During the last two weeks of the quarter, the Executive Cabinet at Highline College held several listening sessions to gather feedback from across campus. While these sessions were open to everyone (including students), it was primarily classified staff who attended and a few members of faculty. No students attended any of the sessions I was present for personally, probably because the sessions were not well publicized to students and the relevance to student life wasn’t immediately apparent. Also, it was the last two weeks of the quarter, and everyone, especially students, have had higher priorities than once again voicing concerns that they don’t believe will actually be listened to, even if, as we’ve been repeatedly told, they are “heard.”

While the full breakdowns are available on Discord, a few highlights:

For Melanie Lawson’s first session, she only took one-on-one sessions, meaning most people opted out entirely from that session, and assumed future sessions would be the same format. The one-to-one conversation made a lot of people uncomfortable, especially considering Lawson’s past behavior with staff in private meetings, though this was preferred by a few who didn’t feel comfortable speaking in public. I myself opted out, since I didn’t have time to wait in line.

At her open Q&A session, she said the right things but her ability to follow up is left in doubt. When asked how she planned to represent classified staff and impact the tension on campus when she has no day-to-day interaction with staff outside of formal meetings and isn’t even in the state, her response was that she didn’t see what that had to do with her job. She was also the only EC member who found it necessary to have both a note taker AND a facilitator/moderator. The first 10-15 minutes were lost to over explaining the rules.

Dr. Pham’s session was so hostile it ended after 30 minutes. His entire demeanor was so unwelcoming that despite having average attendance (10 people) no one felt comfortable speaking. The few questions/comments made were met with glares and stoney silence or the occasional follow-up question. Instead, Marco Lopez-Torres and David Menke took on the bulk of the speaking and answering of questions, though some of those questions were answered privately after the meeting, even if they impacted the whole campus.

The session with Time Wyre was better; he was actively engaged and clearly trying to hold himself back from offering suggestions or trouble shooting and did seem legitimately concerned about some of the issues brought up (such as having updates to assistive tech declined due to “lack of use”). There was a lot of good discussion, especially regarding communication and accessibility, and the session actually ran over by about ten minutes so all the comments could be noted. It is also notable that Wyre is the EC member with the most direct access to day-to-day campus activities, which could be why he was more receptive.

Josh Gertsman represents the HC Foundation, so I took advantage of it to ask about the employee emergency fund that was written into our new contract. I asked when those funds would be available and how employees could apply. Gertsman made excuses about running out of time and lack of staffing, stating that the HCF doesn’t have the staff necessary to manage such a fund, and they needed [classified] staff to manage it, which is not our responsibility. The implication was that classified staff were not holding up their end of the bargain, thereby causing a delay for the foreseeable future.

I was the only person present for Danielle Slota’s session, which I chose because she is the public records officer for the college and thereby in charge of records for the board and the EC. Mostly I just ran through the same list of concerns I’ve been bringing up at all of these meetings, and asked why the board meetings aren’t recorded and made available later. They are already streamed on zoom, hitting record isn’t exactly a challenge. Again, no answers were offered. Though I emphasized the lack of transparency and trust, only time will tell if these concerns were taken to heart.

According to those who were present for the session with Ezeonu, it was well attended, “lively,” and she seemed overall receptive to the feedback given.

And that brings us to the sessions with Dr. Penn. The first session was in person. After the ten minutes of rules and emphasizing repeatedly that no names would be written down in the notes, only commentary, she then went on the defensive when asked about financial aid. The rest of the meeting was a Mosby Special, complete with gaslighting, tone policing, and asking staff and faculty members present to solve the problems being brought to the table. When the subject of contract negotiations came up, I stated that Dr. Pham doesn’t treat us like human beings. She was more upset at the fact that I mentioned him by name than the statement that a member of Highline Leadership doesn’t treat employees with basic respect in the workplace. Her entire tone and message was highly offensive, and she made it clear that no names at all were to be recorded, even when they pertained to complaints about specific members of leadership. When concerns about Lawson’s interactions with employees were brought up, she stated that was “an HR problem,” as opposed to a “Melanie problem.”

Her second session (the last in the cycle) was one of only three with a zoom option, and had record attendance (23), further proving the point that more accessibility is needed on campus. While this session was less charged than the first, Penn was still left speechless and with no response when asked about action plans and accountability. She then emphasized that accountability and solutions would not come from the EC, but from the campus as whole. Attendees reasonably concluded (based on past actions of Penn, the President’s Office, the EC, and the board) that the responsibility for creating or implementing any change would once again be pushed off onto staff, rather than becoming the responsibility of those in leadership—even where leadership was the direct cause of the issue.

Again and again employees demanded a timeline to find out when a decision will be made about sending WPEA back to the general higher ed bargaining table. This was repeatedly put off, even though a timeline was promised in August.

Penn did at last acknowledge the poor timing of the sessions, and the lack of accessibility, stating zoom options had been limited because the EC wanted “full engagement” from attendees. Considering how well Pham’s in person session went and the number of attendees at the open zoom meetings, her concern seems misplaced, and to quote the Thunderword, “This gives the distinct impression that they don’t actually want employees to show up.” She promised that listening sessions would continue into the new year.

The sessions were a mixed bag at best, with most left doubting what, if any actions would be taken. It remains to be seen if these are just another placating measure, or if they will actively be effective.

The top five concerns from these meetings (in no particular order):

• 1. Classified staff pay and treatment by superiors and administrators
• 2. The ability of Mosby (and Penn) to lead the college, and the absence of EC members on campus, or their visibility when they are on campus.
• 3. The timeline for deciding if WPEA contracts will be sent back to higher ed
• 4. Transparency and accountability of leadership
• 5. Campus accessibility in general, but meeting accessibility in general (having zoom options or recordings to view later).