Dozens of students, faculty, staff, and community members raised public objections to the lack of transparency in the Board of Trustees’ hiring process for interim president Shaunda Richardson-Snell, who has no higher education experience.

At its meeting on July 15, 2024, the board approved Richardson-Snell’s contract without any board member publicly expressing why they felt she was better qualified than three other finalists with significant experience in higher education administration. But in truly shady fashion, once they realized there was a room full of constituents dissatisfied with their process, they voted to move public comment on the contract approval until AFTER they’d already approved Richardson-Snell’s contract despite public comment initially being listed before on the published agenda.

As soon as the contract was approved, Richardson-Snell immediately left the meeting. But she said in an interview with Kate Stockrahm of East Village Magazine that her leaving shouldn’t be a reflection of hear leadership style:

Richardson-Snell noted that she had wanted to stay for public comments, but her lawyer and representative had advised her against doing so.

“I argued with both the attorney and him [my representative],” she said. “And they insisted, and I said, ‘I do not want my team to think that I will ever walk out on them.’… That is not me. I do not leave my team.”

In that same interview, Richardson-Snell also seemed to express dismay at why so many were upset by her hiring:

“I was surprised because it showed me they clearly didn’t know me,” the incoming MCC interim president said in an exclusive interview on July 16. “It was really unfortunate that more time and care wasn’t taken to get an understanding of what I bring to the table before making those just, you know, those disparaging comments.”

Those comments should honestly be directed at the board who hired her. They provided zero explanation for why they thought the candidate whose experience was an outlier compared to similar roles was the best fit for Mott. They’ve provided zero specifics for what stands out about her background and makes her a superior candidate despite her clear lack of experience in this industry. They’ve provided zero rationale for why they thought the other strong candidates were not the right fits. They’ve provided zero public information for how they evaluated or scored each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. In short, the board lacks accountability and transparency, and if Richardson-Snell is frustrated by the reaction to her hiring, she should take that up with the College’s trustees.