The firing of a CFO

LITTLE ROCK — So what the ever-lovin’ bent mortarboard is up at the Northwest Arkansas Community College in Bentonville?

Of the reader comments made on my NWA Source opinion blog of late, none have come close in volume or angst to my thoughts about Marty Parsons.

He’s the former senior vice president for administrative services and chief financial officer who is appealing the way in which president Becky Paneitz suddenly fired him on August 1.

There are far too many valid questions left in orbit around this weighty matter to suit many people.

For instance, I’m told by folks who should know that Parsons is the fifth or sixth CFO at NWACC to depart since Paneitz became its president in 2003. If that’s the case, why so many and in such a relatively short period?

It’s also seems odd to me that two weeks after it was requested, Parsons still is waiting for the NWACC trustees to hear the appeal he’s due according to the school’s own policy. Might I respectfully suggest that board Chairman Alex Vasquez take action to convene his colleagues very soon and get this show on the road? Lots of good people whose taxes help fund this institution are waiting for answers and watching the trustees to see if the “right thing” is done.

The initial event leading to Parsons’ abrupt firing reportedly began at a meeting on July 25. That gathering included Paneitz, Parsons, school attorney Marshall Ney and Parsons’ attorney.

During that session, I understand, Paneitz counseled Parsons on a few issues that were troubling her. Those allegations included insubordination, failure to complete the college budget in a timely manner, some inappropriate language and reputed low morale in Parsons’ department.

Either all, or part, of her concerns were detailed in a memo that Paneitz reportedly placed in Parsons’ personnel file that same day.

But wait a minute. Hadn’t a newspaper reporter written earlier that month that one board member at the July 14 summer trustees retreat (the president did not attend) told his group that Parsons was not the problem at their school, but rather the “solution”? It’s also my understanding that this trustee even added that he believed Parsons had been the best hire in his decade of service on the board.

Nonetheless, the afternoon of August 1, Parsons again met with Paneitz to discuss the school’s cash-flow issues. During that discussion, he said, Paneitz handed him the memorandum that spelled out her specific concerns. This memo, which Parsons says he hadn’t previously seen, allowed him 30 days to resolve the issues.

Then, he says, the president asked him to resign on the spot, which he refused to do. Parsons said she then told him (in this meeting) that he was “done” at the college.

His termination letter arrived two days later and gave his official firing date as August 1.

Parsons’ attorneys for the appeal, Brandon Cate and Joe Falasco, contend in their appeal letter that Parsons was unjustly canned without due process.

That letter reads in part: “Dr. Paneitz had conflict of interests . . . because she did not have all the facts in terminating Mr. Parsons’ employment.” It goes on to say Paneitz did not have a valid cause to fire him and he was dismissed without representation from the school’s human resources officer.

In other words, the lawyers are saying, hey, put your horses back in the corral, madam president. You gave Marty Parsons 30 days to measure up to your expectations, but instead canned him on the same day you handed him the memo detailing your discontents. We see a problem here.

So what is going on? Of course, I’m no attorney either. Maybe there’s nothing wrong at all-nothing to see here, folks, please move along.

Yet the truth is there are relevant questions of fact about Parsons’ sudden firing that the board of trustees must hear and honorably resolve in this man’s justifiable appeal. Otherwise, I’ll not be surprised to see the facts being aired in a courtroom, financial concerns and all, since he was the CFO.

A courtroom also likely would mean the board, Paneitz and former top-level NWACC administrative employees who either resigned or were asked to resign being called as witnesses as to management practices at the top. You know: Who said-and did-what to whom and when?

Parsons’ dismissal has fanned flames of anger in Benton County and elsewhere.

Some say good riddance to Parsons. But a far larger number of responses seem to be taking his side and questioning-whether justified or not-Paneitz’s management practices.

Hopefully, the deeper truths that surround Parsons’ firing will indeed come out in the wash once this appeal to the trustees is completed, or, if not, in sworn depositions and the courtroom.

FYI, NWACC’s board consists of Alex Vasquez, Johnny Haney, Hadley Hindmarsh, Mike Shupe, Ric Clifford, Joan Clifford, Mark Lundy, Joe Spivey and Randy Lawson.

Just knowing what little I do about this saga, the appeal process should be enough to force each of these trustees to confront their personal consciences, their public responsibilities and their fundamental allegiance to the college.

———◊-———

Mike Masterson is opinion editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette’s Northwest edition.