Dickering Over Dillon

[XLFD]

Today, the West Shore Community College Board of Trustees met at four o'clock to talk things over with their attorney, J. Patrick White of the Grand Rapids Varnum Law firm being the only declared item on the agenda.  If not for being alerted to the meeting by one of the Ludington Torch's dedicated members, I would have missed it. 

                The West Shore Community College Seal Features a Prominent Torch and Features Community Service as its Standard

 

True, Mason County Press and the Ludington Daily News did both have an article on this special meeting two days ago, and the meeting was posted at their main office, but contrary to the Open Meetings Act (OMA) (MCL 15.265(4)) which says: 

"... a special meeting of a public body... shall be posted at least 18 hours before the meeting... and (if the public body directly or indirectly maintains an official internet presence that includes monthly or more frequent updates of public meeting agendas or minutes) on a portion of the website that is fully accessible to the public. The public notice on the website shall be included on either the homepage or on a separate webpage dedicated to public notices for nonregularly scheduled public meetings and accessible via a prominent and conspicuous link on the website's homepage that clearly describes its purpose for public notification of those nonregularly scheduled public meetings." 

 

People like myself who don't regularly go to the central business office of WSCC and depend on Facebook feeds from the local paper, the MCP, or other out of town sources for local news can easily overlook such notice for special meetings.  By using the word "shall" the OMA adapted itself to the computer age a couple of years ago to reflect that people are a lot more likely to visit a website rather than a brick-and-mortar public facility to check notices for a public body, and that any notice of a special meeting must be put on their website.

 

I took screen shots of WSCC's home page and 'board meeting dates' page last night after 10:00 PM and this morning, where no notice existed.  None existed anywhere.  Although they effectively violated the law, however, they would likely be protected from their negligence by using a defense of "substantial compliance", a recent judicial safeguard used when a public body fails to obey the OMA's mandatory provisions, but covers enough bases to show they did not totally fail in giving some public notice.  A judge with sympathies would look at their sending a press release to local news agencies and posting it at WSCC as 'good enough'. 

 

Seventeen days ago, I mentioned that at two of their recent meetings, the WSCC Board of Trustees failed to justify going into closed session with reasons acceptable to the OMA, those I believe are beyond 'substantial compliance' with the OMA's permissible purposes for closing off the meeting to the public.   I briefly let the board know about this in the public comment I made at this meeting. 

 

The meeting was attended by several students even though there wasn't anything else on the agenda other than the board almost immediately going into closed session to discuss Dr. Dillon's future.  The City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews), the Manistee News Advocate, and WMOM radio all had representatives that attended and waited the nearly two hours that the board was in closed session.  Most of the students dispersed as the clock ticked into the second hour.

                                                        WSCC's Board of Trustees plus Dr. Dillon, far right

 

After the pledge of allegiance was done and the role call was performed (Steve Urka and Mike Ennis were absent) they called for public comment.  I got before the board and delivered the following speech, understandably nervous being that this was the first time I spoke in front of this crowd: 

 

"My name's Tom Rotta, resident of Mason County, and former adjunct faculty member teaching mathematics at this institution.  Since that time, I have developed an interest in transparency and ethical standards being met at public institutions.  I have noticed that the West Shore Board may be lacking in some of those standards in its public conduct since President Chuck Dillon drove super drunk through Manistee County in a vehicle supplied by the public.

A quick look at the college's revenues show that about 70% of the revenue for running this college comes from state revenue and local property taxes, which makes this college a public institution that needs to be answerable and open to the public.  Furthermore, the West Shore Board of Trustees serves as a 'public body' in the college for all intents and purposes of the Open Meetings Act.  But even beyond obeying the tenets of that Act, the board's overall goal should be to conduct its meetings and other business transparently to its creditors, the people, who are mandated to pay for this institution.

That's why I have been distressed to see this board dodge openness in its meetings since the incident involving the college president.  Going into closed session and not alerting the public fully to the holding of special meetings is anathema to the public's right to know what's going on, particularly when it is done for all the wrong reasons. 

For example, on August 11, the board met in closed session in what the minutes would call "for the purpose of discussion of his recent conduct."  At the September 15 session they called a closed session for a periodical evaluation of the president.  A quick look through the last few years records show that President Dillon's periodic evaluations have only happened in the spring. 

Either of these closed sessions was technically in violation of the Open Meetings Act, for the reasons that such purposes are not deemed valid by that act.  The minutes of those meetings should be made public.  I would encourage the board to vote no on closing the meeting tonight, even if the purpose in this case under the act may be valid.  The taxpayers should know where the members of the board stand on the issue of President Dillon and whether his continued service would be positive or detrimental to our community.

 

President Dillon's actions were fully contrary of standards of someone who holds an office like his.  Don't compound the problem by repeatedly violating the spirit and the letter of the Open Meetings Act in defense of his unprofessional behavior with unprofessional behavior of your own. 

 

On a personal note, nearly, 20 years ago, while I was teaching summer classes out here, I was working at the Ludington State Park and I was hit by a drunk driver who had less blood alcohol content than Dr. Dillon had on the night he was stopped.  I was thrown nearly 70 feet in the air according to witnesses, landed on pavement and somehow survived.  Dr. Dillon could have easily had a similar incident while he was driving in the company car.  Perhaps you have seen the video where he was unable to count backwards from four or recite the alphabet.   Can he make an effective president after that?" 

After I sat back down a retired teacher and a non-traditional student attending WSCC, Marti Cupp, got up and delivered a defense of Doctor Dillon.  She compared and contrasted Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinski with what happened with Dillon and his traffic stop.  As reported by Steve Begnoche of the COLDNews, she said:

 

"Dr. Dillon immediately admitted his guilt and offered no excuses. Like President Clinton, President Dillon's personal integrity will be forever impacted and his professional image will be forever tarnished.

"To return to my introductory point about perspective, I challenge those who would use this one incident to justify removing Dr. Dillon from office. My question is why should Dr. Charles Dillon, the president of our local community college, be held to a higher standard and punished to a greater degree than was Bill Clinton, the former President of the United States?"

These are faulty comparisons.  Dillon has chosen every opportunity to keep the public issue behind closed doors by asking for and getting two closed sessions, both illegally and unethically granted for a 'periodic evaluation' which wasn't, and for 'discussion of the president's recent conduct' which isn't even close to a legitimate reason for calling closed sessions.  He told the officers who stopped and arrested him for drunk driving that he just had a couple of drinks whereas the blood draw test results shown his blood alcohol content could only be if he had like a dozen or more.

 

One could also add that getting a hummer from an intern is a lot different than endangering the lives of everyone in our community by super drunk driving between Elberta and Manistee, and being stopped by police in the midst of a serious felony is a lot different than being caught with your pants down years later.  How is Dr. Dillon going to say he was innocent when his guilt is on videos and blood tests?

 

But after she sat down, and the Board of Trustees voted unanimously to go into closed session using section 8a (Trustee Dick Wilson added this to the resolution) and 8h of the OMA as the rationale, I couldn't help but think that what had just happened had the feel of closing arguments at the end of a trial, with me doing a prosecutor's spiel followed by an argument from Ms. Cupp that sounded more like a defense attorney. 

 

The verdict came back after about 110 minutes, and no decisions on Dr. Dillon's future was determined, however, they  voted to have the college staff and its legal counsel conclude their investigations and report back at the Oct. 19 board meeting with a hope of possibly making a decision then.  Three trustees thanked the public for their patience, and assured the public that they are only trying to do things legally and correctly. 

 

Fair enough, but why then hold hours of closed meetings if you want to show that to the public, and mask some of the closed meetings behind specious rationales?   

[XLFD]

Just in time for the weekend, the COLDNews reports on the latest in the Dillon saga, that there has been drawn up a separation agreement with Dr. Dillon costing roughly $240,000 (split about $70,000 from tuitions and $170,000 from local taxpayers).  Nary a word about what happens with Dillon's party van:

 

The West Shore Community College Board of Trustees Monday will consider a separation agreement with President Charles Dillon.

                                                                                

The agreement will allow Dillon to retire with the normal benefits provided to college administrators and, among other conditions, pay him $184,000 for retiree health insurance, $13,403.68 in “separation recognition,” $9,309.50 in unused vacation payout, $3,600 in unreimbursed medical expenses upon presentation of paid receipts, and $30,000 for all other claims.

                                                        

The separation agreement states Dillon is voluntarily entering the agreement and has expressed a desire to retire from the WSCC president’s position and that the college “is interested in facilitating Dr. Dillon’s retirement.

“As Dr. Dillon is retiring earlier than he had planned, the College is willing to provide an incentive to aid his retirement and resolve all benefits remaining under his contract for employment.”

If approved, Dillon will retire effective Monday, Oct. 20

In September, Dillon entered a guilty plea and was sentenced in Manistee District Court on a reduced charge of driving while intoxicated in Manistee in August. The plea agreement called for fines and costs, two years probation and credited him with serving two days in jail.

Initially following Dillon’s arrest, the WSCC board had placed him on a paid administrative leave. On Sept. 15, the board voted to end the paid leave and consult with the college’s attorney on Dillon’s status with the college.

Dillon is WSCC’s third president and its longest-tenured one.

In June, Dillon, who has been president since July 1998, was granted a $5,000 base salary raise that moved his annual salary to $149,000. The raise was about 3.5 percent, in part because the board said Dillon had not had a raise the prior year. The board also added one year onto his contract, extending it through June 30, 2018.

[Willy]

I see the Board really lowered the boom on Dr. Dillon. It's only going to cost the taxpayers $240,000 for him to leave. What a bargain. I wonder how folks, who are just getting by and who will be paying this bill, think about how this poor man will make ends meet on only $240,000. [say, isn't that the amount the City paid out as per Holman, because they refused to comply with FOIA regulations]. It sure seems that taxpayers around these parts have deep pockets. I'm sure Dr. Dillon will be getting a nice fat retirement check every month as well. I wonder how much that's going to cost us? I'm surprised the Board isn't paying his legal fees as well. So the lesson here, I suppose, that the younger folks should learn from this Is to get a good college education, drive drunk, get caught then collect pockets full of money without passing go.

[XLFD]

The 'retire with normal benefits provided to college administrators' is also a nebulous number that I hope to receive in my latest FOIA Request to the college. 

This $240,000 is a real number by the way, unlike Holman's.  Ms. Holman was part of the city council that voted to make a contracted attorney that charges $150 an hour for FOIA Coordinating to the city rather than have salaried employees take a fraction of an hour per week responding to them, she has only herself and six other mindless fools to blame for the sharp spike in public money responding to FOIA requests.  No other municipality I know of, anywhere, contracts an attorney to do FOIA Coordinating.  Ask yourself, why would they do that?  The answer is fairly obvious if you know the history involved.

And last I looked, and City records back this up, the City of Ludington owes me money for FOIA requests I've overpaid for. 

[shinblind]

Tack on another $70K that the board authorized to be paid out to  former director of development at WSCC Julie VanDyke, who was fired by DDD (Drunk Dr. Dillon) this past July after recently being  hired. No information on why she was released.

http://www.manisteecountypress.com/

[XLFD]

I hope other people noticed that as well.  The two events are likely related, as my new thread shows, and my research grows.

[Paul Jensen]

Dillon received a vote of no confidence from the faculty years ago, The good "Dr." doesn't even have a phd, he is nothing but a dirtball lawyer

clowns, the bunch of em

[AQUAMAN]

Great observations guys. Attorneys go to grad/law school for 3 years, then receive what's termed a "juris doctorate". Most real phd's have to get an undergrad 4 yrs., then 2 year masters, then 4-8 year phd diploma, depending on occupation. Here's a curious observation on my part: Dillon's contract required he get all this severance and perks even though his "conduct wasn't Presidential"? So, other professionals in all walks of life, All have "rules of conduct clauses", and if the employee breaks them, he disqualifies automatically for any further compensation, just firing! So, WSCC doesn't incorporate any "conduct clause" in their contracts at all? How can that be? And if true, does the WSCC Board of Trustees intend to change the employment contract to include these into the future? Or will they actually keep the same type of contract into the future, so that this could sadly repeat itself into the future? I just wonder! And why does any employee of the college need a company car? Surely, at $149K/yr. he could afford that small requirement for transportation himself! Lastly, thanks for the Julie Van Dyke news shinblind, that article says error and won't open for me, but, I would like the details on her firing, as to why, and whom fired her for instance, and how she too, get's $70K if she broke some conduct requirements, thanks. (My oh My we as taxpayers must be a rich crowd here in Mason County these days, eh?)

[XLFD]

That's true, Paul, I remember that vote several years back, but they've been with him ever since.  It's too bad the board is as tight-lipped as the girl who mistook superglue for Vagisil.

Check out my latest thread, Aquaman, its got even more, and even more to come.

[Willy]

I didn't know about the no confidence vote. I also didn't realize Dillon's doctorate was anything other than the real deal. Thanks for the info guys. X, that's the first time I've heard that vagasil joke. I almost broke a rib laughing.

[XLFD]

 I try to use novelty similes whenever possible, so wear approved chest compression the next time you see me using the work 'like' or 'as'.

The no confidence vote was actually put forth by the faculty in 2009 in response to a realignment proposed by Dillon to reduce the college's vice presidents from four to two, among other changes.  Such no-confidence votes by faculty happen in other community colleges, a couple have happened since in other colleges, but it really has very little weight except to show the faculty are disappointed in the leadership, and highlight the issue for the public. 

[Wonder Woman]

Now that Dillon and the college have parted ways, can someone explain to me the settlement?  I don't understand the unreimbursed medical expenses.  Was that something to do with his alcohol treatment?  Also, the story said that it was cheaper to settle the case rather than paying for the litigation.  Was Dillon going to file a lawsuit against the college?  If so, what was the suit going to be for?  It kind of sounds like the WSCC board may not have handled things properly and Dillon was prepared to file a lawsuit because of it.  Very interesting stuff, especially in light of the recent news regarding Julie VanDyke and her lawsuit settlment.

[XLFD]

It wasn't any further explained tonight, I have some of the same questions.  But Board member Richard Wilson was the first to pat the board on the back for successfully disposing of the two issues that came up in under three months, without really having to deal with them publicly.  The vote was unanimous on both hush hush settlements. 

And gee whiz, absolutely nobody on the board said anything negative about Dillon or Van Dyke or about the wonderful world of West Shore and their three hundred thousand dollars plus of gifts, and why they really were needed to save the kingdom from itself.