 |
| TMCC President Karin Hilgersom at the November 30, 2022, Board of Regents Meeting |
UPDATE 7/21/2023: The Board of Regents voted to grant President Hilgersom's full request of a one-year contract and waiver of the periodic evaluation based on her stated "intention" to retire on July 1, 2025.
Late in the afternoon on Friday, July 14, the Nevada System of Higher Education published the agenda for the special meeting of the Board of Regents on July 21. Item 9 on the agenda is a proposal from TMCC President Karin Hilgersom asking the Board to grant a one-year extension of her current contract, which ends on June 30, 2024, and to waive the periodic evaluation that is conducted for all presidents prior to contract renewal. In the request, Hilgersom cites Chapter 2, section 2.2 of the NSHE Procedures and Guidelines Manual (PG&M) which states, “[I]f the President announces their retirement or separation at least 12 months prior to the end of the contract period, the periodic evaluation shall be waived and in lieu an annual evaluation will be performed…” The agenda item surprised nearly everyone from TMCC since she has not informed the campus community.
On the surface, it would appear that Hilgersom's request fully complies with the language and the spirit of Chapter 2, section 2.2 of the PG&M. But here's the rub: She has not announced her retirement or separation from TMCC. In fact, in a voicemail message to a faculty leader, Hilgersom indicated that she is choosing to not do the periodic evaluation because of delays and issues at NSHE where the process is coordinated. She added that she will retire only if she is granted the extension. Otherwise, according to the voicemail, she will seek another four-year contract and undergo the periodic evaluation.
So while her request appears to comply with the language of NSHE policy, it certainly does not comport with the intent or spirit. Chapter 2, section 2.2 was clearly written to forego the costly and time-consuming periodic evaluation process for presidents who have already committed to retirement/separation. Instead, Hilgersom appears to be using the policy to exercise a form of workplace extortion. Give me what I want and I'll go away. Don't give it to me and you'll have to deal with me for another four years.
I first heard the rumor that President Hilgersom would seek an extension over a year ago from a well-placed source. As the year progressed, the rumor persisted. Her periodic evaluation process, which includes campus surveys and interviews with various constituents, should have started early in calendar-year 2023. In our regular meeting with the President and VPAA on March 13, 2023, TMCC-NFA officers asked the President why the process had not yet begun. We also asked her directly about the extension rumors to which she unambiguously told us that she intended to undergo the evaluation and seek another four-year contract. She explained that the System Office was starting the process, but interviews and the campus survey would not occur until faculty return in August (next month).
In last week's voicemail message, however, Hilgersom seemed to imply that she cannot get a fair evaluation due, in part, to the delayed process. To approve a new contract prior to June 30, 2024, NSHE must complete an evaluation process that usually takes several months in only a few. Traditionally, the process is wrapped up about six to nine months before the current contract expires. Hilgersom's last contract was approved at a September meeting of the BOR, more than eight months before expiration. At best, the process this year will delay consideration until the December BOR meeting.
Rumors persist, however, that Hilgersom herself may have played a role in delaying her evaluation. Indeed, she was the only president who felt "compelled to speak" about what she perceives as an unfair evaluation process at a November 30, 2022, meeting of the Board of Regents. Despite the regents subsequently passing a policy preferred by Hilgersom that refines the evaluation process at that same meeting, it appears she continues to be dissatisfied and has challenged the process at the System level.
Hilgersom may have tipped her hand when she said in her message to the faculty leader that she is choosing to not do the periodic evaluation. Evaluations are not optional. It is important for a full evaluation to be conducted regardless of a president's status for a variety of reasons; including as an assessment of campus climate, guidance for prospective employers of a president who is moving on, and as a benchmark for future presidents. No other rank-and-file NSHE employees have the option to suspend assessment of their performance, thereby neutralizing supervision, by up to two years by announcing their retirement or resignation (or, in this case, the possibility of retirement or resignation). At best, this practice is inherently unfair and should be repealed. At worst, it can be misused as a political cudgel.
This is the second time in less than a year that Hilgersom has projected her desire to leave TMCC. She notified the campus in October 2022 that she was a finalist for a presidency at a college near her family in Washington, but that position did not pan out for her.
The Regents first priority must be the welfare of the college. We must make them understand that the campus community will have no confidence in a leader who so clearly wishes to leave, but will do so only on her own terms. Her most recent actions demonstrate that she is acting only in her own self-interest, not the college's. At most the Regents must insist that President Hilgersom commit to separation before they consider her request, not after she gets what she wants. Under no circumstances should they entertain the notion that she should be renewed for an additional four years.
She doesn't want to stay. It's time for her to move on.
Opinions expressed here are the author's alone and do not reflect the opinions of other TMCC-NFA members or officers, officers of the State Board of the NFA, or the official position of any body.
Comments
Post a Comment