focus with the PAC.

[Speaker 6] (4:36:33 - 4:36:42)
Oh, in hindsight, after I had told her that nothing that she asked to happen had happened, then I told her, yeah, that, yeah.

[Speaker 3] (4:36:43 - 4:36:48)
And so these marketing materials, they were put together by your department?

[Speaker 6] (4:36:49 - 4:36:52)
They were put together by one of our graphic designers.

[Speaker 3] (4:36:52 - 4:37:08)
And so when your graphic designers put together marketing materials, do they just come up with it themselves or do they rely on the direction of the department that they're working with?

[Speaker 6] (4:37:10 - 4:37:20)
It depends, but typically they use the subject matter experts for the content and then also to get the style and tone that they're looking for.

[Speaker 3] (4:37:22 - 4:37:59)
And if we also look at exhibits 40 and 41, 41 is some sort of marketing material relating to the foundation. Exhibit 40 is the email thread that attached that marketing material. And you're having a back and forth with Dr. V about it. Can you just sort of summarize for us in simple terms what you were reviewing and what your feedback was about?

[Speaker 6] (4:38:03 - 4:38:51)
The foundation had come to, in the summer, the marketing department had meetings with all of our programs and departments to talk about how we could support them. And we met with the foundation and we're going to develop a leave behind that content of which would come from the foundation. And then to explain what the foundation does and how to partner in all of the things that someone would want to do if they were going to be a donor to the college or to the foundation.

I didn't feel that the content that was represented in this particular piece was effective in doing that.

[Speaker 3] (4:38:52 - 4:39:02)
Can you tell us without belaboring the issues what you felt was, I think the word you used, inappropriate about the content given its intended purpose?

[Speaker 6] (4:39:08 - 4:39:39)
In marketing, you want to have a call to action. You want to provoke the reader to do something. There's really nothing here that does that.

And it gets really into the weeds about the pillars and about the career paths. And I just was thinking that it needs to be more about ways to interact with the foundation and what that money would actually do rather than explaining the career pathways and what the student experience is about academically.

[Speaker 3] (4:39:40 - 4:39:58)
What do the career pathways to your knowledge have to do with the foundation? If this is the leave behind materials, you're leaving with people to educate them on the mission of the foundation and to encourage them to donate money to support the college. What do the six strategic career pathways have to do with that?

[Speaker 6] (4:39:58 - 4:40:04)
I don't think anything. I don't think this is just all data that you could find on our website. That's the problem with the piece.

[Speaker 3] (4:40:05 - 4:40:14)
Okay. And the next page is the four pillars of partnership. I mean, what did you think about this information?

[Speaker 6] (4:40:19 - 4:40:27)
I mean, as a marketer, it just is information. You can see there's no call to action to a response.

[Speaker 3] (4:40:27 - 4:41:02)
In the third page, we've got the mission of the foundation and then the foundation community impact. But the impact is listed as located in the heart of Texas's petrochemical corridor. Lee College serves as a critical pipeline for skilled workers supporting major employers.

And that says 83% of students work while attending college, 100% open admissions policy, 13 school districts in our service area. Do you have an understanding of how that ties into the foundation?

[Speaker 6] (4:41:02 - 4:41:10)
I don't. One of our strategic plan goals is to increase academic transfer. And this is the opposite of what we're trying to do.

[Speaker 3] (4:41:11 - 4:41:41)
I'd like you to briefly turn in that same white folder to exhibit five, which is a performance evaluation of Ms. Taccone. And if you flip to section number seven, if you look at the different titles, the headings, there's a section on marketing and public affairs.

[Speaker 6] (4:41:42 - 4:41:43)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (4:41:44 - 4:42:23)
So I just wanna read parts of this to you and then just ask you if you know, have any knowledge of this and whether or not these statements are factually accurate. The CELA has demonstrated a continued lack of follow-through responsiveness and accountability in collaborating with marketing and public affairs. Despite being instructed to coordinate regularly with the executive director of marketing and public affairs for support and guidance with the PAC, CELA failed to make contact for more than a month.

When she finally did reach out, her communication consisted primarily of expressing her lack of expertise and understanding to oversee the PAC. Is that an accurate statement to your knowledge?

[Speaker 6] (4:42:24 - 4:42:26)
Those were phone conversations that we had, yes.

[Speaker 3] (4:42:27 - 4:42:32)
Okay. So she called and expressed her lack of understanding of what to do with the PAC.

[Speaker 6] (4:42:33 - 4:42:33)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (4:42:34 - 4:43:02)
Okay. Additionally, she expressed frustration about her workload and facility limitations, such as the lack of a green room bathroom, the need to backfill the PAC director position and her inability to rely on staff. Is that accurate to your knowledge?

Yes. At no point did she request assistance, propose solutions or engage in discussion about how the executive director of marketing and public affairs could help fulfill her duties in overseeing the PAC. Is that an accurate statement as it relates to your involvement with Ms. Taccone?

[Speaker 6] (4:43:03 - 4:43:03)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (4:43:05 - 4:43:20)
Additionally, marketing and public affairs met with various departments across the college to assist in providing marketing materials for the upcoming year. In the meeting with CELA, she was unable to communicate the priorities of the foundation and instead asked for marketing materials that were general in nature. Is that an accurate statement?

[Speaker 6] (4:43:21 - 4:43:22)
That's the piece we just looked at.

[Speaker 3] (4:43:23 - 4:43:41)
The marketing and public affairs team provided her with feedback on multiple occasions to develop a short list of priorities in the upcoming year that would help accomplish long-term goals. Despite this guidance, no substantive revisions were made nor any concrete steps taken to implement the feedback provided. Is that an accurate statement to your knowledge?

[Speaker 10] (4:43:42 - 4:43:42)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (4:43:50 - 4:43:58)
In any of the conversations that you had with Ms. Taccone about the PAC, did she express any interest in learning how to make the PAC successful?

[Speaker 10] (4:44:02 - 4:44:02)
No.

[Speaker 3] (4:44:05 - 4:44:11)
Based on your own personal observations, did it ever appear to you that Ms. Taccone was struggling with certain aspects of her role?

[Speaker 6] (4:44:14 - 4:44:17)
Well, she told me that she was, so yes.

[Speaker 3] (4:44:18 - 4:44:23)
Okay. In what specific areas of responsibility did she express to you that she was struggling with?

[Speaker 6] (4:44:25 - 4:44:27)
I don't know how to run a performing arts center.

[Speaker 3] (4:44:28 - 4:44:29)
But did she ask for your help?

[Speaker 6] (4:44:30 - 4:44:35)
About marketing the shows? Yes. But about strategy and goals?

No.

[Speaker 3] (4:44:35 - 4:44:36)
So there's no brainstorming?

[Speaker 6] (4:44:37 - 4:44:37)
No.

[Speaker 3] (4:44:37 - 4:44:42)
There's no, hey, what ideas do you have? Anything of that nature?

[Speaker 10] (4:44:43 - 4:44:43)
No.

[Speaker 3] (4:44:44 - 4:44:46)
I have no further questions. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (4:44:54 - 4:44:57)
Questions for you from 2025.

[Speaker 10] (4:45:01 - 4:45:04)
Oh, I'm sorry. I need to pull that up real close.

[Speaker 2] (4:45:04 - 4:45:34)
Is it on even? Hello? There, it's on.

Thank you. Thank you. Hi, sorry.

Mr. Waddell, in the summer of 2025, did you ever reach out to Ms. Taccone after Dr. Villanueva said that she wanted Ms. Taccone to work with you?

[Speaker 8] (4:45:37 - 4:45:40)
Did I reach out to Ms. Taccone? I did not. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (4:45:43 - 4:45:58)
And Dr. V told you that she had told Ms. Taccone, whether she did or not, that she had been directed to contact you and that you heard that in the summer, correct?

[Speaker 6] (4:46:00 - 4:46:10)
She told me that she had asked Stella to reach out to me to brainstorm about a vision strategy for the PAC and to expect a contact from her.

[Speaker 2] (4:46:10 - 4:46:34)
Okay. But you didn't get back to Ms. I'm sorry, Dr. V until October 10th to tell her that Ms. Taccone had never got in touch with you. What triggered your at that point saying, well, she never got back to me.

Had Dr. V reached out to you? Had something happened with regard to the PAC?

[Speaker 6] (4:46:36 - 4:46:39)
I don't recall anything specific that happened.

[Speaker 2] (4:46:39 - 4:46:47)
Okay. You do recall though in September and October, Ms. Taccone texting you while you were in London?

[Speaker 6] (4:46:50 - 4:46:52)
Texting me while I was in London?

[Speaker 2] (4:46:53 - 4:47:05)
Yep. Telling her I'm about to go out to dinner in London and she said, London? Wow.

Yeah, I can give you the date. The end of September she texted you. I'll give you the date.

[Speaker 10] (4:47:08 - 4:47:09)
Good morning.

[Speaker 6] (4:47:09 - 4:47:25)
How are you? I'm checking to see if you offer the other two tickets to anyone else on your team. Is Drew not able to attend?

What about Monica and her husband? I am well about to head out for dinner in London. I did.

Drew isn't free and Monica is with her husband, has moved to New York. Should I continue?

[Speaker 2] (4:47:26 - 4:47:28)
Yeah. I mean, were there any other?

[Speaker 6] (4:47:29 - 4:47:54)
London? Monica moved to New York? Wow.

Enjoy. That was the end of that conversation. Then on October the 1st.

Hi, how are you? Are you back on this side of the pond yet? October the 5th.

That's awesome. I love that. I will leave you alone.

October the 9th. Hi, Brian. How are you?

I am well. What about you? I'm home not feeling well today.

There's questions about an ad for thank you ad for the gala.

[Speaker 2] (4:47:57 - 4:48:03)
Okay. Let's look at exhibit 14 in the white book.

[Speaker 8] (4:48:21 - 4:48:23)
What in this reflects?

[Speaker 2] (4:48:27 - 4:48:38)
That's your feedback that Dr. V had requested of you. Oh, that's the wrong strong exhibit. Never mind.

I'm going to pass the witness.

[Speaker 3] (4:48:39 - 4:48:47)
Just one follow up or two. Mr. Waddle, was it your responsibility or part of your job duties to follow up with Mr. Coney?

[Speaker 6] (4:48:48 - 4:48:49)
No, ma'am. It was not.

[Speaker 3] (4:48:49 - 4:49:02)
Were you ever directed by your supervisor to reach out to Mr. Coney? No, ma'am. No further questions.

Thank you. Yes.

[Speaker 5] (4:49:05 - 4:49:08)
That you are. Is he also released from the room?

[Speaker 3] (4:49:09 - 4:49:11)
I have no problem with that.

[Speaker 5] (4:49:13 - 4:49:19)
Yes. Oh, yeah. You are excused and you're released from the rules.

So you may leave or go. Thank you. Ms. Hamm, next witness.

[Speaker 3] (4:49:19 - 4:49:29)
At this time, subject to the need to call any rebuttal witnesses, we will close our case. Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (4:49:29 - 4:49:31)
Ms. Armstrong, are you ready to present your case?

[Speaker 2] (4:49:31 - 4:50:01)
Yeah, I'm going to call Mr. Coney. Mr. Coney, would you look at the county exhibit 17 in the black book?

[Speaker 10] (4:50:08 - 4:50:09)
Yes.

[Speaker 8] (4:50:09 - 4:50:16)
Do you recognize that exchange between Mr. Dobbs and Ms. Gallagher?

[Speaker 4] (4:50:23 - 4:50:38)
It's a communication where Mr. Dobbs sent me the draft of the PAC guidelines or policy that he was working on, and then I sent it to Leslie.

[Speaker 2] (4:50:39 - 4:50:45)
And did you forward the professional draft for leadership review and legal input as well?

[Speaker 4] (4:50:45 - 4:50:53)
I was forwarding it before it went to legal so that we could take a look at it as a team before it was sent to legal.

[Speaker 2] (4:50:54 - 4:51:00)
Did you receive extensive feedback from the president about aligning PAC processes with facilities and existing policies?

[Speaker 4] (4:51:01 - 4:51:22)
Yes, and it became evident to me that the president didn't really clearly understand the way that the PAC's business model was set up and the way that the rental things occurred at the PAC versus here on campus. So I had a lot of questions about her feedback.

[Speaker 2] (4:51:23 - 4:51:32)
And where did you get that information about how things were run that caused you concern that were an understanding that maybe Dr. V did not understand?

[Speaker 4] (4:51:32 - 4:52:05)
So really, it all started with Noah coming up against questions that we didn't have guidelines for at the Performing Arts Center around rentals, who we rent to, why we rent to them, costs, and those kinds of things were a part of these guidelines. Things that we did not have in place after having the PAC for at least 20 years here, and things that he really felt was important to try to get down in writing before he left the college.

[Speaker 2] (4:52:05 - 4:52:11)
Okay. Now, were you accused of causing the PAC director's early departure?

[Speaker 4] (4:52:11 - 4:52:12)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (4:52:12 - 4:52:14)
And what's your understanding of that?

[Speaker 4] (4:52:16 - 4:53:10)
My understanding of that is that when I met with Mr. Dobbs after receiving the feedback from Dr. Villanueva, we met over Webex, and I let him know that I had heard back from the president's office and received some feedback, and that I was going to need his assistance in answering some of the questions. And so we spent some time where I asked him some of the questions that were outlined on her feedback, and we talked through that in Webex. Mr. Dobbs got upset about the feedback, and I, you know, reiterated with him that we were just really trying to be solution-oriented, and we were just trying to get to some good answers so that we could improve the document.

[Speaker 2] (4:53:11 - 4:53:14)
Mr. Dobbs ever tell you that you were the reason he left?

[Speaker 4] (4:53:14 - 4:53:15)
Absolutely not.

[Speaker 2] (4:53:15 - 4:53:18)
What did he tell you about his relationship with you?

[Speaker 4] (4:53:19 - 4:53:29)
His relationship with me? Yeah, as his boss. He told me that he loved the college and that I was his favorite boss that he's ever had.

[Speaker 8] (4:53:34 - 4:53:38)
If you look at Tocconi Exhibit 19, pages 87 to 89.

[Speaker 4] (4:53:55 - 4:53:55)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (4:53:57 - 4:54:12)
Okay, so those are September 4th and September 10th emails with drafts, run of show, asking for edits, and setting a date to finalize. Is that correct? That's about the gala?

[Speaker 4] (4:54:12 - 4:54:13)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (4:54:13 - 4:54:16)
And who issued the final script the morning of the gala?

[Speaker 4] (4:54:17 - 4:54:18)
I'm sorry, what did you?

[Speaker 2] (4:54:18 - 4:54:21)
Who issued the final script?

[Speaker 4] (4:54:22 - 4:54:24)
So Dr. Villanueva issued the final script.

[Speaker 2] (4:54:25 - 4:54:26)
And when did that arrive?

[Speaker 4] (4:54:27 - 4:54:28)
On the day of gala.

[Speaker 2] (4:54:28 - 4:54:29)
On the actual day of the gala?

[Speaker 4] (4:54:30 - 4:54:30)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (4:54:30 - 4:54:57)
If you look at pages 90 to 91, there's a September 26th, 2025 final script email from Leslie Gallagher. Is that the return of the final script to you? What is the importance of this email to your case, do you believe?

[Speaker 4] (4:54:58 - 4:58:35)
Well, I mean, if I can take a minute to explain what happened with the gala run of show, I would appreciate the opportunity to do that. And so I was asked, I had two dates put on my calendar for the gala run of show by the president's office to send drafts of the gala run of show to them. And so I did that here in this shows that I sent it on September 4th.

I received feedback from Dr. Villanueva that it looked good, but she had feedback, or she had edits, revisions, and that she would get back to me. I emailed several times asking for her edits and did not get them. I was concerned.

I told her that I was concerned with how I wanted to know her feedback on how much did she want to be on stage during the program. She said we would talk about it. We didn't.

She canceled our meetings for that month. We did not talk. And I texted her asking for feedback.

I emailed Leslie asking for feedback. My administrative assistant went to her administrative assistant asking, do you have revisions? Do we have anything in place?

As we get closer and closer to the date, Dr. Villanueva got further and further away from communicating with me. She stopped responding to my emails and my texts in any kind of a decent timeline for me to be able to do the work that I needed to do. And so, the nature, OK, so the run of show, so I felt very, very stressed about being able to be ready for what I needed to do at the gala.

I was going to be the one on stage no matter what, because it was the foundation's event, and it was my responsibility to make sure that it all happened well. So, in that last week before the gala, I did a second draft of the run of show where I pulled back on how much the president was on stage. And so, I had two drafts of the gala run of show.

I had already shared one with her, and I was waiting for her revisions. And had reached out multiple times asking for them. I never got them until then she sends her administrative assistant to our office the day before gala and asks where the run of show is.

I told the administrative assistant, this is the second, there's two drafts. I've already emailed her one, and this is the second one. And I didn't receive any communication.

There was no call from Dr. Villanueva or from Leslie saying, hey, we're confused by this. Where was the original one? Or why does this look, I mean, there was no communication with me at all.

I've been, I was very much blocked off from getting communication from Dr. Villanueva. With the pressure mounting, as I got closer and closer to gala, I decided I'm going to have two run of shows. If she's involved, great, we've got that one ready to go.

She doesn't want to be as involved on stage, then great, we've got that one to go. And I had both of those.

[Speaker 2] (4:58:37 - 4:58:43)
Just let's look at administration exhibit number 45 quickly.

[Speaker 8] (4:58:48 - 4:58:49)
White book, yes, white book.

[Speaker 4] (4:59:07 - 4:59:08)
Yes, I'm there.

[Speaker 2] (4:59:08 - 4:59:13)
If you go over that next to last paragraph, maybe read it to the board.

[Speaker 4] (4:59:14 - 4:59:17)
My second paragraph that starts with also?

[Speaker 2] (4:59:18 - 4:59:21)
Yeah, also, and you're writing to Dr. V., correct?

[Speaker 4] (4:59:23 - 5:00:07)
Yes, I say, also, I appreciate the written expectations, as I have noticed that the expectations for me and my team have changed over the last several months. I will follow your expectations as outlined below. Regarding our final, your final bullet, I do not, I'm not always aware of when you're available and not, so it is difficult for me to figure out when to wait for your response and when to go to Leslie.

As I have shared, I think we could be more aligned if we could spend more time together and have regular meetings. More time together would allow me to bring college advancement initiatives to you in person first, rather than through email. My goals are to be in step with you and your expectations and continue to bring value to the college through my work.

[Speaker 2] (5:00:08 - 5:00:13)
Is that the first time you ever asked Dr. V. to meet with you one-on-one?

[Speaker 4] (5:00:13 - 5:00:28)
No, I've mentioned to her multiple times that due to the strategic nature of my work, I needed time with her and I needed to, I needed that time with her to be able to be aligned with her.

[Speaker 2] (5:00:29 - 5:00:44)
Did you ever experience what one would consider in an employment setting, a one-on-one counseling session? No. Do you ever have any sense that you were, your job was in jeopardy?

[Speaker 4] (5:00:44 - 5:01:25)
I knew she was upset with me because clearly you can see that in the emails, but I didn't understand why and I didn't understand where the shift came from because it shifted very quickly. It was like, it was like she flipped the switch and one minute all of my responses from her are wonderful, great, awesome, we're so happy to have you, which I have here in the evidence book. And then all of a sudden it's these long, you know, angry, upset emails.

But again, I could not get with her to sit down with her to try to understand where her unhappiness was coming from and how I could improve.

[Speaker 2] (5:01:25 - 5:01:34)
And this one email out of many that you say you sent is an example of your reaching out and trying to meet with her.

[Speaker 4] (5:01:34 - 5:02:04)
Yes. If you read my responses to many of her emails in this white binder, you'll see that I'm asking for help. I'm asking for support.

I'm asking to not be left out alone. I can't make the strategic decisions without her, but it's my job to be working with the community and with community partners. I very much wanted to be in alignment with her.

I very much love my job.

[Speaker 2] (5:02:05 - 5:02:09)
Did you have regularly SCED? Did you meet with her monthly anyway about?

[Speaker 4] (5:02:09 - 5:02:46)
We did have CELA updates on our calendars, but they were more often than not, they were canceled by her. I can show that proof. I don't have it here with me, but I do have it in my email where you can see that more often than not, the meetings are canceled, sometimes even the day of, an hour before, sometimes even, and I understand that she's very busy.

But again, I did need to be a priority for her in order for me to be successful. I needed her support in order to be successful in my job, and she withdrew that support.

[Speaker 2] (5:02:47 - 5:03:06)
I don't want to put you on the spot, but I'm going to. I'm going to ask you, how has the college's actions, timing during this FMLA period that you're in, the predetermination, the reputational impact, how has that affected you professionally and personally?

[Speaker 4] (5:03:11 - 5:03:47)
This has been, other than losing my mom when she died, this has been just really the most difficult time that I've gone through in my life. I've been in a very, very dark place mentally and emotionally, and I can't really even describe the detrimental effect to my mental health that this has caused. Has it exacerbated your physical condition?

Absolutely.

[Speaker 2] (5:03:47 - 5:04:03)
And do you think that the negative emails, reactive emails from Dr. V might have contributed to maybe diminishing your performance?

[Speaker 4] (5:04:05 - 5:06:39)
Absolutely. I mean, I started to second guess everything that I was doing because it seemed like everything I was doing, she was upset with. But I was very much being spun around between her and Leslie and not knowing who to go to for what or when.

And again, I don't feel that I had the support of the president who was my boss and who should be invested in my success and be invested in supporting me. And I felt when I went on medical leave and she sent that letter to me, to my personal email with that termination document, it honestly felt like she had chased me to my house and was still berating me in my own home while I'm reading that email. It was horrific.

Especially since the fact that I very much, part of my identity is about my job and being a very high performer and taking accountability and getting feedback. All those things that she wrote about me in the performance evaluation are directly opposite of who I am as a person. And that is one reason why I felt so strongly that I had to come here.

So this is very difficult for me physically and mentally. I felt that I had to come and I had to let y'all know. Y'all know me.

I've worked with y'all and I am a highly accountable person. I absolutely follow directives when I am aware that it is a directive. And when people want to give a directive that's very important and you want to make sure that your employee understands it, oftentimes you'll put that in writing.

I have no directives in writing from Dr. Villanueva about getting with Brian to help me with the So that whole scenario is not something that, I mean, it's a contrived scenario that I was not even made aware of that I was supposed to get with Brian about anything related to the PAC other than marketing, which is something I've always worked with him on.

[Speaker 2] (5:06:41 - 5:06:44)
Did the CFO give you approval, yes or no?

[Speaker 4] (5:06:44 - 5:07:18)
So he gave me approval for the piece that I asked for. So I went to him and I asked him to look at the endowment. And that's, it's not actually in here, but to look at the endowment form and make sure that financially I was correct in saying that we could do the things that we wanted to do, which was start industrial driven endowments, corporate endowments.

He said yes. I didn't ask him about the appropriateness of the marketing material. I just asked him about the financial piece and he said yes.

[Speaker 2] (5:07:19 - 5:07:20)
And that's what you told Dr. V?

[Speaker 4] (5:07:21 - 5:07:21)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (5:07:21 - 5:07:24)
That's all the questions I have.

[Speaker 3] (5:07:28 - 5:07:47)
Ross? Yes. Good evening, Ms. DeConey. So your attorney was asking you some questions about whether or not, you know, the stress or Dr. V's emails to you might have impacted your performance. Do you remember those questions?

[Speaker 4] (5:07:47 - 5:07:48)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (5:07:48 - 5:07:56)
So sitting here today, are you willing to admit that in 2025 your performance deteriorated as compared to 2024?

[Speaker 4] (5:07:57 - 5:08:36)
I don't. I don't. I want to say that in those last few months before I went on medical leave, I was struggling very heavily.

So from September when, like she said, the straw that broke the camel's back. Well, I felt that in September from her. Her fury.

I felt her fury and her rage and that just continued to escalate all the way until I went on medical leave. And again, she mailed all of that stuff to my house so that I got to have to sign for it as well, not only to my email, but to my home.

[Speaker 3] (5:08:37 - 5:08:52)
So all of these emails that we looked at earlier this evening that contain extensive feedback, extensive directives. You're claiming that that illustrates good performance on your part.

[Speaker 4] (5:08:53 - 5:09:03)
I'm putting forward the fact that she contrived those situations and set me up to fail because she had already decided that she wasn't going to renew my contract.

[Speaker 3] (5:09:04 - 5:09:19)
So this is all contrived. That's your testimony that you're asking the regents to believe that Dr. Villanueva sat in her office one day and decided she was going to contrive a binder full of evidence.

[Speaker 4] (5:09:19 - 5:09:20)
I'm not the first one either.

[Speaker 3] (5:09:20 - 5:09:25)
Oh, OK. Yeah. OK.

I guess we'll just have to take your word for that.

[Speaker 4] (5:09:25 - 5:09:36)
Well, yes, because my witnesses were not allowed. Because they weren't relevant to your performance, correct? They absolutely were.

One of them was my previous supervisor.

[Speaker 3] (5:09:36 - 5:09:40)
But not during the performance evaluation period, correct? We can agree about that, right?

[Speaker 4] (5:09:40 - 5:09:45)
We can agree on that. No, Dr. Villanueva was my supervisor during that performance evaluation.

[Speaker 3] (5:09:45 - 5:09:47)
And you're a high, you have a high level position.

[Speaker 4] (5:09:47 - 5:09:48)
But Leslie wrote it.

[Speaker 3] (5:09:48 - 5:09:54)
I'm sorry, I'm asking the questions and I need you to answer my questions. You could let me finish my sentence, right?

[Speaker 4] (5:09:56 - 5:10:38)
Go ahead. I'm going to say that Dr. Villanueva was my supervisor at that time that that performance evaluation was done. But Leslie did that performance evaluation with AI for her.

And to me, that makes it even more unauthentic and less real. There's no dates in there. There's no any specificity to any of the things that she's saying.

Am I perfect? Absolutely not. Can I grow?

Absolutely. Can I improve? Yes.

Did I look to Dr. Villanueva to be a mentor? Did she tell me she was going to grow me into a VP when I agreed to take this position? Yes.

[Speaker 3] (5:10:39 - 5:10:52)
I'm going to object to all of that as non-responsive. That's okay. It is.

So are you, your testimony, you just testified that Leslie did your performance evaluation. That's not a true statement, is it?

[Speaker 4] (5:10:52 - 5:11:14)
Well, she entered notes from Dr. Villanueva, so she definitely collaborated with Dr. Villanueva to do the evaluation. What's wrong with that? Um, I, that's not typical for, you know, for a supervisor to do another supervisor's performance evaluation.

She didn't do the evaluation.

[Speaker 3] (5:11:15 - 5:11:18)
She took Dr. V's notes, put it into AI and sent her the draft to review.

[Speaker 4] (5:11:18 - 5:11:30)
How is that Leslie doing your performance evaluation? It's Leslie taking the initiative that the supervisor should have taken to complete the performance evaluation.

[Speaker 3] (5:11:30 - 5:11:32)
So Dr. V hasn't taken enough initiative here?

[Speaker 4] (5:11:33 - 5:12:08)
I don't feel that she has taken enough initiative to support me in the time that I was really struggling. And instead, she decided to turn on me and, and in three months. So she took a lot of initiative to contrive all of this?

She took a lot of initiative to help me fail. And you play no part in your failure? I absolutely take responsibility for the things that I do that are not, that I need to grow from.

Which parts?

[Speaker 3] (5:12:09 - 5:12:15)
Explain to the Regents which performance deficiencies or failure to follow directives you're taking responsibility for?

[Speaker 4] (5:12:15 - 5:12:17)
I haven't failed to follow any directives.

[Speaker 3] (5:12:20 - 5:12:27)
So it's your testimony that Dr. V never directed you to talk with Dr. Norris to repair your relationship?

[Speaker 4] (5:12:27 - 5:12:36)
That is my testimony. And I would love to give you a, give you the opportunity to talk about what happened with Dr. Norris and provide some context with that as well.

[Speaker 3] (5:12:36 - 5:12:40)
So your testimony is that Dr. Villanueva lied about all of that?

[Speaker 4] (5:12:40 - 5:13:38)
She did not tell me that I had to talk. I asked her specifically, is that a directive that I have to go talk to Dr. Norris after she came to you to complain about me? Didn't come to me to complain about me.

Didn't come to me to try to talk about it. I said she went to you. I asked Dr. Villanueva, did you redirect her back to me?

Did you ask her if she brought her concerns to me? Dr. Villanueva said no, you should go talk to her. I said I have concerns about talking to her because clearly I cannot be vulnerable with her.

She turned around and I thought we were having a conversation among colleagues and she turned around and went to the president of the college to complain about me. I asked Dr. Villanueva if she asked Dr. Norris to come talk to me. She said no, you should go talk to Dr. Norris. I asked her if that was a directive. She said no, I could wait if I wanted to until after we had completed our team building activities with the cabinet.

[Speaker 3] (5:13:43 - 5:13:54)
So your testimony is that Dr. V is lying under oath. She never gave you a directive, but you had the forethought to specifically ask, is this a directive?

[Speaker 4] (5:13:54 - 5:14:11)
Yes, because she said go talk to Dr. Norris. And I said is that a directive? Because I feel strongly that I should not have to go and talk to Dr. Norris after she just came to you and threw me under the bus. Right, and that's when you were talking about fool me once, right? I didn't say that.

[Speaker 3] (5:14:11 - 5:14:13)
Dr. Villanueva made that up too?

[Speaker 4] (5:14:15 - 5:14:15)
I didn't say that.

[Speaker 3] (5:14:16 - 5:14:19)
So is that something else she's contrived, that very specific quotation?

[Speaker 4] (5:14:19 - 5:14:21)
I'm just telling you that I didn't say that.

[Speaker 3] (5:14:27 - 5:14:37)
So when the PAC director position became vacant, you were told that it would not be backfilled until you completed an evaluation of PAC operations, is that correct?

[Speaker 4] (5:14:37 - 5:15:17)
There was no evaluation of PAC operations. There was to work on the mission and vision statement and to revise the director's job description. Those were the first two things that were told to me.

And I did push back with Dr. Villanueva and say that typically vision and mission statements are not written by one person. I feel like that's another example of setting me up to not be able to succeed. I've not heard of one mission and vision statement that is written by one person.

That is usually a collaborative effort among multiple stakeholders.

[Speaker 3] (5:15:17 - 5:15:24)
Right. So like when you collaborated with Dr. V and Leslie about what the mission and vision statement should look like?

[Speaker 4] (5:15:25 - 5:15:33)
We talked about it briefly and then they sent me on my way and I went back and drafted a new one and sent it back to them and then never heard another word about it.

[Speaker 3] (5:15:34 - 5:15:37)
Because to this day there's still no mission and vision statement, right?

[Speaker 4] (5:15:37 - 5:15:43)
I sent it to them to hear in the evidence and they did no response.

[Speaker 3] (5:15:43 - 5:15:44)
So it's their fault?

[Speaker 4] (5:15:46 - 5:15:52)
I haven't. I've been on medical leave. It's not something that I could have made happen while I was not at work.

[Speaker 3] (5:15:52 - 5:15:58)
You went on leave in November of 2025. You've held the position since the summer of 2023.

[Speaker 4] (5:16:00 - 5:16:15)
There is a mission vision statement for the PAC. It already existed. Noah wrote it.

Mr. Dobbs wrote it when he was director of the PAC. So I am not, I don't, I don't understand what you, how.

[Speaker 3] (5:16:22 - 5:16:29)
So is it your testimony that Dr. V never told you to conduct an evaluation of the PAC operations?

[Speaker 4] (5:16:31 - 5:17:04)
I don't even know what she means by an evaluation of a PAC, of a PAC, of the PAC evaluation. I mean, what, what are we evaluating? Did she give me a list of things that she wanted me to look at?

I started working with the team who was still here and visited with them. I set up weekly meetings with them. They, we reviewed their job descriptions.

We were, we were in the process of revising any of those that needed to be done. But there was never any PAC operations evaluation told to me to be done.

[Speaker 3] (5:17:05 - 5:17:13)
If that's the case, when you were asked about it multiple times afterwards, why was your response either not yet or I'm about to start?

[Speaker 4] (5:17:13 - 5:17:17)
It wasn't. And I don't, I would like to see that in writing because I didn't say that either.

[Speaker 3] (5:17:18 - 5:17:21)
So that's another thing that the administration has contrived.

[Speaker 4] (5:17:22 - 5:17:26)
I'm telling you what I said and what I know I said.

[Speaker 3] (5:17:32 - 5:17:37)
Dr. V actually specifically instructed you to contact Brazosport College's PAC director, correct?

[Speaker 4] (5:17:38 - 5:17:53)
No, she actually told me that she was going to connect me because she knew him and had his number and she was going to virtually introduce us so that I could connect with him and get some ideas about what Brazosport does. And that didn't happen.

[Speaker 3] (5:17:54 - 5:17:58)
So that's another thing that the administration has contrived against you?

[Speaker 4] (5:17:59 - 5:18:05)
I'm telling you that she told me she would introduce me to the PAC director at Brazosport and she did not.

[Speaker 3] (5:18:05 - 5:18:10)
What efforts did you make to reach out to the director at Brazosport?

[Speaker 4] (5:18:11 - 5:18:18)
I didn't know the director of Brazosport and she didn't tell me to reach out to him. She said she would introduce us virtually.

[Speaker 3] (5:18:23 - 5:18:31)
So when that allegedly happened, you know, she allegedly said that and allegedly didn't happen, then why didn't you take it upon yourself to try to reach out to the PAC director?

[Speaker 4] (5:18:32 - 5:18:47)
Because all of this is happening at the exact same time GALA is happening and I did not. I was waiting for Dr. V to virtually introduce us or for me to get another meeting with Dr. V and we didn't have another meeting.

[Speaker 3] (5:18:56 - 5:19:07)
So based on the exhibits we've looked at this evening, I mean, you can at least agree that there were multiple tasks that were returned to you for revision, correct?

[Speaker 4] (5:19:08 - 5:19:10)
Yes, I can agree with that.

[Speaker 3] (5:19:12 - 5:19:22)
And do you agree that whenever people tried to provide you with constructive feedback, you just deflected and blamed others?

[Speaker 4] (5:19:22 - 5:19:57)
No, that's not true. I thanked her for her feedback and we incorporated her feedback every time. But I think that if you take a minute to look at the evidence and compare those revised documents, you'll see that there's no substantive changes that are made.

It's word choice. It's her personality versus my personality when it comes through the writing. And I think you can take a look.

Hers is great. We incorporated it. We used it.

Mine was not bad either.

[Speaker 3] (5:20:02 - 5:20:04)
That's your opinion. Correct.

[Speaker 4] (5:20:06 - 5:20:17)
Yes, that came from my team and I and we worked on it together. And it was that is my opinion. And it's here so that the regents can take a look at it and make their own decision.

[Speaker 3] (5:20:17 - 5:20:20)
But your supervisor disagreed.

[Speaker 4] (5:20:20 - 5:20:25)
Yes. And I absolutely told her we will do whatever it is that you would like to do. And we did.

[Speaker 3] (5:20:29 - 5:20:34)
But you also have stated multiple times that Dr. V was just too busy for you.

[Speaker 4] (5:20:36 - 5:20:42)
She was until it was time to start picking apart micromanaging me.

[Speaker 3] (5:20:43 - 5:20:49)
Did it occur to you that she might feel like she needed to micromanage you due to performance issues?

[Speaker 4] (5:20:49 - 5:21:03)
No. It would occur to me that she would talk to me about performance issues and try to offer support before putting it all in emails.

[Speaker 3] (5:21:04 - 5:21:12)
So what's the difference between counseling that's provided to you in an email versus counseling that's provided to you in some other form of communication?

[Speaker 4] (5:21:12 - 5:22:21)
So, I mean, I've been supervising people for many years. And if you have an employee that you know was a high performing employee and is now suddenly not a high performing employee, then typically you're going to push in as a supervisor, not pull out, right? You're not going to pull out communication.

You're going to push in and you're going to meet with the person. You're going to document in writing and then send that back to the person. This was our meeting.

These are the things we discussed. These are the directives that I gave you. I want to make sure that they're accomplished by this point in time.

Those things didn't happen. And that's why I'm saying that Dr. Villanueva in her testimony used the word directive a lot and that I didn't follow this directive and I didn't follow that directive. And I'm going to say that I was not under the impression that it was a directive.

There was no directive, again, to talk to Brian either beyond what we already talk about in marketing.

[Speaker 3] (5:22:24 - 5:22:33)
So it's also your testimony that Dr. V never directed you to talk to Brian Waddle about provisioning and strategizing?

[Speaker 4] (5:22:33 - 5:22:33)
No.

[Speaker 3] (5:22:34 - 5:22:41)
So that's something that she's both making up today but also making up in a conversation that she had with Mr. Waddle in the summer?

[Speaker 4] (5:22:44 - 5:23:19)
I don't agree that they had a conversation. So my thing is, is Mr. Dobbs resigned in July and very, very late July. So I don't know when Dr. Villanueva and Brian had the conversation in the summer about vision and strategy, but the director of the PAC was there in the summer throughout almost the whole summer. So I'm not aware of that conversation between Dr. Villanueva and Brian.

[Speaker 3] (5:23:20 - 5:23:22)
So Dr. V is lying about that?

[Speaker 4] (5:23:23 - 5:23:27)
I'm not saying that she's lying. I'm just saying that I'm not aware of the conversation.

[Speaker 3] (5:23:36 - 5:24:03)
Your attorney asked Dr. V specifically, well, aren't you aware of these text messages that Brian Waddle had with Mr. Coney during this time period? I mean, very heavily suggesting that you did, in fact, reach out to Mr. Waddle about the PAC vision and strategy. So I'm just a little bit confused.

So you're saying it was never directive, so you admit that you never reached out to him to discuss the strategy for the PAC?

[Speaker 4] (5:24:03 - 5:24:09)
I did not understand that I was supposed to reach out to Brian about PAC mission and visioning. No, I did not.

[Speaker 3] (5:24:09 - 5:24:18)
My question's a little different. You're admitting that you did not reach out to him about the PAC vision, strategy, brainstorming?

[Speaker 4] (5:24:18 - 5:24:36)
No, I did not. I did not understand that that was what I was supposed to do. I didn't understand that was not something that she said to me.

But Brian and I communicated very regularly about all kinds of other marketing things. So there was a lot of text messages between Brian and quite a few emails as well between the two of us.

[Speaker 3] (5:24:36 - 5:24:43)
So then this is something that Dr. Villanueva was contriving back in late summer, early fall?

[Speaker 4] (5:24:45 - 5:24:46)
I can't say.

[Speaker 3] (5:24:48 - 5:25:09)
Well, but you have said that multiple times here on the stand. You've said that Dr. V has contrived. We're all here because Dr. V decided she was going to contrive this situation and set you up for failure. So, I mean, that is what you're saying, that this back starting in the summer, early fall, I guess the conspiracy began?

[Speaker 4] (5:25:11 - 5:25:14)
It's not a conspiracy. You can see it in the evidence.

[Speaker 3] (5:25:14 - 5:25:25)
You can clearly see how she- Show me which exhibit shows a conspiracy amongst, let's see, it would have to be Dr. V, Leslie Gallagher, the CFO, Brian Waddle.

[Speaker 4] (5:25:26 - 5:25:37)
Who else? Who else was involved? Well, I can say that I do know that Brian, just as he said, or as Dr. Villanueva said, he's got the pack now.

[Speaker 3] (5:25:40 - 5:25:50)
You're asking the Regents to believe. And Leslie, as the foundation- I'm asking the question. We can't talk over each other because the court reporter will get very upset with us.

[Speaker 8] (5:25:55 - 5:26:24)
I lost my train of thought. Update on my time. Oh, let's see.

Three minutes. Three minutes. Both have three minutes, actually, right now.

[Speaker 3] (5:26:35 - 5:26:44)
So, Ms. DeConing, can you just point out for the Regents, you said it's in the evidence. Can you point to us where we can find evidence of this conspiracy?

[Speaker 4] (5:26:45 - 5:27:15)
I never said there was a conspiracy. You used that term. And- So then what would you call it?

In the evidence, you can see that there is a very clear change in the way that I'm being communicated with from Dr. Villanueva. And you can see that in the evidence and through the email communications. One minute, I'm glorious and everything's great.

And then the next minute, I literally can do nothing right. And she doesn't have any time to talk to me.

[Speaker 3] (5:27:28 - 5:27:44)
And so you're suggesting that when the Regents go back to deliberate and they're able to thumb through all of these exhibits, you don't think they're going to find any evidence that Dr. V communicated your performance issues to you?

[Speaker 4] (5:27:46 - 5:27:51)
I can't say what they're going to decide or what they're going to see.

[Speaker 3] (5:27:54 - 5:28:04)
I believe I'm about out of time. So I have no further questions. Thank you.

Armstrong, can you redirect? None.

[Speaker 2] (5:28:04 - 5:28:07)
Thank you. I do have a closing statement though.

[Speaker 5] (5:28:10 - 5:28:12)
Would you like to make any closing remarks?

[Speaker 3] (5:28:15 - 5:28:18)
Yes, if you just give me one moment.

[Speaker 2] (5:28:29 - 5:28:31)
Yes, you can write in that one.

[Speaker 3] (5:28:35 - 5:28:52)
Given that Ms. Armstrong and I are both out of time and both would like to make a closing uh argument, might we request an additional five to ten minutes to complete our presentations? Objection from the Board for an additional five minutes.

[Speaker 10] (5:28:58 - 5:28:59)
Try to keep it as close.

[Speaker 5] (5:29:00 - 5:29:02)
Let's try to keep it as close to five minutes as possible.

[Speaker 2] (5:29:03 - 5:29:13)
I can probably do it in less. Do my best. No.

I got three minutes. That's very easy.

[Speaker 3] (5:29:18 - 5:35:38)
All right. So the administration has the burden of proof and its burden is approved by a preponderance of the evidence that good cause exists to terminate Ms. DeConey's contract. That's the standard, but what does it mean?

It means does the evidence you've heard during this hearing show that it's more likely than not that Ms. DeConey engaged in conduct that falls within the Board's definition of good cause? You, the Board, have specifically defined good cause for mid-contract termination in Board policy DMAA local. You've specifically defined it to include the five categories that we included in the notice of termination.

And so those are the good cause. That's the good cause definition that the administration has relied upon in proposing the termination of Ms. DeConey's contract. And you can group them into three categories, performance issues, insubordination, and failure to maintain effective working relationships.

First, with respect to the performance-based grounds, for these you need to look no further than Administration Exhibit 5, because remember the standard is deficiencies documented in observation reports, appraisals, or evaluations, supplemental memoranda, or other communications. Exhibit 5 is Ms. DeConey's performance evaluation. It's an eight-page evaluation that documents in detail very specific examples of Ms. DeConey's deficiencies. We went over those examples in detail with Dr. Villanueva. You got to hear directly from your college president on all of the ways in which Ms. DeConey failed to meet expectations, her failure to carry out her job duties, her failure to follow directives, and her failure to complete very important projects that she was asked to complete and that are listed in her job description as essential duties. You don't need a directive to do your job.

And with respect to those failures to follow directives, you've seen and heard the evidence. After Ms. DeConey clashed with Dr. Norris about the nursing grant, Dr. V directed her to take the high road and reach out to Dr. Norris to repair their professional relationship. Ms. DeConey didn't do that. Dr. V directed Ms. DeConey to reach out to Brian Waddell. She didn't do that. Even though that was intended as a means to support her for her professed lack of understanding as to how to run a PAC.

But at every turn, you've heard Ms. DeConey say, well, either that's not what happened or that wasn't really a directive. Everything's been contrived for months and months and months. For what reason?

What evidence has been offered to you that would even make that allegation make sense? I certainly haven't heard anything today. I haven't seen anything in the documents.

But if you look in the performance evaluation, you can see that Ms. DeConey has never been short on excuses. That's been her approach to all constructive feedback with respect to her performance issues. And so at the end of the day, Ms. DeConey is a high ranking and highly compensated employee. The president of the college shouldn't have to beg her to do her job. She shouldn't have to consistently fix her work product. She shouldn't have to spend her time or the chief of staff's time performing Ms. DeConey's job duties. Your president shouldn't have to micromanage every little thing that falls under Ms. DeConey's supervision. Why are y'all paying someone in Ms. DeConey's position to have your president and chief of staff bear the brunt of her workload? And of course, that sort of performance issue, the failure to follow directives leads to the final ground for good cause termination.

Failure to maintain an effective working relationship with colleagues. I think based on everything you've heard from Dr. Villanueva, it's very clear that Dr. Villanueva does not trust her to do her job, that she felt like she had to micromanage everything, and that she just lost confidence in her. She's sending things to marketing.

Please carefully review this. Please, if we didn't get to go through all the exhibits, but if you go through them, you'll see, like, no, you need to send me everything before you send something out, because she's sending out invitations with missing information. She's not doing basic steps to ensure that you have a speaker for a lunch alert.

I mean, there was no faith that she was going to do things correctly, which is why Dr. Villanueva is saying, no, no, no, everything has to come through me first. So, I will be the first to agree that this is probably a very stressful, unpleasant situation for Ms. DeConey. No one likes terminating someone's employment.

No one wants to be here doing this, but Dr. V, as your college president, does not have the luxury to sit back and do nothing when she strongly believes that a high-level employee is just not cut out for their position. By all accounts, you know, Ms. DeConey was a very great grant writer. She has certifications relating to fundraising, but those are just small parts of her position.

She still is required to do a great many other things, including managing the operations of the Performing Arts Center. It's basically in that job description, collaborate with marketing. She never did it even after Dr. V told her two years into her tenure, you need to be doing this. So, there are areas of responsibility that are not in Ms. DeConey's wheelhouse. That's not a controversial statement because Ms. DeConey has admitted that to both Dr. V and Brian Waddle, and for whatever reason, despite the efforts at coaching, despite the efforts of support, things just haven't clicked. That doesn't mean Ms. DeConey is a bad person. It doesn't mean she can't have a long and successful career doing things that she does well, but it does mean that the administration strongly believes that she should not continue in her role, her current role of Chief Advancement Officer and the Executive Director of the Foundation. That's five minutes, counsel. So, we're asking that the board approve the recommendation.

[Speaker 5] (5:35:39 - 5:35:49)
Thank you. Ms. Armstrong, do you have any closing remarks for the board? You may begin.

Thank you. Lee Colleges.

[Speaker 9] (5:35:49 - 5:35:53)
Excuse me, Ms. Armstrong, she had three minutes, so she's getting five or eight.

[Speaker 2] (5:35:54 - 5:35:54)
Eight.

[Speaker 9] (5:35:55 - 5:35:58)
Okay, we're just making sure everybody, I'm counting eight.

[Speaker 2] (5:35:58 - 5:36:04)
I'm so tired. I think I'm just going to blubber through this. I'll try to articulate.

[Speaker 5] (5:36:05 - 5:36:07)
You have eight minutes, Ms. Armstrong.

[Speaker 2] (5:36:07 - 5:43:27)
Thank you. You may begin. Lee Colleges' policy is not ambiguous.

Before a midterm termination for performance can even be proposed, the supervisor must consider the nature of the alleged deficiency, whether the employee received notice of that deficiency, and whether the employee was given a reasonable opportunity to address it. This board does not get to skip those steps because the president was frustrated, and the president does not get to skip them because she's lost confidence. Those steps exist precisely because for-cause termination ends careers, and the evidence is clear.

There was no written notice of performance deficiencies. There was no counseling, no corrective plan, no timeline, no benchmarks. There was no HR-driven performance remediation.

There was no reasonable opportunity afforded because the decision was already made. The president's own letter admits that the decision to pursue termination was made and documented on or before October 24, 2025. I think she said September even.

That single sentence alone is fatal to the recommendation. A decision made before notice, before opportunity, is not discipline. It's predetermination, and predetermination violates both board policy and constitutional due process.

You heard testimony and reviewed documents describing what were labeled as deficiencies, but when stripped of all that rhetoric, those instances were disagreements over messaging that were later rewritten by the president's office, policy drafts that were properly routed up for review, event logistics that were finalized by the chief of staff, and operational decisions that changed after the fact. That is not incompetence.

That's not neglect. That's not insubordination. You've worked, many of you have worked with Ms. DeConey. She's not a liar. She's not insubordinate. She's not impolite.

She's deferential. She is a professional. All of that that they're talking about, that's just the day-to-day reality of executive work in a complex institution.

At the top of any organization, many of you are at that level. You know it's complicated and it's difficult, and when professionals are disagreeing, they have to work it out. They have to work out those problems with their supervisor.

Not one witness identified a moment where Selah DeConey was told, this is unacceptable, here's what must change, and here's your deadline. Because it never happened. Just think, December of 2024, the most complimentary performance review that I've ever seen in 40 years of practicing law in this area.

I've never seen a more glowing performance review. And then we hear that just six, seven months later, Dr. V has decided that she's done. She's just loaded a whole load of new responsibilities that Ms. DeConey is trying to get under her belt and address. And even the fact that she suffers a serious medical condition that her doctor says necessitates her being on leave now for more than two months, more than three months now. That didn't change Dr. V's resolve to damage this woman's career. She's a professional.

You can't do that to someone that's worked as hard as she has to be as successful as she has and to make the contributions that she has made to this college. She loves this college. She's committed to it.

She's loyal to it. And she's loyal to all of you. This board must also confront the reality that goes directly to the integrity of the proceeding.

You were told before this hearing that Sela DeConey is not coming back, that this was a foregone conclusion, that interim arrangements were already in place. That framing alone destroys due process. A Loudermill hearing is not a formality.

It is not an exit interview. And it is not ratification. It requires an open mind and a genuine opportunity to be heard.

When a decision is treated as a fait accompli, the process is rendered constitutionally defective no matter how carefully the hearing is conducted afterward. This board has one job today to decide whether the college followed its own rules before placing the most severe employment sanction possible on a contract employee. Not whether the president was unhappy, not whether decisions could have been made differently, not whether executive relationships became strained, but whether the mandatory predicates for a midterm forecast termination were satisfied.

They were not. And when they are not satisfied, the board has no discretion to affirm the recommendation no matter how uncomfortable that may be politically or administratively. Under this record, there is only one decision consistent with Lee College policy, constitutional due process, and the board's fiduciary duty to the institution.

That is to reject the recommendation for termination for cause, to allow Selah Tocconi to complete her approved medical leave, and to permit the contract you all approved to run in accordance with its terms. Anything else, and I say this with solemn respect for each and every one of you, please, invites consequences the board cannot later disclaim. This case is not about personalities, about whether the rules still matter when a decision becomes inconvenient.

Today, this board writes that answer into the institutional record. Thank you.

[Speaker 8] (5:43:32 - 5:43:34)
Thank you for your presentations.

[Speaker 7] (5:43:34 - 5:44:15)
The board, having heard the evidence, may take any action and enter such order as it deems lawful and appropriate. If the board believes that at least one of the reasons given by the administration is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then that is sufficient for a finding that good cause exists for the proposed termination. If the board acts to terminate, employment will terminate effective immediately.

The board will now recess to close meetings so that it may deliberate privately with counsel pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.071 and consider the evidence under Texas Government Code Section 551.074. The time is 1054.

[Speaker 2] (5:44:16 - 5:44:45)
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot something. I really did.

I'm sorry. My witness could not testify, and that was Exhibit 14. Is that, and there's a written statement.

Can we have that placed? Because I think the reason that you excluded it was because it would be duplicative of his testimony. Would you?

Yeah, yes, Exhibit 14. And are we to expect a decision tonight? Don't know.

[Speaker 4] (5:46:14 - 5:46:18)
At Jockey, we believe comfort and confidence go hand in hand.

[Speaker 6] (5:50:16 - 5:51:17)
Do you want to work on cars? Get hands-on training at Universal Technical Institute with tools, tech, and instructors who've been there. Apply today.

Hands-on training for real careers.

[Speaker 1] (5:51:18 - 5:51:47)
Visit uti.edu. Known for pursuing your passions. No one wants to be known for cancer, but a treatment can be. Keytruda is known to treat cancer.

FDA approved for 18 types of cancer, including certain early stage and advanced cancers. One of those cancers is early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Keytruda may be used with certain chemotherapies before surgery when you have early stage lung cancer, which can be removed by surgery.

[Speaker 5] (5:57:01 - 5:57:05)
When your severe asthma says you can't, Tespire says you can.

[Speaker 1] (5:57:06 - 5:57:14)
Tespire is an add-on treatment for people 12 and over that helps you prevent attacks and relieve asthma symptoms. Tespire is not a rescue medication. Serious allergic reaction.

[Speaker 2] (6:25:08 - 6:25:11)
Take one off the other side, Gina.

[Speaker 10] (6:25:35 - 6:25:38)
I mean, I ain't gonna tell them where it came off.

[Speaker 6] (6:25:38 - 6:25:43)
I didn't have, ever noticed it, because I don't look that close to my heart.

[Speaker 7] (6:25:57 - 6:26:45)
Everybody in? Ready? Are you ready?

All right, the time is now 11.37 p.m. and the board has returned to open session. We will have a motion regarding the proposed termination of the contract of Sellota Coney.

[Speaker 10] (6:26:50 - 6:26:51)
Do I have a motion?

[Speaker 7] (6:26:55 - 6:27:24)
All right, having heard none, the recommendation to terminate fails. The employee remains employed by Lee College, subject to the supervision of the president. Right.

That concludes that action item. Let's see what's left on the agenda for tonight. We have matters of concern for future agendas.

Anything? None? That's all the agenda items.

We're adjourned.