Comments on 'Pima prof: Probation based on hearsay from small groups'
Sponsored by

Comments on

Pima prof: Probation based on hearsay from small groups

The HLC has no credibility and it should withdraw its probation of Pima College. I have yet to see actual, substantial documentation of support for the complaints on which the HLC issued probation on the college. ... Read more»

have your say   

4 comments on this story

Apr 23, 2013, 3:51 pm
-0 +2

Well, Iadevia, I see that you didn’t call yourself “Doctor” here, and I know PCC wouldn’t let you after they found out you got your PhD from an unaccredited paper mill. But, on your personal website you still haven’t made the correction. And your ego has run so amok that you created a wikipedia entry for yourself? Please…

Let me state that, at no time (to my knowledge) since the HLC investigation started has any entity called into question the quality of academia provided by PCC. I’ll add to that by stating that a majority of faculty at PCC I knew to be of high standard and took pride in their work. That stated, I don’t know if you’re a good teacher or not Iadevia as I have never taken one of your classes. But, after reading this piece, I can see that you can’t see the forest for the trees. I question whether or not someone who can’t see something so blatantly obvious should be teaching anyone anything.

The question that no one seems to want to ask is how could the Higher Learning Commission team have visited and accredited Pima for 10 years just three years ago?

That’s an easy one…at that time, no one had taken the time to tell the HLC what was going on. Many of the controversies at PCC had yet to break publicly at that time. When the accreditation team comes around every decade, PCC hand-picks who talks to them, and that is never people at the staff level. The president of your campus, Char Fugett, is a master at sweeping things under the rug. She built the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” culture of the HR department before assuming the East Campus post (how in the hell does an HR person become a campus president, anyway?) That’s why many things stayed hidden for so long.

Where was the outcry from the small vocal groups then?

“small vocal groups”? You really want to stick with that one? Faculty Senate, Staff Council, AFSCME Local 449, ACES…those are small now?

I would say that the HLC has no credibility and it should withdraw its probation of Pima College.

Wow. The accrediting body of your employer has no credibility? OK, then the accreditation has no credibility and in turn the school has no credibility, right? PCC insiders already know that apparently you don’t have any problem with unaccredited schools, as that’s where you got your alleged PhD from. (See, you’re not the only one who can use the term “alleged”).

However, I have yet to see actual, substantial documentation of support for the complaints on which the HLC issued probation on the college.

Well, maybe you didn’t see it, because you were one of the people with your head in the sand. I saw it, and I can still prove much of it. I did prove some of it to the HLC. If you want to see my proof, I’m not difficult to contact privately.

Criterion Five, Core Component 5.B, “the institution’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the institution to fulfill its mission,” and Core Component 5.C, “the institution engages in systematic and integrated planning.”

Again I must ask how does the HLC evaluate compliance?

Well, let me see…treating everyone by one set of rules, the rules in the policy handbook is a good start. A Chancellor that doesn’t award no-bid contracts to his childhood friends and who keeps his penis to himself at work is also another great start to that one.

How is the severity measured…against what standards? What is the rubric used by the HLC?

How much more severity do you need? I know you’re used to working in a consequences-free environment, and maybe that’s what you’ve adapted your thinking to having been there 30 years, but those of us in the real world believe in accountability.

Criterion Five, Core Component 5.B, “the institution’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the institution to fulfill its mission,” and Core Component 5.C, “the institution engages in systematic and integrated planning.”

Again I must ask how does the HLC evaluate compliance?

Any successes PCC has had was because of the people who worked there who cared about the mission and the students (which, as I stated, was a majority of them). I assure you, in many cases this was achieved despite the leadership, not because of it. “Effective leadership” does not even come close to describing many in PCC.


Apr 23, 2013, 3:54 pm
-0 +0


In the meantime the four Board members should not resign. If there is such an outcry of public dissatisfaction with those four Board members then the public will show that dissatisfaction by way of the appropriate legal means available.

Lovely. So, instead of doing the right thing and stepping aside they should force us all through recall elections that will cost this community money and time, time PCC doesn’t have. This idiotic piece aside, I have seen or heard nothing that suggests the Flores Board has anyone’s support but their own. I have seen and heard plenty to the contrary. If the Flores Board has so much support…where are they? Why aren’t they stepping up?

Let me remind everyone that Dr. (A legit PhD, not one like Iadevia) Sylvia Lee has also called for the Flores Board to resign. She knows what she’s talking about. She was a Campus President (and prior to that, held other administrative positions) during Flores’ reign. She sees things for how they are, and how they were. Is Iadevia really calling into question her credibility?

This piece showed that it is Iadevia that has no credibility, not the HLC.

Iadevia doesn’t get it, neither does Miles nor the Flores Board nor too many others toward the top at PCC. The HLC is it. There’s no appeal process. Instead of telling them they’re wrong and treating them like they’re idiots who don’t know what they’re talking about, PCC would be best served by just figuratively stating “Yes, Sir” and make the very reasonable overdue corrections that the HLC is calling for. Fighting the HLC only decreases the chances of PCC successfully emerging from probation. PCC’s chances aren’t good as it is.

I hope Iadevia is going to be satisfied working at PCC for 32 years, because with attitudes such as his PCC will be forced to close up shop because Iadevia can reach 33.

Apr 23, 2013, 3:58 pm
-0 +1

*BEFORE Iadevia can reach 33 I mean to say. This forum has no edit function, sorry.

Apr 23, 2013, 10:11 pm
-0 +1

So I guess the Southern Arizona Leadership Council is also a “small group” huh?

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

Kynn Bartlett/Wikimedia


news, politics & government, education, local, arizona, opinion, guest opinion, breaking
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1766
  • Dylan Smith: 541
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • EllieMae: 153
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by


I want to help offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Printer's Devil
$15/mo. Cub Reporter
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Copy desk chief
$1,000 Trusted source
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Cub reporter
$50 Printer's Devil
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below) is an Arizona nonprofit organization fiscally sponsored by, a 501c3 charity. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves. does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.


Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sign up for email newsletters!

find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by