Mott’s Board of Trustees meetings have long been chaotic, poorly-run, and contentious, so much so that all of those things seem to be by design. But a set of two special meetings on Dec. 2 — one at 10 a.m. and one at 5:30 p.m. — proved particularly disorienting and stressful for those in attendance or watching online and even for some of the participants. I’m never really at a loss for words, but I’m struggling with where to even start here. So I’m going to fall back on the old journalism inverted pyramid and try to just go in order of importance.

Board Attorney Provides Legal Opinion About Conflict of Interest, Then Withdraws as Counsel

In the earlier special meeting, one of the agenda items for board consideration was “Retention of Counsel for Limited Scope Employment Related to Contract Offer to Interim President Shaunda Richardson-Snell.” Which begged the question … why isn’t the board’s attorney negotiating the employment contract with Richardson-Snell?

That question began to get answered, at least partially, during the early meeting. Board Chair Andy Everman noted it was necessary because William Brickley, the board’s attorney, had declined to participate in the contract negotiation for Richardson-Snell’s permanent role. Trustees John Daly, Michael Freeman, and Art Reyes alluded to some sort of conflict of interest complaint against Trustee Janet Couch, which Everman quickly shut down and said could not be discussed publicly.

In the second meeting, those two issues would get an explanation from Brickley himself. Initially, the board had a motion to go into closed session to discuss a memo Brickley had written and the conflict of interest allegation. However, that motion failed. A new motion to waive the board’s attorney-client privilege and have the memo read publicly passed.

Which … as a citizen, I’m glad it was read publicly. As a rational human being, I can’t for the life of me figure out why the board wouldn’t use its option to discuss a personnel issue in private with their attorney before airing everything out in public. But I’m not sure trying to look at any of their decisions through a rational lens will do me any good.

The meeting embedded above is worth watching in its entirety if you can stomach it, just to get a good feel for this board majority’s overall toxic behavior and dishonesty. But Brickley’s section beginning at 1:55 is particularly important to watch. You can read his full memorandum here.

In short, Shaunda Richardson-Snell used Trustee Janet Couch’s daughter as her real estate agent when she bought a home in Genesee County, which in Brickley’s legal opinion is a violation of the board’s own conflict of interest policy. From the document:

Ms. Couch did not believe a conflict of interest existed as she did not see any money from Mott going to her daughter or her real estate firm. I advised that I believe a potential conflict of interest existed under the policy despite her feeling to the contrary.

I just want to note here that Richardson-Snell’s compensation package was extremely generous for a permanent president, let alone an interim. It included a $15,000 stipend for moving expenses (I believe she relocated from Oakland to Genesee County; also, relocating for an interim job is pretty brazen unless there’s some sort of wink-wink agreement that you’ll be installed in the permanent role), so Couch’s contention that she “did not see any money from Mott going to her daughter or her real estate firm” is absurd. What else would you use some or all of your relocation expenses for if not to pay a realtor?

Brickley also made Everman aware of the possibility of a conflict of interest and advised that it should be disclosed. He also advised that, if the board was going to put hiring Richardson-Snell permanently on its agenda, then the disclosure of Couch’s potential conflict should also be added. At the board’s Nov. 18 meeting, not only was Couch’s conflict not disclosed to the board or public, Couch herself made the motion to hire Richardson-Snell. That time, the motion to hire her failed 4-3, with Couch storming out after the vote.

A week later, the motion to hire Snell was revisited and snuck onto the agenda during the continuation of the previous week’s meeting. Brickley wasn’t in attendance, but prior to the meeting Trustee Jeff Swanson let Brickley know that the motion could be revisited and Brickley advised that the conflict should be disclosed to the board and Couch should abstain from voting. Another attorney with Brickley’s firm, Michael John, slid Everman a note when the motion came back up reminding him it should be disclosed, and he was also ignored. This time, the motion passed 4-3.

So, what does all of that mean for day-to-day operations of Mott? Here’s a portion of Brickley’s opinion (but again, you should read the entire thing):

I furthermore advised that if hired there could be legal challenges to the hiring which if brought would be difficult to defend. Furthermore I advised that any decision made by Ms. Richardson Snell, if she were the president, could be challenged and possibly overturned by a court if it was found she was not properly hired for the position.

…

Therefore under your very broad policy a full disclosure should have been made, Ms. Couch should not have brought the motion and she should not have voted on the motion. Without Ms. Couch’s vote the motion would have been 3 to 3 and would have failed. On that basis I believe according to Michigan law the decision is void and a court of law would so rule. This could subject the college to litigation and possible void any decisions made by Ms. Richardson Snell.

Brickley’s memo concludes with him withdrawing as Mott’s attorney, stating in part, “I believe the trust relationship necessary to act effectively has been lost.”

Differing Legal Opinion

A lawyer from another firm, I believe Trustee Wendy Wolcott said the firm was ‘Butzel,’ prior to the attorney speaking, had a rebuttal. It is unclear when that firm was asked to prepare a response, but the lack of preparation showed in the back and forth she has with Brickley in the video above.

I can’t do it justice in a recap, but essentially the attorney endorses Everman’s position that he did not need to disclose Couch’s potential conflict of interest because he believes board policy allows him to investigate it himself, which he says he did, and concluded that there was no conflict.

Brickley pokes several holes in that argument and throws out an iconic “OK, but who has the legal license?” line during a back-and-forth about Everman’s conclusion that there was no conflict of interest. The entire interaction is worth watching, and begins at about the 2:20 mark in the video above.

And also … if anyone from Butzel does its homework on Mott’s board, they’ll see that the board fired its previous board attorney under dubious circumstances, and now Brickley, their hand-picked successor, has left and cited a lack of trust as a reason approximately a year after he was hired by the board. They’re clearly a problematic client, but that’s none of by business.

Richardson-Snell Asks Board to Use a Search Firm, Board Still Declines

After Brickley read his memo, Richardson-Snell asked to address the board. Beginning at about the 2:08 mark, Richardson-Snell is questioned by Trustee Michael Freeman about how much she knew about the potential conflict of interest. She initially denies having a “conversation” with Brickley about it, before Brickley interjects to say they did have a text message exchange in which she asked for the board’s conflict of interest policy and he provided it.

Richardson-Snell then asks to address the board. She says she was unaware of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of Everman to keep the disclosure from becoming public, and clearly tries to distance herself from Everman.

Richardson-Snell then describes herself as a person of “process and transparency” and says, “As I listen to input from faculty, staff, and the community, I agree. I agree that a process should be followed.” She notes that she has “never once asked to be appointed” to the permanent position and continues, “I would also recommend to the board that it resume an appropriate search process and I will take the lead right now and ask that the board make the decision to do a national search.”

After listening to the hastily thrown together legal opinion by the Butzel attorney that essentially parroted Everman’s viewpoint, the board ignored both Brickley’s opinion and Richardson-Snell’s own instruction that they do a national search and once again affirmed their decision 4-3 (Everman, Couch, Wolcott, Swanson) to offer the permanent president position to Richardson-Snell without following a standard search process or considering any other candidates. Swanson equivocated a little bit and tried to abstain so he could get more legal opinions, but voted ‘no’ when he was informed he couldn’t abstain.

I’m really speechless after watching it. This is a board majority that is committed to publicly embarrassing itself if nothing else. I have no idea what is next, but based on the conversation at last night’s meeting the decision is likely to lead to costly legal challenges that take resources away from the college’s core mission. Which has been par for the course for this reckless group for the past two years despite their “run it like a business” stance.

A Few Other Meeting Notes

This is already a ridiculously long recap, but between two meetings, a lot of other stuff happened worth mentioning.

• Everman began the evening meeting trying to read some sort of statement defending Couch from conflict of interest allegations before they’d even been made public. He was cut off, as it was not on the agenda, and a 4-3 vote prevented him from continuing to read it. Wolcott, who usually reliably votes with Everman, voted against allowing him to continue with the remarks. Everman glared directly at her and said, “you happy with that vote?” I just have to say … I have no idea why Swanson and Wolcott put up with Everman’s childish antics. It just doesn’t seem worth it, especially considering he’s lame duck and his term only lasts a few more weeks (sorry, I love adding reminders that Andy convincingly lost his re-election bid, I’m petty like that).
• The morning meeting began with Everman trying to prevent Perci Whitmore from addressing the board because his comments weren’t specific enough to the agenda (this would be a running theme through both meetings of Everman trying to silence commenters). Here’s Perci’s response to how he was treated if you’re interested.
• Poor attempts to shut the public out of speaking occurred frequently. During the evening meeting, a police officer and military veteran opened public comment with criticisms of the board, and Everman threatened to have him removed from the meeting. Everman also threatened to have another audience member who spoke, a Mott alumnus, removed. She left on her own so Everman would stop badgering the Mott Police Chief to throw her out. Everman also cut off community member Paul Jordan for referencing Richardson-Snell’s ties to a Christian nationalist pastor.
• Also related to public comment, Wolcott in the board’s previous meeting mentioned a “silent majority” of people at the college who are supportive of hiring Richardson-Snell. That silent majority was extra silent at this meeting, as not a single speaker that I can recall at either meeting spoke in favor of the board’s actions. Unless we count the final unhinged speaker who ranted about land grabs or something, Mott’s graduation rate, and other incoherent things (and incidentally left the meeting chatting with Wolcott).
• In both meetings, it was mentioned that Everman believed he needed to be notified “in writing” of a potential conflict of interest in order to bring it forward to the entire board. In the morning session, Daly said that he had emailed a document to him. Everman proudly boasted that he “never” checks email and doesn’t trust it. Which is exactly what you want from a public servant, someone who is too paranoid to use what is either the first or second most common present form of communication.
• The morning meeting also included an agenda item to allow Richardson-Snell as interim president to sign some time-sensitive documents related to the Culinary Arts building downtown Flint, which was originally redeveloped in partnership with Uptown Reinvestment Corporation. Per the agreement, the college will eventually take ownership of the building from Uptown. If anyone is interested in redevelopment inner-workings, you can check out that part of the meeting for the discussion. But the funniest section was when Everman went on a rant questioning the structural integrity of the building, claiming it has a mold problem, and claiming it has flooding issues. I have no idea if any of those things are true, but the interaction with Mott CFO Larry Gawthorp in which Gawthorp states that he isn’t aware of those issues and that the structural engineering reports say otherwise is a pretty classic Everman behaving like an expert on everything moment.

What’s Next?

I assume there will at least be attempted legal challenges related to the board’s recent decisions. I don’t really know what that process looks like, who will be involved, or what impact it will have on the college, other than continued avoidable cost and turmoil for the students, faculty, and staff who have to keep the college’s actual core business moving forward despite a cartoonishly inept board majority causing constant distractions.

I do know this, though: the right thing to do is for Couch, Everman, Swanson, and Richardson-Snell to resign. Couch, Everman, and Swanson all knew about the conflict of interest issue, all were advised by the board’s legal counsel of how it should be handled, and all of them chose to ignore that advice. Even if Everman is right and a court decides there was no conflict, not disclosing it gives the impression of an attempt to cover it up. The transparent and responsible thing to do is disclose it, be honest about it, and follow legal precedents for how to address it.

Richardson-Snell has been done no favors by this board. If their goal was to install her as president, they still could’ve done so by following a transparent search process in which other candidates were considered, input from campus was considered, and finalists were given a chance to talk directly to students, faculty, and staff in forums. If they followed that process, and Richardson-Snell still emerged from it as their choice, I may not have agreed with the decision, but it was still a process, it still collected input, and it still would’ve given campus the opportunity learn more about what her vision actually is for the college and why the board feels she’s the best fit for what Mott needs. I don’t have to like the things elected officials do as long as they do them with integrity and transparency.

I want to be unequivocal when I say that none of the things this board has done are Richardson-Snell’s fault. I don’t believe she’s a qualified candidate for the position, but I do also believe that she was thrust into an impossible situation and set up to fail because of a board majority that clearly believes four people alone are responsible for making all decisions about the college. I don’t blame Richardson-Snell for the board’s actions, and I have not heard from or interacted with any colleagues who do.

She should still resign. This potential conflict of interest with her and Couch further supports the feelings that many have that this search for a president has been fixed and done in bad faith from the start. The right thing to do is remove herself as president and distance herself from how this board has conducted its business.

Updated to include a Facebook comment posted by John Daly’s wife below

The Mott Community College Board of Trustees teased it last week, when a motion to skip their previously approved (and industry standard) process of using a search firm to find the college’s next president and instead offer that role to someone whose higher education experience dates back to July failed by one vote, 4-3. Tonight, they tried again and were successful.

Last week’s meeting, which was derailed by a board chair hellbent on airing his personal grievances, a seemingly neverending series of procedural mishaps and confusion, and … no joke … the board chair seeming to egg on a physical altercation with another elderly board member, was mercifully recessed after three painful hours. It was continued on November 25. The full recording can be watched above.

Of note, before the evening’s big news, during the President’s Report, a slide was mysteriously changed. In last week’s board packet, a slide for winter enrollment had a point in time comparison showing that enrollment was down nearly 14 percent from the same time the previous year as of November 14.

At tonight’s meeting, the slide showed a much rosier enrollment picture, with a .1 percent increase from where it was at last year as of November 24.

I’ve worked at universities long enough to know that enrollment numbers can fluctuate for a variety of reasons, but that’s a pretty dramatic turnaround on those numbers in less than two weeks. Hopefully, for the college’s sake, they’re accurate, but this board and their handpicked president haven’t exactly earned good faith.

And note that I said “president” in that last paragraph rather than “interim president,” because the board once again showed that the only thing its majority is committed to is behaving unethically. Jeff Swanson, who just a week ago, voted against hiring Shaunda Richardson-Snell, flipped his vote tonight. Last week, Swanson said (correctly) that hiring her in the rushed, bad faith process this board has used, without any input from students, faculty, or staff, would not set her up to be successful as president. He was right. Unfortunately, he isn’t courageous enough to stand by that conviction.

Four trustees — Swanson, Everman, Janet Couch, and Wendy Wolcott — voted in favor. Three — Art Reyes, John Daly, and Michael Freeman — voted against. All three expressed disgust with the actions of the majority. Daly, who had previously been aligned in most voting decisions with this board’s majority, and Freeman, both left after airing their criticisms. Reyes stayed, but made sure to call the board’s actions a “travesty” one last time before the meeting ended.

I’ve written about Swanson and his dishonesty before. He lied in a meeting about writing a motion that he clearly did not write (he was not writing at any point before the lengthy motion was read). He also could barely read it himself. He’s often confused about procedure during meetings. He’s discussed his desire for the college to “run like a business” and then votes with a board majority that has spent recklessly and needlessly on legal fees, extra staff, and other expenses, has advocated for and implemented a disjointed presidential search process that actually only considered one candidate, has meetings that spiral out of control, and is responsible for creating a toxic environment at the college. None of those things represent anything “business”-like.

I challenge anyone to watch Swanson’s bumbling, confused contributions to any board meeting and conclude that he’s a person who should be making high level education decisions at a college or any educational institution for that matter.

But at least Swanson does attempt to contribute sometimes. During her tenure on the board, Couch rarely says more than a word or two, if she even attends. She also is often confused by procedure. Tonight, she accidentally voted yes on a motion she was opposed to and had to be allowed to change her vote. It’s hard to say why she’s even on the board, and she has certainly never said herself what interest she even has in Mott.

Wolcott, who had originally voted to accept a grant from the CS Mott Foundation to help fund a national search, tonight changed her mind, voting in support of offering Richardson-Snell a contract without a search and to rescind her own previous motion to accept the grant and do a search.

Wolcott referenced a “silent majority” she has heard from in favor of Richardson-Snell’s hiring. I don’t know if it’s a lie, but I find it extraordinarily hard to believe, and as I said above no one in this board majority has operated in good faith. They are unethical, dishonest, and all deserve to be treated suspiciously until they prove capable of being truthful and transparent with the public.

Everman is the worst of them all, and there isn’t much more that can be said about him that hasn’t already been written in previous posts. He’s been caught in lies. He insults and bullies people. He is focused on his own personal grievances at the expense of anything else at the college.

I don’t know if Wolcott really has heard from a “silent majority” of employees that for whatever reason never shows up to support Richardson-Snell (unless you count the handful of letter writers who have submitted comments from outside of Genesee County at the behest of a dishonest pastor with a dystopian political agenda) publicly.

I do know that I also have a few anecdotes about Mott’s board from collecting recall signatures, and from talking with faculty, staff, students, and community members at various events. Just thought I’d share a few of my own experiences since Wolcott felt the need to share hers:

• Dislike for Everman is bipartisan. Like, hilariously bipartisan. He’s been a Genesee County politics minor player for many years now, and the number of people who don’t like him because of various clumsy power grabs he’s attempted (mostly unsuccessfully) on obscure boards over the years is truly astounding. Everman wasn’t a target of the recalls because he was up for re-election this year, but I will always cherish the stories many people shared unprovoked of what a pain in the ass he is.
• Also, and somewhat illustrative of the above point, he fainted in a public meeting last month, and the room (even his allies on the board) barely moved in response. To see a man laying on the floor and no one rushing to help or even ending their chit chat was wild. There was a handful of pastors in the room, and they didn’t even go over there! At least say a prayer or something, y’all! Incidentally, my partner, who is first aid trained, went to help him, and he was super rude to her. Also, one of his colleagues on the board thinks he faked it.
• Of the three people subject to the recall, I met SO MANY signers who couldn’t wait to sign the Wolcott petitions. There are many people dissatisfied with her tenure at Mott, but who were also motivated by her family’s negative impact on Davison politics. Her son, Matthew Smith, turned several Davison School Board meetings into a circus, has never met a publicity stunt he doesn’t love, and narrowly survived a recall attempt himself. Davison isn’t exactly a progressive hotbed, and voters there still tossed Smith and his ultra right wing messaging off their School Board. Wolcott’s dishonest attempt to run for Genesee County Commission as a Democrat also failed. So to the many people I know who are disgusted with Mott’s board, look to Davison for an example of how to stay strong, organized, and stand up to people like Wolcott, Swanson, Everman, and Couch. Keep pushing for good, transparent government, keep talking to people about this board’s ineptitude, keep encouraging people impacted by their decisions to attend meetings, and vote these people out the next chance you get.
• I have had this website/Facebook page up for almost five months, I have had several events out in the community, a lot of my contact info is public, I am on Mott’s campus to teach one day per week … and I haven’t heard from a single person who has said, “Hey, you aren’t being fair to this board or to the person they picked to be president of the college.” I haven’t heard from a single person who has said, “They’re really doing some good things.” Not one board member or member of the administration has said, “Hey, here’s one really great thing Richardson-Snell has done since taking over.” Not formally, not informally. Even at last night’s meeting, Richardson-Snell’s list of accomplishments were so superficial and lacking in any sort of detail it was laughable. Do people who support them within the college exist? Certainly. To call them a “silent majority” is nuts. I would bet there are MANY more people who are not supportive, but also fear retaliation or aren’t in a position where they can speak out without worrying about their job. There are also many others who just aren’t aware of what this board has been up to since their meetings traditionally have low attendance. People want good, stable government bodies that you don’t have to watch constantly because you never know what shady bullshit they’re going to try to pull. Mott’s board has four sneaky, dishonest, unethical people who are intent on avoiding responsibility for their decisions. Having good, transparent local government is a bipartisan issue. Daly, a Republican, is even clearly fed up with the politically motivated actions of this board majority and said as much last night.
• In a Facebook post after last night’s meeting, Daly’s wife said so as well, writing: “It looks like the fix was in, because why did she (Richardson-Snell) buy her new house two months ago, long before today? Also, why did Wendy Wolcott talk to 27 staff members before she voted today?” Here’s her full comment:

Lastly, public officials are answerable to the public. If you would like to tell Everman, Wolcott, Couch, or Swanson how you feel, here are their Mott email addresses:

• andy.everman@mcc.edu
• wendy.wolcott@mcc.edu
• jeffrey.swanson@mcc.edu
• janet.couch@mcc.edu

I have no idea if they even check or respond to those emails. They all do also have to file campaign finance reports, if you would like to look up their additional contact info. If you go to this website, and search their last names, you can find campaign documents with personal phone numbers and personal email addresses. I’m not going to post those here, but if you’d like to go find them, those are considered public documents for elected officials and fair game for contacting the people who represent you.

I honestly don’t know what’s next. In true Mott board fashion, some procedural confusion still remains — I was under the impression that 2/3 of the board needed to support recalling and re-voting on a motion. Both Richardson-Snell’s hiring and the decision to rescind acceptance of the search firm grant were previously decided motions that they decided to re-vote on, and neither majority represented 2/3 of the board (both were 4-3 votes). My hope is that Mott’s unions, or others in the community who care about the college’s future and have legal expertise, will weigh in at some point. But I just know that’s beyond my expertise.

What I keep circling back to is the batshit Qanon postcard that went out to voters in Genesee County in the fall and violated campaign finance law by not saying who paid for it. So far, here are the things that have happened:

• Jeffrey Swanson, who was endorsed on the postcard, was re-elected
• Candice Miller, who was endorsed on the postcard, was elected
• Richardson-Snell, who the postcard author said needed to be hired as permanent president, has been installed without a search or even an interview with another candidate
• The mailer, which came to Wolcott’s defense for some undisclosed thing Everman allegedly did to her, endorsed replacing Everman and he was replaced (just not by their chosen candidate, which so far is the only thing that hasn’t materialized)

What’s left on the to-do list? Not much! They just have to “end the woke diversity regime at Mott,” “force resignation of radical Left faculty and administration,” and “oppose the foreign push for the Genesee County megasite.” Now, they have the permanent president in place to carry out whatever they decide those last three gibberish items entail.

Incidentally, Swanson and Wolcott both put out lukewarm statements distancing themselves from that mailer, but both are also clearly benefitting from it.

I honestly don’t know if I’m right, that people are upset about this travesty, or if Wolcott’s “silent majority” theory is more accurate. But I do know that if people are truly upset about this, do truly care about the college’s future, and continue to not participate, then Wolcott is the one who gets to speak for you.

Buried deep within the packet of materials for the Nov. 18 meeting of the Mott Community College of Board of Trustees was an enrollment report that was bleak, to say the least.

For some context, like nearly all college’s nationwide, enrollment dropped at Mott during the pandemic. But under Mott’s previous president, Beverly Walker-Griffea, the college’s enrollment had stabilized and actually begun to tick back up on a modest but upward trajectory over the last year or so of her tenure. On page 50 of the packet, you can see that trend had continued into the fall of 2024, with a nearly 4 percent increase over the previous year:

Recruiting for the fall class mostly wraps up by late summer. The board appointed an outside hire, Shaunda Richardson-Snell, as interim president during that time. Her 6-month contract began on July 22.

The primary role of any interim president at any college is to stabilize core business while a permanent president is selected. This is typically why colleges appoint interim presidents from within, so that it is someone familiar enough with the college’s departments and operations to temporarily keep things steady during a presidential search and create a seamless transition plan for whoever is ultimately hired in that role. In Richardson-Snell’s case, she was unfamiliar with Mott’s internal workings, and also had no higher education administration or even teaching experience.

There isn’t a business component of a college or university that is more “core” than enrollment, and the numbers for the upcoming winter semester are alarming:

A nearly 14 percent drop from last winter is going to have a negative impact on the college.

Enrollment and admissions at any college is complicated. There are often good explanations or reasons for peaks and valleys in the admissions cycle. However, the falling winter enrollment has not been addressed in any way at any recent Mott board meetings. It would be appropriate for a president of a college to be able to articulate a plan to account for such a dramatic drop, and Richardson-Snell has yet to be asked by the board what her plan is. Because this week’s board meeting was repeatedly derailed by a board chair who was more focused on his personal grievances than on the college, the board didn’t even get to a public discussion of the report.

On top of that, the board nearly made Richardson-Snell the permanent president during that same meeting without conducting the national search for additional candidates that they’d agreed to do at their October meeting. At an absolute bare minimum, it would be nice to know that the person they’re trying to hire into this position permanently has a plan to address a sharp decline in incoming students.

Upon her hiring, the only board member who offered any explanation for what stood out about Richardson-Snell vs. other candidates for the interim position was Jeff Swanson, who expressed his belief in her business background. He said he’d like to see the college run “more like a business.”

Since that time, the board of trustees has racked up numerous legal fees (and if you watch the Nov. 18 meeting, they publicly rely on their legal counsel more than any public board I have seen in the nearly 20 years I’ve worked on and off in local journalism). They have hired a secretary for the board’s secretary. They have resisted multiple attempts to conduct an actual fair search for candidates for the position, something any well-run business or organization should want to do. And now, their preferred candidate is overseeing a precipitous drop in the college’s core business that will undoubtedly impact jobs and resources available for students if it continues without a mitigation plan.

None of those things represent “running the college like a business.” But they do represent continued irresponsibility and failure of leadership of this Board of Trustees.

I assure everyone reading this that you have better things to do with your time than to watch a three-hour video of adult elected officials behaving in some of the most embarrassing and childish ways possible. But if you’re a voter in Flint or Genesee County, or are in any way impacted by Mott Community College, it’s worth your time to watch the Nov. 18 Board of Trustees meeting embedded above.

A few of the lowlights:

• Trustee Janet Couch moved to add “hiring a permanent president” to the agenda, and that motion was approved. The publicly posted agenda did not mention the hiring as a potential topic, so it was clearly a gambit to add something controversial at the last minute in the hopes that the meeting wasn’t well-attended. The board had voted in October to accept a grant from the Mott Foundation (not affiliated with the college) to fund a national search firm, so Couch’s desire was to undo or circumvent a process that a board majority had just one month ago agreed to.
• Chair Andy Everman, on three separate occasions, tries to read a lengthy statement in which he accuses members of the public of bullying or misrepresenting him. He initially refuses to follow the board’s public comment procedures despite being asked to do so. Trustee Michael Freeman eventually moves to have him removed from the meeting, although the motion fails in a 3-3 vote (Freeman, Art Reyes, and John Daly voted in favor).
• Hilariously, Board Attorney William Brickley said that Everman has never had a member of the public removed from a meeting. Everman, in fact, had a Mott faculty member escorted out of an October meeting for laughing. Former trustee Anne Figueroa also posted on her Facebook page that Everman had once threatened to have her thrown out of a meeting.
• The meeting was continuously derailed by procedural confusion, motions that conflict with each other, and trustees themselves not knowing what they’re voting on. On two occasions, Jeff Swanson understandably notes that he is confused before he’s supposed to vote on something.
• Couch moves during the meeting to offer Mott’s current interim president Shaunda Richardson-Snell the permanent president position. Daly, Freeman, and Reyes all point out that the board had already approved and agreed to a presidential search process that this motion would be eschewing. The board takes a recess to get input from the board attorney, but even the recess is controversial as several board members clearly don’t trust that the board attorney is working on behalf of the entire board. The recess is objected to, but the board majority still allows it to happen. There is no audio during the recess, but Freeman appears to confront the attorney and a few of the trustees in their huddle.
• Couch then re-works her motion to remove the word “permanent” and to make the term of the presidential appointment three years instead of the more standard five. The motion fails 4-3, with Swanson breaking ranks from his typical voting bloc. He provides an explanation that actually shows some astuteness — hiring Richardson-Snell in this bad faith, rushed, retaliatory manner would actually do her no favors, create more hostility in an already toxic environment at the college, and make it even more difficult for her to succeed in the role. I don’t understand how other board members who support her can’t also see that, or think it’s bad for a candidate they think is strong to have to compete with other good candidates for the job to see who is the best fit. But anyway, good for Swanson for showing an ounce of ethical behavior.
• After the motion fails, Couch immediately storms out. Then forgets something, and has to come back and grab it. Later, Everman seems to have forgotten she’d left as he calls on her for a roll call vote before correcting himself after noticing she’s no longer there.
• Everman tries again to read his letter but is cut off. Eventually, on his third try later in the meeting, he gets to read the full thing. Hilariously, this meeting had three different chairs. The first time Everman attempted to read it, he had to hand the gavel to vice-chair Couch so he could go read it as a member of the public. Then, with Couch bailing on the meeting, he had to hand it to Wolcott so he could read it as a Trustee.
• He also wants his letter published on Mott’s website. Daly mentions that his accusations in his letter are one-sided, and that the letter is in draft form, so having the letter in the meeting minutes should be sufficient.
• Tensions between Daly and Everman were ratcheting up throughout the meeting. At one point, Daly stands up and shouts that what Everman is doing is a “travesty.” I couldn’t hear what else he said as he wasn’t close enough to his mic. Everman seems to enjoy this and tries to goad Daly into a physical fight. Everman says, “Don’t make a threat you can’t live up to,” to Daly.
• Later, as clear retaliation, when Daly has a question for a Mott employee, Everman makes him address the employee through the board chair, then Everman will ask Daly’s question. He makes Daly stand up and face him (something I have never seen him force other board members to do when they have questions for college employees). Then, because Daly is away from his mic, Everman says he can’t hear what he’s saying. A lot was cringe in this meeting, but this scene was truly one of the most childish things I’ve ever seen from Everman, who has specialized in childishness throughout his board tenure.
• There were several public comments in support of Richardson-Snell from letter writers who live outside of Genesee County. Some were unhinged. Worth listening to all of them to get a feel for who is behind this attempted power grab at the college. I particularly liked the one that included, among her qualifications, that hiring her will result in “no sex scandals, embezzlement, or child molestation.” I’m dead serious, the letter starts around the 43 minute mark in the video above. I dunno about anyone else … but I would certainly hope that someone singing my praises could think of three better things to lead with than some felonies I wouldn’t do!
• Thanks to a right nationalist pastor from a Hartland church who orchestrated this campaign, the nature of most of the letters of support suggest that Richardson-Snell is being targeted because of her religion. I can’t reiterate enough that this is an absolute lie. The pastor who wrote the initial letter, Chris Thoma, is attempting to create a narrative that she’s being targeted because she says a prayer at meetings. I have attended or watched every Mott meeting since before she was hired. I have not heard a single comment directed at her religious beliefs. The overwhelming themes of comments have been about the board’s lack of transparency in hiring her and about the fact that she has no higher education experience. Both of those things are objectively true, are relevant criticisms, and neither are in any way an attack on her character.

Anyway, there’s plenty more than I can even sufficiently recap. It was one of the most bizarre, disorienting, and poorly run meetings I have ever seen.

By now, most have probably seen the results of the Nov. 5 election for three seats on Mott Community College’s Board of Trustees. For those who haven’t, the three top vote-getters in a crowded field were:

• Candice Miller
• Jeffrey Swanson
• Kenyetta Dotson

There’s plenty of bad, but first I want to start with the good. Kenyetta Dotson is a talented, beloved community leader in Flint and Genesee County. She’s a Mott graduate, is the mother of a Mott student, and she’s mentored countless young people in the community who became Mott students and graduates. She’s fair, hard-working, highly intelligent, caring, and respected, and she also understands education and Mott Community College from several perspectives. She epitomizes the characteristics we should seek out in all local elected officials, and Mott will be lucky to have her voice and wisdom on its board.

The other good thing: Andy Everman is not among that top three. I don’t want to recap his tenure, but … who am I kidding, yes I do! He continuously and publicly disrespected Mott’s previous president; he called a staff member at the college a “pussy” during a public meeting; he frequently was dismissive of members of the public during meetings; he advocated for and oversaw controversial and secretive processes to hire the board’s attorney and to search for a new college president; a colleague on the board accused him of faking a medical emergency in order to avoid agenda items during a meeting; he was caught on video contradicting himself, which led to him becoming a meme. I’m just going to leave this video here because it perfectly sums up his tenure as board chair and I hope it is what people remember most about how little he’s had to offer local politics.

My northern Michigan family has an obnoxious habit of, every time someone (usually me) loses a card game, breaking into a loud singing of “na na na na hey hey hey GOODBYE,” and let me tell you, I’ve never felt like chanting that more than while seeing election returns that showed Everman losing his seat. All of those characteristics above that I listed of Dotson, the opposite is true of Everman. His absence from Mott’s board is a net positive for the college in every way imaginable.

But unfortunately, that’s the end of the feel-good news from Tuesday. The Genesee County Republican Party has actively been pushing and funding candidates for Mott’s non-partisan board in more than one election cycle. The resulting leadership they’ve helped put in place has resulted in some truly awful governance, a consistent lack of basic procedural knowledge during board meetings, priorities that aren’t focused on the core educational mission of the college, accusations of meeting in secret and possibly violating the Open Meetings Act, and more. But the party’s organization has also vaulted most of their preferred candidates onto the board and into the majority, so I can’t really argue with the clear success of their tactics. They have an agenda, they’re organized, and they’ve mostly executed on it.

Swanson and Miller were both listed on a far-right, Qanon-friendly postcard that threatened to get rid of faculty whose political beliefs don’t align with the board’s. No one seems to know who sent it or wants to claim responsibility for it, but it still somehow went to a lot of Genesee County voters. The mailer likely violated campaign finance law as it didn’t include a line stating who paid for it, and Swanson and fellow trustee Wendy Wolcott both denied being involved with it.

Swanson has been on the board since 2022 and is a known commodity. He, like Everman, has been caught on video being dishonest in a public meeting, claiming to have written a multi-page motion during a meeting despite never being seen writing anything during the lengthy times he was on camera. The college also couldn’t produce a copy of that allegedly hand-written motion after a Freedom of Information Act request was submitted seeking it.

Miller is a newcomer on the board. She’s on the Burton City Council (but is NOT the former U.S. Rep. and MI Secretary of State Candice Miller). There is scarcely any information about her, or her reasons for running for the Mott Board of Trustees, online. She didn’t fill out the League of Women Voters questionnaire that several other candidates did. She did, however, post a picture with Wolcott’s son, Matthew Smith, on her Facebook page and identified him as her campaign manager. Honestly, anyone on a Qanon-friendly mailer has no business on any public board, let alone a college’s, but there was an intentional and organized effort to get her on this board, she was the highest vote getter, and here we are.

The important point isn’t really how we got here. It’s what’s next.

Get Organized

I am a faculty member at Mott, but it’s not my full-time job. My involvement in this issue mostly came about as a voter, taxpayer, community member, and neighbor of the college who has been disgusted by this board’s mismanagement and chaos over the past two years. I am passionate about this, but I’m not in any way an experienced political or community organizer. I can write a little bit, thanks mostly to having to find thousands of words to write about the Detroit Pistons playing some of the worst professional basketball I’ve ever seen for about 15 years or so, so that’s how I’ve chosen to be involved in keeping a lens on this board’s issues.

Whether the recalls against Trustees Wolcott, John Daly, or Janet Couch are successful or not, I do intend to continue writing about this board. Mott is vital to our city and county, and the current and future students deserve so much better than this out-of-touch, corrupt board making decisions that impact their lives and education.

I’ve met and heard from many people who are passionate and who care about Mott. But the truth is that passion has been siloed and not organized. The election results reflect that.

In this election, there were two factions of candidates: people running for Mott’s board who actually care about education, the college, and its direction (Dotson, Whitmore, Figueroa, Wares, Watchorn, Johnson, and Wagonlander) and a group that either has connections to Wolcott/Smith and/or to other ultra right wing extremists in Genesee County (Miller, Swanson, Davis, Sepanak, Marden). I don’t really put Everman in either category, since he seemed to alienate people on both sides (he was specifically called out on the Qanon mailer, despite reliably voting with Swanson and Wolcott on nearly all issues), ultimately resulting in his ouster. But even adding Everman’s votes to the latter group, the former still had more overall votes cast (175,957-169,639) according to the unofficial election results. If those were spread among three or four candidates instead of seven, the board makeup would be drastically different right now. As frustrating as I find that as a voter, it’s also pointless to armchair quarterback it (but like I said, I’m a sports blogger by trade, it’s sorta what I do).

And here’s a nicer way of putting it: we had several good candidates, but there were just too many. And it was clear early on that there were too many. I’ve feared since July that good candidates would split votes, which would allow a better-promoted slate to remain in the majority and that’s exactly what happened.

Moving forward, I would implore the Genesee County Democratic Party to take Mott’s Board of Trustees more seriously. Their counterparts in the Genesee County Republican Party clearly do. I can’t answer why it wasn’t a priority for the Genesee County Democratic Party in this election, and I am also not going to hide my disappointment with that.

Along with promoting candidates to a broader network of voters, the party also could’ve helped convince fewer people to run with earlier involvement. I certainly have no issue with people being passionate about Mott and wanting to serve. But the number of candidates who registered to run, the fact that they clearly didn’t connect with each other beforehand to organize a slate, the lack of a clear and consistent platform/vision for the college that all in a slate were committed to, the fact that several secured valuable endorsements that were spread out among more than three candidates and ultimately split votes … all of those things were massive and avoidable mistakes that ultimately the college will pay for.

Better coordination between teachers/professors, staff at colleges and in schools, and unions in Genesee County is also vital, and not just for Mott. Obviously, that could help with endorsements, but it could also help with actually building a communications network to send candidate information out to, and to just generally stay informed about education in the county. For example, many school board races had extreme candidates running this year. It would’ve been useful to connect to a wider group of citizens and voters who have successfully fought back against extremists trying to enact unpopular or irrelevant policies in their communities. Organizing some sort of open and recurring meetup for people who work in education is definitely an action item I plan to take away and work on.

A hopeful sign for the future and potential blueprint for Mott happened in Davison, though. Wolcott, who somehow registered as a Democrat and made it on the ballot for Genesee County Commission in her region despite in no way being a Democrat, was rejected by voters. Smith, her son, who only narrowly avoided being recalled two years ago, was successfully booted from Davison’s School Board by voters. Smith also lost in the Republican primary for Davison Township clerk over the summer.

Davison is a community that leans much more Republican than Democrat, and voters there who know Wolcott and Smith best didn’t want them in office. It is a good reminder that people with extreme political beliefs aren’t popular and, frequently, can’t actually govern once they get into office. People in local communities, no matter their political background, want their colleges, schools, and other local treasures run responsibly, and when people prove incapable of being good stewards of those organizations, they get voted out no matter their political party.

Most people support, believe in, and want good public education — and there’s no better example of this than the recent election. Voters in Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska all resoundingly rejected ballot proposals which would’ve diverted tax money away from public schools and toward vouchers for private schools. Two of those three states are heavily Republican. A board that continues to meddle with and weaken our public community college here, that continues to try and advance some sort of mysterious political agenda that has nothing to do with education, will quickly become an unpopular one.

Mott’s new board will have a chance to prove that, minus Everman, it will be more transparent, stop being antagonistic to its stakeholders, and make decisions that include the input of students, faculty, and staff who are most impacted by their decisions. If this board moves in that direction and exhibits good governance and leadership, then great … that’s actually the only real thing that has been repeatedly asked of them over the past two years. I don’t expect to agree with every decision as long as there is a framework, an opportunity for input from people impacted, and a clear explanation for why elected officials make the decisions they do. The previous two years, the majority of this board has not done that, or even cared to try.

But if they don’t improve, it is good to remind ourselves that positions on this board aren’t permanent, and there are models for how to successfully remove or beat candidates who seek these offices with chaotic or self-serving intentions. We just have to be clear-headed and organized enough to see them through.

I originally posted this on Reddit and sent a version out as an email, but had a request to post here so there was a link to it that could be shared easily

There have been several threads related to the chaotic environment that Mott Community College’s board has created over the past two years. I am a faculty member there, live next door to the college, have family that graduated from there, covered their great basketball program as a journalist for many years, and care a lot about the college’s future. I apologize in advance for this lengthy post, but for those interested, I wanted to recap some of the main issues, provide links to find more information, and, most importantly, share how people who live in Genesee County (or in parts of Lapeer/Shiawassee/Livingston counties who vote on Mott board members) can help change the dynamic on this board by voting on Nov. 5.

I know we are all burnt out on politics, but the MCC Board of Trustees election is a vital down-ballot issue that many people are not aware of.

First, here are some articles that discuss many of this board’s issues:

• Mott Community College paying outgoing president $300,000 amid conflict with board chair | MLive
• Interim President Choice Inflames Tensions at Mott Community College | Inside Higher Ed
• MCC announces interim president Shaunda Richardson-Snell amid vocal opposition from faculty, community | East Village Magazine
• A Far Right Takeover of the Mott Community College Board | Mott recall website

There are many, many more details around the board’s actions over the past year available here and here, if you’re interested in a deeper dive. The key issue at the moment is Mott’s current search for a new president to replace Dr. Beverly Walker-Griffea, the college’s longtime president who resigned earlier this year amid an antagonistic environment led by several board members.

Five current trustees, Andy Everman, Jeffrey Swanson, John Daly, Janet Couch, and Wendy Wolcott, orchestrated a mysterious and rushed process to appoint an interim president, Shaunda Richardson-Snell, who had no higher education experience. For those receiving this who do not work in higher education, conducting an external search for an interim president is highly unusual. Typically, colleges will appoint an internal administrator who is familiar with the college to steady vital business like enrollment, accreditation, facilities/campus safety, etc., while a search for a permanent president is conducted. In Mott’s case, a respected vice president at the college, Jason Wilson, had been serving as acting president since Walker-Griffea’s departure until Richardson-Snell was appointed in July. There was no discernible reason to appoint a different interim, let alone one who is unfamiliar with the college’s day-to-day operations, prior to then conducting a search for the permanent job.

The board then tried to rush a search for a permanent president, ostensibly to put Richardson-Snell in that position without a thorough search, despite major opposition from faculty, staff, students, and community members that was regularly voiced at their meetings. They attempted to limit their search only to Michigan candidates rather than engaging in a national search (as is customary for nearly all colleges for a CEO-level role). They also attempted to use an ad-hoc committee consisting only of Everman, Daly, and Swanson to handle the search rather than a typical step of hiring a search firm that specializes in finding higher education executive talent.

After massive public criticism, the board recently reversed course on that decision when the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (not affiliated with the college) offered a grant to support funding the cost of a search firm.

In October, a campaign mailer was sent endorsing three candidates in the upcoming election. The mailer threatened to, among other things, force faculty resignations if they aren’t aligned politically with the current board majority. It also advocated for installing Richardson-Snell as permanent president. The mailer also likely violated campaign finance law, as it did not include a “paid for by …” line on it. 

This week, a pastor from a Hartland church wrote a lengthy diatribe accusing members of the public who have spoken out against the board’s irregular procedures as being politically motivated and engaging in “crucifixion-like abuse” of Richardson-Snell. He also incorrectly asserted that Richardson-Snell is being specifically singled out because of her religious beliefs, rather than members of the public expressing frustration for two years of board actions that have routinely displayed bad governance, a lack of procedural knowledge, a lack of transparency or explanation for decisions that seem to be made in secret rather than during public meetings, a hostile environment, a controversial presidential search process, and much more. Richardson-Snell’s hiring is certainly a part of those frustrations, but far from the entirety. And, it should be pointed out, that stating that she lacks any higher education experience is a factual observation, not an attack on her character, let alone “crucifixion-like.”

In a blatantly dishonest attempt to cover for Richardson-Snell’s total lack of experience in higher education administration, the pastor also wrote in his letter that, “Even closer to home, the President of Oakland University, Ora Pescovitz, has no background in higher education. Russell Kavalhuna, the President of Henry Ford Community College, is a former pilot with a law degree.”

A cursory look at the bios of Pescovitz and Kavalhuna show that the insinuation that their respective institutions hired them without any background in higher ed is not true. Further, both of those institutions engaged in robust presidential searches, introduced finalists for the positions to their campuses, allowed for opportunities for students, faculty, staff, alumni, and others to ask questions of those finalists, and after selecting them, board members ultimately explained the reasons they chose each person at the conclusion of those searches. I’m a graduate of Oakland University and, as an alum, received numerous communications and invitations to engage in various ways with search-related events throughout their presidential search.

Other than Swanson saying he wanted a president to run Mott “more like a business” during a meeting over the summer, no board members have provided public explanations for what they believe best suited Richardson-Snell for this role over other interim candidates who applied and seemed more qualified. They did not publish any criteria or rubrics they used to evaluate candidates. Richardson-Snell has also yet to substantially unveil any comprehensive vision she has for campus.

Collectively, the board’s actions have already had a negative impact on the campus. But they could result in even deeper damage, up to risking Mott losing its accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission. If that were to happen, and Mott lost its ability to offer federal financial aid, the college would be in jeopardy of closing. Similar instances of bad governance have resulted in awful outcomes elsewhere in the country, including Eastern Gateway Community College in Ohio closing and North Idaho College on a similar path as it struggles to keep its accreditation.

That’s a long-winded introduction, but important context. Now here’s the more important part: getting involved. Below are a few ways you can make a HUGE difference.

Make a Public Comment at the Next Board Meeting

Mott’s Board of Trustees has a regular meeting scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Monday, October 28, in the MCC Event Center, located at 1401 E. Court Street. The meeting will also be streamed live on YouTube if you can’t attend. Attending in person if at all possible would strongly show support to current students, faculty, and staff pushing back on this board’s actions. It would also remind this board that it is accountable to voters. Public comments have to be submitted beforehand using this submission form. After submitting, you can read your public comment in-person at the meeting if you plan to attend, or if you can’t attend, a staff member will read it for you into the public record. I can’t stress enough how important it is to submit public comments, as the pastor’s letter linked above is trying to orchestrate a swarm of bad faith submissions to create a false impression that this board’s decisions have been popular.

If you plan to submit a comment, I would suggest stressing the importance of MCC to our community (including any personal stories about your connection to the college or how it has impacted you), and reiterating that, as a publicly elected board representing voters in Mott’s district, their decisions should include input from the students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community that they serve. 

VOTE, and ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO VOTE

Three seats are up for grabs on the Nov. 5 ballot. Andy Everman and Jeffrey Swanson are running for re-election. Michael Freeman, who has been one of only two (along with Art Reyes) voices of reason on the board, did not seek re-election. This election is VITAL to Mott’s future. If all three seats go to sane candidates who care about managing the college and its direction responsibly, the board’s majority will flip and a lot of the damage they have inflicted will be mitigated.

The complicating factor is that there are 14 candidates running for those three seats, which will certainly lead to confusion, especially for voters who haven’t been following news about Mott, or know where to get info about candidates. I plan to vote for these three:

• Kenyetta Dawson
• Perci Whitmore
• Anne Figueroa

Those three were endorsed by Mott’s faculty union. They were also endorsed by the Michigan Education Association, and Figueroa and Whitmore both have UAW endorsements. I know each of them personally. They are passionate about Mott, public servants who have integrity, and would be amazing board members. I’m happy to answer any questions if anyone has them about why I’m supporting them.

There are other great candidates running. Several filled out responses to the Genesee County League of Women Voters questionnaire that are instructive, if you’d like to read them. I believe Andrew Watchorn, Amanda Wares, Gail Johnson, or Aron Gerics would all be trustworthy and good board members, too. However, for me personally, this election is too important for me to risk splitting votes among the good candidates, which is why I’m voting for the three faculty union-endorsed candidates. I know of three of the four other candidates mentioned above, and am on very friendly terms with one of them. I respect all of them, the work they’ve done in our community, and their reasons for running. I hope they all run again, and certainly don’t begrudge anyone for voting for them in this election either. But, to be transparent, I wanted to share my rationale and hope it makes sense to others.

As far as other listed candidates? They all need to be avoided. Everman, as board chair, has been the point person for this board’s chaos, and has also been caught being dishonest on more than one occasion. He also became a meme, which was pretty funny. Swanson has worked hand-in-hand with Everman and has had his own problems with honesty as a board member. Candice Miller and Virginia Sepanak both appeared as endorsed candidates on the Qanon-friendly mailer above that went out to voters. Mary Davis and Jenna Rose Marden are both aligned with Wolcott.*

* Sidenote on Wolcott if you live in Davison: She’s running for County Commission as a Democrat somehow, even though she is in no way a Democrat. Her Republican opponent, Brian Flewelling, is the far more sane choice in that race.

Of those candidates who should be avoided, only Everman even bothered to fill out the League of Women Voters questionnaire. Swanson doesn’t even have a bio on Mott’s board website. So it’s not particularly easy to understand what their visions even are for the college or what attributes they offer to the board.

The Recall

There is an active recall against the three trustees who have longer terms, Wolcott, Daly, and Couch. Although the primary focus at the moment is the election, the recall will also continue to be a significant effort to restore sanity to this board. The best way to find information about where to sign the petitions is by following the Facebook page. 

PLEASE SHARE

Please share any or all of this info that is helpful with any people you know in your personal networks who care about Mott and its future, who want more information about candidates in this particular election, or who want to know how to find information about the recall. 

I apologize again for the length of this post, but wanted to convey how bad the environment is at Mott, and how consequential this election is for the college’s future.

Perhaps the only consistent behaviors shown by the majority of Mott Community College’s Board of Trustees throughout the last two years of unsteady leadership have been commitments to withholding information and/or outright dishonesty. To recap a few highlights:

• The board has been accused in the past of violating the Open Meetings Act;
• Board Chair Andy Everman denied telling the previous president of the college to call him ‘sir’ despite two other board members telling MLive they witnessed it;
• Everman, on video, gave conflicting statements during a meeting and in a TV interview immediately after (and he also became a meme);
• Board Trustee Jeffrey Swanson hasn’t explained how he wrote a multi-page motion during a meeting in which he was never shown writing while on camera or how the college apparently no longer has a copy of his document;
• An inflammatory campaign mailer that pretty directly threatens faculty went out, and specifically supports one incumbent board member (Swanson) and mentions another current board member who is not up for re-election (Wendy Wolcott) as well as the current interim president; the mailer likely violates election law by not including a line saying who paid for it; Swanson and Wolcott both deny knowing who sent it despite both being supported on it;
• Wolcott is running for County Commission in Davison as a Democrat even though she is not remotely a Democrat.

There’s honestly more examples, but I’m tired. Anyway, here’s the latest: a pastor at a church in Hartland wrote a letter encouraging members of his church to submit public comments and attend Mott’s next board meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 28. Those things are certainly their right — Hartland isn’t in Genesee County, but it is included in Mott’s district. But the letter, like many other actions of this board majority, is full of distortions. Here are a few:

I want you to know that once the overwhelmingly progressive faculty, woke student groups, and liberal community members discovered Shaunda’s spiritual and ideological framework, she was immediately targeted for crucifixion-like abuse during the public comment portions of the subsequent Trustee meetings.

I don’t know anything about Richardson-Snell’s spiritual or religious framework. I do know that she has donated thousands of dollars to a presidential candidate who has consistently been hostile toward higher education. His current running mate, for example, called professors “the enemy.” As I’ve written before, a person’s political beliefs certainly aren’t disqualifying for a position like college president. But as a teacher at Mott, I think it is fair to ask someone now leading hundreds of faculty members if, as her donations suggest, she thinks professors are “the enemy.”

I would also point out that public commenters have certainly been upset about Richardson-Snell’s hiring. Her lack of experience in higher education has certainly been a theme of many comments. But the overwhelming majority of comments have been directed at the elected board itself for not involving or getting input from stakeholders on campus or the community that surrounds and depends on the college prior to her hiring. Their search process has not been transparent. It has not followed any sort of typical executive search process in higher ed or any other major industry. It did not share info about how candidates for the interim position were evaluated. It did not share info about their backgrounds with the public in a timely enough fashion for people to get a feel for who the candidates were and what their strengths were. No board member has publicly explained what stood out to them about Richardson-Snell’s background compared to other candidates (except Swanson saying he wanted someone to run the college “like more of a business”). No board member has publicly explained why the college took the highly unusual and costly step of conducting an external search for an interim president (“interims” are usually selected from within, to keep the college steady while a permanent search is conducted) prior to engaging in another search for a permanent president.

All of those things are valid and fair criticisms of elected officials who provide oversight of a public college.

This line isn’t a particularly big part of this person’s post, but it is instructive to how little this person likely knows about what is happening at Mott or the role it plays in Flint and Genesee County:

Even though I live in Genesee County, I am relatively uninvolved there. That’s changing.

So, it’s safe to say he knows very little about Mott, the people he labels as “overwhelmingly progressive faculty, woke student groups, and liberal community members,” the Flint community, etc.

He also argues that other colleges in Michigan have hired presidents who lack higher education experience. Here’s an excerpt:

As you can see from the information above, Shaunda’s credentials and skillset are by no means unique to higher education in Michigan. Even closer to home, the President of Oakland University, Ora Pescovitz, has no background in higher education. Russell Kavalhuna, the President of Henry Ford Community College, is a former pilot with a law degree.

First, a glance at Pescovitz’s bio shows his statement that she has no background in higher education is absurdly false. A quick read of Kavalhuna’s, and you get to this line: “Mr. Kavalhuna was the Executive Director of Flight Operations at Western Michigan University’s College of Aviation, the nation’s third largest collegiate aviation program. He also taught a course in the curriculum.” So those lines from the pastor are either misstatements or blatant omissions.

He also is glossing over the fact that Pescovitz and Kavalhuna were both hired, as is custom, with SIGNIFICANT input from university stakeholders. As an alumnus of Oakland University, we had the chance to get information about finalists for the position, submit questions, and even hear from candidates in forums if we chose to. Here’s a detailed recap of the process Henry Ford College followed in its search, and all of the steps they took to allow input from stakeholders. Members of their board also provided comments about why they chose the candidate who was eventually offered the position.

Mott Community College’s board has operated without any of this level of transparency. They’ve shut out input from faculty, staff, students (you know … those most impacted by their choice of president), and the community the college serves and they’ve been secretive about why they’ve made the choices they’ve made.

Mott’s board has regularly shut out the concerns of people it is elected to represent. It has regularly employed secretive and non-transparent processes, most notably during its search for an interim and/or permanent president. Every issue related to this board, including the unpopular choice it installed to lead the college, stems from this one underlying issue: this board has not fulfilled its obligations to the community it was elected to represent.

UPDATE (10-9-2024): In the comments of a Facebook post by Mott Trustee Michael Freeman about the mailer, Wolcott says that she and Swanson were unaware the mailer was going out and they did not give their consent to being mentioned on it.

UPDATE (10-10-2024): In a Facebook post, Trustee Jeff Swanson also denied providing his permission to be included on the mailer and says he doesn’t know who sent it.

ORIGINAL POST

A month ago, I wrote a lengthy post tying together all of the ultra right wing and Qanon-adjacent connections of five current Mott Community College board members and their hand-selected interim president. Little did I know, just a short time later, they’d pull all of those connections together for me on a handy, unhinged postcard that was apparently mailed to some Genesee County residents.

Overall, the main takeaways are that it reads like a direct threat to current Mott faculty and staff and it pretty clearly violates campaign finance law by not including a “paid for by …” tagline (and if you received it and would like to report it, there’s an easy form to fill out on the Michigan Secretary of State website). It’s not the most important thing, but I love the typo in all caps right off the bat: “DON’T LET YOURSELF BY RULED BY FEAR!” Beyond that, there’s a lot to parse here, so here were a few things that stood out to me.

Connections to Qanon

“Where we go one, we go all” is a slogan used by adherents of the Qanon conspiracy theory. If you don’t live your life getting mad at various fake boogeymen online like the people who wrote this postcard do, here’s a primer on what Qanon is.

Needless to say, people who believe in this stuff should be far away from running a college. Unfortunately, someone who may be aligned with that thinking is currently running the college. Though Mott interim president Shaunda Richardson-Snell has not publicly said that she shares these beliefs, the PR person she used when she was hired also writes or wrote for the Epoch Times, a misinformation factory that has been accused of helping spread Qanon and other conspiracy theories online.

Richardson-Snell has not done many interviews since taking over as interim president of Mott. She has also not participated in any large open forums where she has had to answer questions from students, faculty, staff, or the community about her vision for the college. There is a board contingent that is clearly intent on dramatically remaking Mott as we know it and they clearly are planning to install her as permanent president of the college. Their strategy here is likely to say as little as possible that could be controversial until they’ve completed that process, then reveal the ugly details later. It would certainly be nice if she would publicly explain her ideology and why people with extreme, fringe beliefs like those expressed on this mailer view her as the best choice to lead their desired remake of Mott.

What did Andy Everman Do?

Andy Everman has been involved in various local political fires in Genesee County for years, but one thing that I’ve consistently heard from people as I’ve been out in the community collecting signatures is that people who know or who have worked with him over the years didn’t think his personal politics were in alignment with the other four people in his contingent. Trustees Wendy Wolcott, Jeffrey Swanson, John Daly, and Janet Couch all have long time connections to conservative and Republican causes, and Everman does not, which always made the alliance seem strange.

The consensus from people I’ve talked with seems to be that Everman just wanted to be board chair, and was willing to align himself with whatever majority it took for him to accomplish that, although Everman himself has never explained how or why the clear 5-person board majority alliance came about.

But according to this postcard, whatever that connection was must’ve broke. I’m not sure what “disparaging comments” Everman made about Wolcott, but Everman’s history of being disrespectful toward others is pretty well-documented in media coverage of this board. The only thing I’ve noted by watching MCC meetings is that Everman seems allergic to being able to pronounce ‘Wolcott’ correctly and after many butchered attempts at it, just refers to her as “Trustee Wendy.” Which is definitely disrespectful, but on the scale of his other publicly disrespectful moments, is pretty mild.

If what is on this post card is to be believed, though, Everman seems to no longer be a part of the slate of candidates a mysterious contingent in the county is trying to elect. One of the candidates on the mailer, Candice Miller (not that one), who is currently on the Burton City Council, has a Facebook post in which Wolcott’s son, Matt Smith, is identified as her campaign manager. Virginia Sepanak, who previously ran for County Commission and lost, believes the 2020 election was stolen among other Google-able things about her political positions. So it seems quite possible Everman was convenient in helping this contingent enact its desired takeover of the college, but now they’re trying to elect a replacement for him who is even closer to the dystopian political ideology articulated on the mailer.

Dishonesty is a Feature, Not a Bug

The dangerous part of people who champion ideologies like this is that there is no amount of reasoning with them that will change anything. They believe rules don’t apply to them. We’ve seen it time and again from a board that has been accused of violating the Open Meetings Act. We see it from a board that has now opened two straight meetings for a public college representing students, faculty, staff, and taxpayers of multiple faiths with Christian prayers despite being told last year that was likely unconstitutional. They have heard nothing but negative feedback from voters who they serve for months. Nothing moves or changes their behaviors.

Swanson claims he hand-wrote a motion that he could barely read during a meeting, while never being seen writing in the times he was on camera, and the board couldn’t subsequently produce a copy of it to verify what was written on the paper he handed to the board chair. Everman gave a reporter a statement after that same meeting that directly contradicted what he said on video during the meeting.

Wolcott, despite being a conservative Republican, is running for Genesee County Commission in Davison as a Democrat. Her son, Matt Smith, is the former chair of the Genesee County Republican Party. Smith’s campaign signs when he lost the Republican primary for Davison Township clerk in August, featured pictures of Trump.

Wolcott is in no way a Democrat, and I hope voters in Davison see through the attempted power grab and will support her Republican opponent Brian Flewelling. BABs for Democracy, a local group of progressive activists in Davison, endorsed Flewelling in that election. Here was Flewelling’s statement: “This endorsement is particularly meaningful because I believe that even though we all may not always agree on every issue, we all occupy the same space in this life. The path forward for us as a society is through unity and open and honest discourse. Communication and integrity are paramount to making all of our lives better together.” That’s what actual local leadership and cooperation for the greater good of a community that cares about all of its citizens should look like.

This board majority, and the people they want to elevate and empower at the college, don’t care if the only way to enact their unpopular policies is through dishonesty. That’s why a campaign mailer supporting them also brazenly doesn’t follow campaign finance law. They don’t care.

The Mega Site

Mott Community College had previously been one of dozens of Flint businesses and organizations to express support for an advanced manufacturing site in Genesee County. The board was pressured to rescind that support, and did so. That rescinding of support didn’t strike me as the board having some altruistic care about the environmental issues a few public commenters spoke about as much as it was a chance for them to undue something that previous president Beverly Walker-Griffea supported. The jobs the proposed development would create are in line with industries that employ graduates of programs like several that Mott offers, so it made sense that Walker-Griffea would support it. At the time, it seemed Everman in particular was just upset that support for the project had been offered by the college without him being aware of it.

Honestly, I hadn’t really thought about the issue again until it appeared on the mailer. First of all, I can’t find any reporting that the mega site development resulted from a “foreign push.” Second, what on Earth do these people pushing candidates for a community college board, that is in charge of oversight of the community college and the community college only, think the community college can do to stop a development that is not on or even near their property? Third of all, if this is a development that will truly bring good jobs for graduates of Mott programs, and help keep talented young people in Genesee County, then the college’s board opposing it would be negligent.

They Can’t — and Don’t Want To — Govern

As disturbing as it was to see this mailer on social media yesterday, here’s what I keep coming back to: these clearly bad-intentioned people can’t lead or implement anything. Even if they win those seats in this election, let’s not forget virtually this same group has had a majority for over a year, and every single thing they’ve tried to do has been so clumsy it would be comical if it weren’t impacting students’ educations and employees’ careers.

If they won this election, the college would be on a rapid path to losing its accreditation, which would among other catastrophic outcomes mean Mott wouldn’t be able to award students federal financial aid. If they tried to purge “radical left faculty and administration,” they’d face an onslaught of lawsuits that they’d most assuredly lose. If they try to oppose a major advanced manufacturing development in the county, they’d lose the support of virtually the entire business community here.

This would all, of course, be disastrous for Mott, its students, its employees, and the county as a whole. It is important to remember that this is NOT simply a group of people with differing political opinions who still want what is best for the college. Mott has had Republican and Democrat board members in the past who have worked together well, accomplished good things for the college, and found ways to compromise on differences.

This is a group of people who believe public education in all of its forms needs to die, and to accomplish that, they’re trying to infiltrate boards and destroy from within. It’s the Moms for Liberty Playbook, which has actually failed multiple times nationwide. It’s a version of what happened in Michigan’s Ottawa County two years ago, when a slate of ultra right wing candidates took control of the county board and then subsequently alienated both Republican and Democrat constituents so much that it was tossed right back out of power. Wolcott’s son has attempted the same playbook in Davison. He narrowly survived a recall attempt, finished a distant second in the August Republican primary for Davison Township Clerk, and will (hopefully) finally be voted off of Davison’s School Board this November.

Normal, everyday people who make up by far the majorities of our communities are tired of this type of performative behavior. Whether people vote Republican or Democrat, most just want good, well-run local government entities that don’t have to be watched for shady and unethical behavior at all times, that make an effort to do what is in the best interests of all of the people they are elected to serve, and that actually like, care about, and want to be responsible stewards of the local jewels like Mott that we have in Genesee County.

The good news is, there are plenty of people like that to vote for in November. This mailer is handy for helping eliminate Swanson, Miller, and Sepanak as non-serious candidates who aren’t even worth considering. Add Everman to that list as well, since he’s orchestrated two years of chaos and poor leadership from this board. Two other names on the ballot, Jenna Rose Marden and Mary Davis, also have ties to Wolcott/Smith and should be avoided. On a crowded list of 14 candidates, that’s six people you can scratch off immediately when considering who to support.

Mott’s faculty union endorsed Anne Figueroa, Kenyetta Dotson, and Perci Whitmore. Andrew Watchorn, Aron Gerics, Amanda Wares, and Gail Johnson all gave thoughtful responses to the Flint Area League of Women Voters election questionnaire and seem like reasonable candidates, too.

My hope is, simply, that everyone concerned for Mott’s future can rally around three candidates, support them, show unity, and send a strong message that we do not want this bleak, ugly future for the college that the current board majority, several new candidates, and their hand-picked interim president are trying to implement.

During a Sept. 13 Mott Community College Board of Trustees meeting to determine the process the board would follow in its search for a permanent president, Trustee Jeffrey Swanson just happened to produce a hand-written motion outlining in detail the responsibilities of the ad-hoc committee.

This, despite the board not deciding until that very meeting that they would use an ad-hoc committee for its search rather than a traditional search firm. Remember, the purpose of the meeting was to review proposals submitted to Mott by search firms. Swanson was never seen writing despite being on camera for the entirety of the meeting prior to when his motion was made. He also visibly struggled to read the motion he had allegedly just wrote.

In the meeting, Swanson reads the motion and then passes the paper he wrote it on to Dianne Cotter, who was hired in a yet unnamed role with the board in September.

That paper is a public record, something the board should’ve preserved. I filed a Freedom of Information request on September 14 for a copy of that document. Today, I received this response:

Dear Requestor,

On September 16, 2024, Mott Community College (the “College”) received your request for public records under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). On September 20, 2024 in accordance with Section 5(2)(d) of the FOIA, the College sent you correspondence extending its time to respond to the Request by ten business days, until October 7, 2024. This correspondence shall serve as the College’s response to the Request and is a final determination (subject to your appeal rights, as explained below).

REQUEST: A copy of the document that Trustee Swanson handed to the Board Secretary as part of a motion he was making at that time.

RESPONSE: The undersigned does hereby certify pursuant to MCL 15.235(5)(b) that the public record requested does not exist.

Accordingly, your request is denied. The requested document does not exist and therefore cannot be produced. If a public record does not exist, FOIA requires MCC to certify the same in its response. MCL 15.235(5)(b). The Michigan Court of Appeals has held that the certification requirement in MCL 15.235(5)(b) simply requires a public body to state that a requested record does not exist. See Hartzell v Mayville Community Sch Dist, 183 Mich App 782, 787 (1990); Steinberg v City of Highland Park, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 18, 2018 (Docket No. 334432) (2018 WL 472151).

Pursuant to the FOIA, you have the right to appeal the denial of your request by submitting a written appeal to MCC’s President. MCL 15.240. Alternatively, you may seek judicial review of the denial. If, after judicial review, the circuit court determines that MCC has not complied with the FOIA and orders disclosure of the requested information, you would have the right to attorney fees and damages. MCL 15.240.

Before seeking a written appeal to MCC’s President or judicial review, please notify us of your disagreement with the above denial so that we may attempt to resolve the issue.

Sincerely,

Kristi Dawley

FOIA Coordinator

So Swanson’s masterpiece doesn’t exist and I guess we’ll never know what the quickly scribbled down, multiple page, detailed motion he came up with in the few minutes here and there that he wasn’t on camera actually looked like.

Whenever I’ve had the opportunity to talk with people about recalling Mott Community College Trustees Janet Couch, John Daly, and Wendy Wolcott, I’ve been up front about the challenge: 43,800 valid signatures for each trustee feels like an overwhelming number to collect, even for a board that has proven to be wildly unpopular with students, faculty, staff, and the surrounding community.

It is easy fixate on that number, get overwhelmed, and feel like the task at hand is impossible. But I work really hard to reject that mindset, because it’s the exact mindset that has allowed this board majority (Couch, Daly, Wolcott, Jeffrey Swanson, and Andy Everman) to operate as if they are not accountable to any constituents, especially people at the college who are most impacted by their reckless decisions and the ugly, bleak vision for Mott’s future they are collectively trying to implement.

Instead, here are two other hopeful numbers that I focus my mindset on: 200 and 250. If 200 of us collect 250 signatures each, we will have 50,000 signatures. Those are achievable numbers. It starts with volunteers who are willing to collect signatures. We already have some who have started, and I am grateful to them. We need more, though, and the more we have, the less daunting the task becomes for each of us. If you are willing to volunteer, please email mottccrecall@gmail.com.

As far as what 250 signatures looks like? Here’s what it felt like for me individually. It took me about 12 hours worth of being out and about to get there, plus another two hours or so of prep work (making copies, grabbing pens and other supplies, etc.). It took me spending some time talking friends and family in my personal network who may not be familiar with Mott and its inner-workings, but they do understand what toxic leadership does to an organization. They do understand the harm that “chaos candidates” like the five-person board majority on the Mott board can inflict. They do understand that, as a community resource, educator, and employer, few institutions are as important to Genesee County and its future as Mott Community College.

A combination of mobilizing my personal support system and peoples, attending a couple of events where I knew people interested in signing would be hanging out, and creating a space in my front yard near Mott for my neighbors and people at the college to come over and sign got me to approximately 250, in almost no time at all. And I have to be honest about myself here: I’m a socially awkward introvert. There are people who are much, much more comfortable talking in front of groups or in large public gatherings than I am. So my 16ish hours of work to get to 250 could easily be halved by people who are more naturally extroverted, or have more than like nine friends or whatever.

The point is, this work is important, and it is also achievable. A longtime community activist who I respect made the observation that successful recalls almost always are well-funded and have the ability to bring on board paid signature gatherers. This … is not those things at this point. I don’t know how any of that works. And while I am certainly open to the perspective of more experienced people in local politics offering strategy tips, I also sort of love the message-sending potential of a bunch of everyday people who have simply had enough of the disrespect, chaos, and shady behavior of this board majority banding together in the most truly grassroots way imaginable and succeeding in this recall. I believe we can do that. The first focus is 200. If you believe in this, have any bandwidth, and are willing to try, please email me (mottccrecall@gmail.com) and you can join the others in our group of volunteers who have already got started.