NWACC board won't hear Parsons appeal

Posted: August 31, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.

Marty Parsons

Marty Parsons

A termination appeal request for Marty Parsons was denied by the NorthWest Arkansas Community College Board of Trustees on Friday. Parsons, former senior vice president for administrative services and chief financial officer at the college, was fired by Becky Paneitz, president, Aug. 1.

This story is only available from our archives.

This is a sad day in NWA... Thank you for reporting the way the board voted and congrats to Mike Shupe and Johnny Haney for standing up to this president - the ONLY 2 that will get my support. The rest of you are sad little followers and should follow your Queen Becky right out the door. I'm sure this is far from over, and the evidence will find its way out, but in the mean time we've lost a valuable leader at NWACC who, unlike the majority of the Board, didn't cower to the almighty dictator's manipulative orders. For the next CFO we pay to ship in : Please be aware that your job is really only to enhance this presidents legacy, at whatever cost to the tax payers.

Posted by: MrLowell

August 31, 2012 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And, yet again, the majority of the Board did not serve taxpayers' - and ultimately the students' - interest. Thank you to Mr. Shupe and Mr. Haney for standing up for what is right. Not sure what "evidence" Ney is calling for (isn't he the college attorney - not the BofT attorney?!?) since it is a complete conflict of interest that he was even in the room for this meeting and all points were outlined in Cate's letter(s).
NWACC has created their own public relations nightmare with this situation. Parents should seriously consider sending their children into an environment with such corrupt leadership.

Posted by: SeriouslyOutraged

August 31, 2012 at 10:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

There have been several CFO's terminated within the last few years. As a total outsider who knows nothing of the situation, this seems very strange. Perhaps there is some type of coverup for fiscal wrongdoing. And as soon as the CFO gets a little suspicious, he gets terminated?

Posted by: Vickie55

August 31, 2012 at 12:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Disappointing. And for those board members that fell for the tag team legalese bullying by your chair and the president/board/college attorney, shame on you. You've lost this taxpayers respect. And the community college has lost a student.

Posted by: becauseicare

August 31, 2012 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I personally do not know any of the people involved in this situation, but the more I read the more I think there is a tremendous need for transparency here. Hopefully an in-depth investigation into what is really going on, and what has led to all the furor.

Posted by: Dellmann

August 31, 2012 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now we know how people blunder and fail their way up the ladder: due to the unwavering support of unethical, unconscionable people like themselves.  Shame on the 6 members of the BoT who allowed themselves to get sucked into Paneitz's corruption and refused Parsons the right to an appeal.

People... compare the memo to the appeal letter.  THAT doesn't give the Board enough pause to grant an appeal?  Seriously?  The meeting was manipulated from start to finish.  When board members attempted to speak to discuss options, they were immediately silenced by the board chair.  This is ridiculous!

Keep fighting Mr. Parsons, this community supports YOU.

Posted by: NwaccFail

August 31, 2012 at 3:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

From Citywire: "Ney said the board could change its policy but he advised the trustees to keep consistent with the existing policy as it is stated until it can be changed in a proper venue."

Ney represents the college, the president AND the board of trustees. Now that, my friends, is evidence of conflict of interest. Talk about financial advantage. The case continues, cha-ching for Ney. Is the board really this manipulable?

From Citywire: "When he served on the Bentonville School Board, conflict of interest was defined when someone makes a decision that gives them a personal financial advantage, or if that person assists a relative in gaining an inappropriate advantage."

Parsons appeared to be challenging college spending and bringing to light past indiscretions on fines/penalties (aka doing his job). How is that not a financial concern of the president? Terminating Parsons eliminated a barrier of scrutiny on her well-known spending habits. Sounds like textbook 'personal financial advantage' to this resident.

Posted by: jddendinger

August 31, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What a shame filled day of poor choices. No wonder employees of NWACC speak of despair and fear. They have no recourse regardless of circumstance. As a reminder, this is 2012. And this horrific work environment exists for so many.... IN OUR COMMUNITY.

Posted by: GillWill

August 31, 2012 at 7:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The previous comment that mentioned fear and despair got me thinking.  How must the employees at NWACC feel about how they are valued?  Imagine, no matter what your level and experience as an employee, if Paneitz wants you out, you are out.  Cost to the college and taxpayers?  Pffft, no matter. If she wants you out, it's buh bye.  According to the previous comments from NWACC employees she boldly told staff days ago: Parsons will not be back, the Board will not overrule me, they never do.  

Interests don't get much more conflicted than this, and still an appeal was denied.  How many more people are going to have to fall on their swords because for this woman?  

Posted by: NwaccFail

August 31, 2012 at 9:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Is anyone writing here really aware of Mr. Parsons' terrible reputation with some NWACC faculty and staff? Some of us are very glad that he is gone. He was an authoritarian dictator who insulted colleagues left and right, a disaster for the college. And also, does everyone understand what it means to work in an "at will" state? If not, look it up.

I can't speak for everyone as some in these comments do, but it is important to recognize a possibility that this is not a one-sided deal, and the witch hunt against Dr Paneitz might be unfair. Few people know the whole story here, so why do so many feel free to pass judgment? As a resident of this community and a college employee, I can speak to the fact that, indeed, the entire "community"' does not support Mr. Parsons. The Board of Trustees is made up of outstanding members of this community who have dedicated so much time and effort to the college, and they do not deserve these insults, either.

Posted by: Lark47

September 1, 2012 at 3:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )