Parents and Community Angered Over Forced Shutdown of Campus Childcare Center

Over the past few weeks, community residents have gathered at the North Entrance of FCC to protest President Cheek’s plan to shut down and repurpose the Carl & Norma Miller Campus Childcare Center.

These protests mark the final stage of an ongoing effort by families and residents to save the Center since the decision was first announced on January 30.

Today is the Center’s final day of operation, and residents say they are not only deeply upset by the decision itself, but also by the Board’s and President Cheek’s refusal to engage in any transparent conversation about the issue.

“For three months, we have written, called and asked for meetings.” say organizers of Save Community Childcare (SCC) advocacy group. 

“We have posed honest questions, offered solutions, and requested the opportunity to help. We’ve done research and presented facts and data. We’ve been respectful. We’ve continued asking for an opportunity to discuss ways to try to save a business and community resource that we love and feel the families of Frederick need and deserve.”

And in response, they’ve done nothing but ignore us and stonewall this community.”

INTENTIONALLY MISSED OPPORTUNITIES RAISE QUESTIONS

Signs at the protests expressed the anger and frustration felt by parents and community members — not only with the decision itself, but also with President Cheek’s lack of leadership on the issue.

“Since this announcement, we’ve reached out with questions, we’ve tried bringing resources, suggestions to the table,” said MK Battles, one of the organizers of the protest. “We want to help in any way we can to save this Center, but she won’t respond to us. She attends everything by Zoom and ignores the whole community. That’s not leadership – that’s a red flag.”

Some parents brought their children with them, holding signs that asked, “Why, when there are other options?” — a reference to the many recommendations that have been presented to the Board and President Cheek, offering ways for the Center to continue thriving on campus.

Supporters point to multiple studies and recommendations that outlined options for increasing the Center’s revenue and improving its efficiency. However, FCC never pursued any of these suggestions. Instead, Dr. Cheek appeared to take deliberate steps that added financial burdens to the Center, ultimately pushing it further into the red.

Most notably for supporters — and in one of the most heartbreaking discoveries revealed through their FOIA requests — was a letter written by outgoing Interim President Thomas Powell, prior to President Cheek’s arrival in 2023. The letter provided a thorough analysis and a detailed list of options for how FCC could improve the Center’s model and operations.

In the letter, Powell makes an impassioned plea on behalf of the Children’s Center, urging the Board to recognize the value the Center provides to both the College and the broader community. He then offers a list of 14 options for how to most sustainably and responsibly continue delivering this vital childcare service. In his closing, he cautions Board members to consider the future of the Center in their search for the next President.

“I firmly believe that the Center can (and should) continue to provide services to our students, faculty, and staff. Additionally, including children from the general Frederick community enhances our mission to serve the public. As we prepare to hire a new President for FCC, it is critical that we consider the President’s vision for the Center.”

Supporters agree this is a heartbreaking testament to what Frederick was asking for — and never received. “Dr. Cheek’s vision appears to be the opposite of what everyone else here is asking for, and we can’t even get her to speak with us,” say the organizers. “It’s beyond disappointing.”

PARENTS LEFT WONDERING WHY

“It makes no sense” according to Carol Batcheller. “This is a building designed specifically for children. Why spend so much money and effort to destroy that, just to turn it into another space that already exists? Why not at least try the other options that have been laid out for them first?”

Melissa Conner, the advocacy group’s organizer, held a sign echoing those same sentiments. Alongside photos of the Millers and the center itself read ‘They gave a gift to this community. You were supposed to be stewards – not destroyers’. 

The Millers funded the building’s construction 30 years ago, with the specific intention that it serve as the permanent home for the childcare program.

To date, FCC has refused to publicly discuss or voluntarily provide any documents related to the Millers’ donation, legacy gift, or its use toward the building’s construction and designated purpose.

Members of the advocacy group have submitted a formal request for all related documentation; however, the deadline for FCC to respond is May 23 — after the program is scheduled to be shut down. So far, FCC has shown no indication that it will release the documents before the maximum allowed deadline.

“Aside from lack of interest Dr. Cheek and the Board appear to have in honoring the legacy gifts of the generations of families that helped to build this community ”, Conner said, “childcare is still fundamentally an economic and workforce support issue first and foremost. Keeping this Center open on campus falls well within the critical mission of a community college. We need to support the working students and parents in our community if we want them to be able to build a resilient workforce, and to participate as contributing members of our tax base and economy.”

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF THE CENTER

According to the Center’s financials released by FCC at last month’s County Council hearing on April 24, the College subsidized the Center for the five years prior to COVID, at a cost of no more than $40k per year, with one year costing only $538. Even then, the losses that FCC covered appeared to result only after the transfer of indirect costs, which included the annual overhead fee charged by FCC for administrative services and utilities. 

When asked at last month’s County Council Budget hearing on April 24, CFO Scott McVicker provided little insight into how the annual overhead fees are calculated. In 2019, the fee charged to the Center was $108k, which absorbed the Center’s remaining profit and left it with a loss of approximately $27,500.

Parents argue that these numbers show the Center isn't inherently losing the kind of money Dr. Cheek claims, and that her characterization of the Center as mismanaged and underutilized is misleading. "Childcare never makes anyone rich," Conner says, "but this Center isn't losing the millions of dollars she claims. She has to twist the information and rely on major outside factors to make it appear that way. That’s incredibly insulting and unfair to this community and the staff who have dedicated their careers to making the Center the successful program it is today."

In a statement announcing the closure, Dr. Cheek said, “From FY20 through FY24, the net income loss of the Children’s Center totaled $1.3M.” However, according to the financial summary provided by FCC, that figure is actually $914k and is based on several years of significant closures and disruptions, which resulted in unusual losses.

Supporters argue that these numbers are far from an accurate portrayal of the Center’s operations. The Center was closed for a significant portion of FY20 and all of FY21 due to COVID, and it took more than a year to return to normal operations, staffing, and enrollment levels after reopening. 

While the childcare program appears to have rebounded in both enrollment and revenue by FY2023, the Center plunged deep into the negative again in FY2024. When asked about this by Councilmember McKay at the budget workshop, FCC CFO Scott McVicker acknowledged that it was due to a significant salary increase Dr. Cheek chose to provide to the Center’s staff, without any corresponding plans to increase revenue to offset the salary increases.  

Despite the financial impact of that decision, the Board proceeded in 2024 with plans to approve a contract with Dustin Construction for "childcare-specific" renovations to the Center, presenting it as an investment in both the Center and the service it provides to students and the community. 

However, once again, without a corresponding financial plan in place, the proposed FY2025 budget projected a significant loss for the Center, amounting to almost half a million dollars. In the FY2025 budget comments, this loss is explained as resulting from a combination of lost revenue during the renovation period and the labor expense of keeping staff employed in other capacities at the college until the renovations were completed. 

Details on how that loss figure was calculated — such as whether labor costs would be reassigned to other departments — were not addressed.

Supporters say that these decisions by the FCC administration are a key part of the financial picture that Dr. Cheek is intentionally leaving out of her narrative.

“Dr. Cheek started out saying this was a clear-cut financial decision,” says Conner, “but any financial concerns regarding the Center aren’t due to enrollment or operational problems at the Center level. There are just these huge expenditures made by Dr. Cheek, coming right out of Covid. Big promises made with no plan to pay for them. Now she’s using the resulting financial gap - which she created herself- as justification for shutting them down. That’s not how you run an organization. Certainly not one as important and as influential in this community as FCC.”

“It makes you wonder if this was intentional,” says Teri Bickel, former director at the Children’s Center, whose grandchild is also enrolled in the center’s pre-k program.

“Dr. Cheek made such a big deal about the salary increases, personally handing each staff member their letter with their salary increases. She wanted to look good for the camera, but when the Center asked about increasing tuition rates in order to cover those costs, they were denied.”  

Councilmember Steve McKay pressed Dr. Cheek on that decision, asking whether she thought the staff would appreciate a raise that ultimately led to them losing their jobs. Dr. Cheek acknowledged that it was a “tragic irony.” “That’s certainly not the word I would choose,” says Bickel.

THE BUILDING, DESIGNED FOR CHILDREN

Many in the community question whether this closure is truly about the finances. At the County Council budget workshop and in a subsequent interview on WFMD, County Council President Brad Young shared his opinion: “I don’t think this is about the financials at all. She wants the building.”

In her own comments during that workshop — which she attended via Zoom — Dr. Cheek acknowledged that “even if the Center were to break even,” she would still be looking to repurpose it. For Councilmember Young, who was present when the Miller family made the original donation to establish the Center, this is a clear indication that, despite Dr. Cheek’s initial public comments about this being a “data-driven decision” due to financial losses, money has never been the true motivation behind this decision.

FCC has limited space available on campus and cannot build additional buildings for future expansion, leading many to question whether Dr. Cheek intentionally undermined the Childcare Center to create the appearance of needing to close it — and whether anyone on the Board is knowingly supporting this decision.

Supporters at the protest, along with other parents who attended the Town Hall, say they’ve suspected from the start that this is what it’s really about. “That building is the prize,” says Conner. “And it’s just a major inconvenience that there are a bunch of little kids in it. She wants them out, regardless of who’s willing to bring resources to the table to try to save it.”

Maly and the other advocacy group organizers agree. “She doesn’t want to save it. In all the articles she’s been quoted in, she talks about how much she cares about parents and families — it’s all been an act. She wants a ribbon-cutting. That’s it.”

Taylor Baisey, a parent whose child was enrolled in the Center, referred to this decision as “an opportunistic seizure” of the building at the Town Hall meeting held on this issue last month.  

Supporters say that the gaslighting and lack of honest transparency only intensify the anger they feel, and demonstrate an utter lack of respect and disregard for the Center’s staff and families. These individuals dedicated their careers and made years of sacrifices to develop and sustain a successful program, often working against the very college that was supposed to support them. To be thrown under the bus now, because Dr. Cheek wants to conceal her true intentions, feels to many like an ethical bridge too far.

REPURPOSING AND REDESIGN COST QUESTIONS

Parents say they are questioning why FCC would be so concerned with comparatively minimal losses from childcare, which could easily be overcome, while appearing willing to invest an enormous amount in abandoning a funded and in-progress renovation contract, only to replace it with a new project that will likely increase costs and run well into next year before completion, incurring even more lost revenue.

A representative from SCC reached out to Dustin Construction and was informed that a new bid has been submitted to FCC for the modified building renovation contract, but it has yet to be approved. The next FCC Board meeting isn’t until June. Permits filed with the City in January appear to be for the original renovation plan and seem to be stalled. 

It is unclear when and how actual renovation work will resume, or what this will mean for Dr. Cheek’s announced plans to reopen the center for Healthcare classes by August. Advocates argue that this seems impossible and is more likely to result in lost revenue from a building sitting empty due to poor planning.

Only the meeting minutes from the original contract approval were included in the response, with no further explanation as to why additional documents were not provided.

“Minutes show that a $90k design contract was approved last summer for childcare-specific renovations to the building,” states Karin McKenna, who has been reviewing FCC’s documentation on the contract approvals and process. “Permits were filed with the City in early January, just a few weeks before the closure announcement, to begin construction. So it really looks like this decision was made without any fiscal planning or discussion — even with the contractors themselves.”  

This has led to further speculation about the Board’s responsibility in overseeing the management of this project and its decision-making process. “My first reaction was, how could a huge renovation project with an approved budget, already in progress, just get scrapped without any vote or discussion by the Board itself? What will the cost be to make such a significant adjustment to the scope of this project, and where will those funds come from?” wondered Baisey. “It seems irresponsible — the opposite of a financially sound decision.” 

The childcare advocacy group submitted a FOIA request related to the contract and any modifications to its scope; however, no related documentation was provided in response.

“Several of our requests were completely ignored. This just fits with FCC’s response to us throughout this process — unless, of course, there is actually no contract. In that case, they really don’t have a plan, which is what we suspect,” says McKenna.

However, according to the one-page summary analysis obtained by the group, the projected benefit of the proposed expanded healthcare programming in the Miller building is a gross profit margin of $309k per year.

Supporters and family advocates acknowledge that healthcare is a more profitable program than childcare but are disappointed that the value placed on their livelihoods and the potential for success is so low.

That amount is roughly equal to Dr. Cheek’s annual base salary. Advocates say it’s hard to understand how one woman's salary can be considered equivalent to the impact of changing the lives of dozens of families and children each year — not to mention the broader economic impact and return on investment (ROI) that comes from having those families participate in the workforce

STUDENTS, FAMILIES FEELING STUCK

Whether angered by the financial gaslighting or the lack of transparency surrounding this decision, saving the Center — both the building and the childcare spaces it houses — is ultimately what drove so many parents to the protest.

“I’m not sure what we are going to do” says Samantha Hite – a parent with a child enrolled at the Center, and another due any day.  We were in a good place, we had a plan, we were ready, we had a spot lined up for me to be able to return to work. Now I’m back looking at year-long waitlists everywhere, no time, no options. I have no idea what we are going to do.”

She is not the only one struggling. Haneen Kayed, another student parent who was out protesting during finals week with her daughter in her stroller, says waitlists are over a year in many of the places she’s looked at too.

“I am not able to re-enroll next semester. You must be very committed in advance when you register for the nursing program. I chose this college because of the childcare option. Now, without it, I can’t continue. Plain and simple. I’m out. I don’t know what I’m going to do. Meanwhile Dr. Cheek won’t even consider the other options available.”

Dr. Cheek has claimed that most students have been able to secure care elsewhere, but several parents in the infants/toddler room disagree, saying that isn’t the case. Other parents argue that simply finding immediate, alternative care doesn’t address the longer-term problem.

“The care I’ve found is more expensive, not the same quality, I won’t be able to work part-time and continue my education at my current pace, it’s further away - it isn’t comparable.” says Harley Jay, a student parent with her daughter in the infant room at the Center.

“It’s like she doesn’t understand at all what this is putting us through, and she doesn’t care either.” Jay has also struggled with Dr. Cheek’s claims that financial help remains available to student parents looking elsewhere.

She’s made statements about these grants and programs still being available to us, but I’ve been trying and they aren’t coming through. There is only one other Center they’ve even bothered to vet for the program, and they are full. How is that helpful? It's obvious they don’t really care. I try reaching out and nothing comes out of it.”

Other parents express that same frustration that Cheek is missing the whole point. “Finding care today doesn’t solve the problem long term. What about other parents? What about the future opportunities on this campus?”

Supporters highlight the mission of community colleges to serve "lifelong learners" and emphasize the important role children play in many people's lives — particularly during periods of transition, when individuals often seek educational opportunities to upskill or retrain.

“This isn’t just about new students coming in from high school with kids. This is about newly single parents who have to reinvent their careers to support a family. There are grandparents who suddenly become primary caregivers when their children move back in. There are parents facing illness who need to upskill and shift their careers in a new direction. There are parents in all kinds of situations who need the ability to upskill, retrain, or re-enter the workforce. Childcare is a crucial part of that equation, and FCC has decided to ignore their needs moving forward.”

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTNERSHIP

Parents say they understand and support the idea of expanding the healthcare program at FCC. “But what we can’t understand is why Cheek believes she has to destroy our childcare program in order to do that. There are other options available,” says Hite. “They shouldn’t make the drastic decision to shut it down without even bothering to explore any of the options others have proposed.”

One of the main ideas parents want FCC to consider is finding alternative space for the Healthcare Expansion program, which is currently occupying the Monroe Center space off-campus. One attractive option that has been suggested is the vacant space at the nearby Frederick Health building — a location that seems like a natural fit for a healthcare workforce partnership opportunity. 

County Council President Brad Young and State Delegate Kris Fair both expressed support for exploring alternative space options at the Town Hall meeting they co-hosted on April 17th, alongside State Senator Karen Lewis-Young and City Council President Katie Nash. Dr. Cheek and the Board of Trustees were invited to the meeting but chose not to attend.

Following that meeting, the State, County, and City elected officials issued a joint letter to FCC, requesting a pause on the decision, calling for transparency, and offering to partner with FCC in securing alternative space and funding if needed. Dr. Cheek and the Board responded with apparent disinterest, offering little more than a reiteration that the decision had been made.

For many affected by this decision, the consistent lack of a meaningful response and disregard for concerns expressed by families, residents, and even elected officials has been the final straw. 

At the budget hearing, several County Council members urged FCC leadership to provide more transparency and engage with the community regarding the shutdown.

Yet, despite those suggestions, supporters say Dr. Cheek continues to remain silent, unwilling to engage in any conversations with anyone on the topic, regardless of the support or resources they may offer.

“What has so many people upset is the unwillingness to even talk to us. We know the statements you've made aren’t truthful. We know there are options available that you haven’t explored. Why are you just repeating the same talking points from January when we’ve been trying to have an honest conversation about solutions for months?” asks Conner. “This just isn’t how Frederick works.”

SILENCE FROM THE BOARD, CHEEK RAISES BIGGER QUESTIONS

For many parents and community members, that lack of response has shifted their concerns from solely focusing on the childcare closure to broader worries about FCC’s role and relationship with the community, as well as Dr. Cheek’s control over the Board.

In a letter sent to the FCC Board on Thursday, the group organizers wrote: “We believe if Norma Miller and her sons had been out on the corner with us, you would be ignoring them too. This community and its values haven’t changed. It’s FCC leadership that is shifting its priorities and its relationship with this community — and not for the better.”

At the County workshop, several Council members requested or recommended that Dr. Cheek be more transparent and communicative with the community. “As the Council Vice President said, I would encourage you to have those meetings with the members of the public,” urged Councilmember McKeegan. “We owe it to the community to let them know why these decisions are being made,” echoed Council President Young.  

An email requesting a meeting, sent to Dr. Cheek by group organizers on April 29th, received no response. In a follow-up email on May 3rd, the request was repeated, adding, “We had hoped that your comments shared at the budget hearing last week were an indication of a sincere interest and willingness to pursue and provide greater transparency with the community.” Once again, no response was received.

Finally, after an awkward chance encounter in a café, where Conner says she confronted Dr. Cheek about the unanswered emails, a response was sent on May 7th. It read: “I want to respectfully share that I’ve already communicated everything I have to say on this matter through multiple public channels—press statements, board meeting public address (2/19/25), formal responses to community inquiries, Public Information Act requests, and through the County Council budget workshop (recorded). Therefore, I am not scheduling individual meetings to restate the information that is already publicly available.”

“This response,” says Conner, “is what we’ve seen all along. No conversation. She’s just ignored everyone and everything. She’s going to keep ignoring us until the trucks show up. That’s how she’s decided to handle this.”

This has left parents dealing with a range of emotions, from frustration and anger to sadness and confusion—not just for themselves, but for Frederick families as a whole.

“One of the reasons I’ve come to love Frederick is because of the responsive and collaborative nature of this community. Business leaders, organizations, and residents have come together to solve problems bigger than this,” says Conner. “And yet, in three months, after hundreds of letters and efforts from a coalition of residents and elected officials, just asking to be heard, they have remained unwilling to talk to anyone this whole time.”

“Although, to be honest,” she adds, “we aren’t sure if they were even talking to each other about it. It appears the Board might not have even known about this decision before we did, so they decided to just keep their heads down and stick to the canned text responses that deferred to Dr. Cheek.”

In response to the group’s multiple FOIA requests, a presentation dated January 28th was provided. This presentation appears to be the tool used to notify even internal stakeholders at the college of the decision, indicating that the decision came as a surprise to many on campus. There had been no prior discussion or "heads up" that a potential closure was even being considered.

In the presentation marked "confidential," it states that the decision had been made: "The Center will remain Closed. Communication to internal and external stakeholders will begin tomorrow (Jan 29th). Public announcement will be Friday, Jan 31."

Community members immediately began writing and emailing about the decision, but from February until early April, advocates say their emails to the President and Board members, in particular, went unanswered.

In April, some Board members began replying with copy-pasted versions of the same letter. They apologized for the delay in responding, described the decision as “difficult,” reiterated the points made in Dr. Cheek’s February public statement, and always ended with, “For that reason, I support the President’s decision.”

Out of over 20 responses reviewed from different advocates, all contained identical wording. None of the replies addressed or even acknowledged the specific questions, concerns, or suggestions supporters had included in their letters. Most inquiries went unanswered entirely.

“It’s starting to sound like the Board has lost control, and the tail is wagging the dog over there,” says Conner. “Things must be a mess when you can’t even bring yourself to face questions from a bunch of moms. No way it should be that hard.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Cheek has categorically refused to answer any questions, repeatedly referring back to her earlier public statements from February, despite the group and FCC itself publicly producing clear documentation that contradicts those statements. In the three months since, Dr. Cheek’s office has provided no clarification or follow-up.

“Because she can’t clarify it. It’s wrong,” says MK Battles, a member of the advocacy group. “She knows the information she put out was wrong, and she knows we’re here, showing that, trying to save the Center. She doesn’t want anyone else to see that. She’s been waiting out the clock, hoping no one will stop her. She doesn’t answer to anyone.”

Karin McKenna says it goes well beyond just being ignored. “The Board has abdicated its role in all of this and now wants to exclude residents and elected officials from having any voice at all in this institution. It’s a community college, for the community. This is a serious problem for Frederick.”

She is referring to the FCC Board of Trustees' own governance policies, available on their website, where GP-3 defines ownership of the college as belonging to the “residents of Frederick County.” That policy and definition were last approved in January, before Cheek’s announcement regarding the Children’s Center closure and the subsequent community backlash.

At FCC’s last board meeting on April 23rd, which McKenna attended, the policy and the definition of ‘ownership’ were specifically brought up for review.

“In the discussion,” said McKenna, “the board members expressed a desire to redefine the ‘ownership’ of FCC, limiting it solely to ‘monied organizations’ of their choosing. They want to specifically exclude both community residents and elected officials from this new definition. That’s a pretty clear indicator of how they really feel about the residents of this community. They don’t want anyone to hold them accountable for anything.”  

The minutes from the most recent board meeting are not yet available online at the time of writing this article. However, others who attended the protest and the meeting expressed similar concerns. The Board Packet available shows that the Board recently completed a self-survey regarding Ownership linkage, and several comments in the survey highlighted the need for the Board to be more responsive and connected to the community.

“How can a community college, funded by taxpayer dollars, intentionally exclude the actual community? Why are they trying to prevent us from having any voice at all?” asked McKenna. “We are the biggest funder of this college and the very ones they are supposed to serve. We’re the monied organization they should be most connected to and listening to.”

CARL & NORMA MILLER CHILDREN’S CENTER LEGACY

“The issue for me,” said Jenna Maly, another parent and one of the lead organizers of the advocacy group, “is that quality, affordable childcare is a worthwhile investment in these students and this community. Every study done shows that. And even if the college doesn’t want to pay for it themselves, there is a community here offering to help. There are things they could do, things they could let the Center do, before making this decision. The fact that they didn’t let anyone know the Center needed help before, and that she won’t even let anyone try to help now, is unforgivable.”

Group organizers say that, even if the Center closes permanently, part of their goal is to ensure that what truly happened is documented and fully understood. 

In their statement about what comes next after the closure, advocates make it clear that they will not forget the events leading up to this decision or how it all unfolded.

“We want to ensure people understand that this incredible gift and resource in our community was destroyed out of pure profit-driven greed, plain and simple. FCC is not a private, for-profit business; it is a publicly funded institution meant to serve the residents of the county and enhance their quality of life. Even though an entire community rallied outside, offering money and resources to help save the center, Dr. Cheek and the Board wouldn’t even extend the courtesy of a conversation, let alone tell the truth.”

“That willful disregard for our community and the intentional destruction of this beloved center is now well documented, and it will be the legacy she is remembered for long after she has moved on from Frederick and forgotten about us. Her Board members will be remembered for letting her do it.”

While the protesting and daily emails may eventually slow, the group intends to keep gathering information, records, and artifacts from the center. They plan to publish a history of the people and work that made such a lasting impact on families in this community, alongside a deeper investigation into how FCC ultimately sabotaged the center. “They deserve a more dignified farewell than this.”