When Policy Review Isn’t Really Up for Review

At the April 23 FCC Board of Trustees meeting, “ownership” was a theme—but not from the start. The evening began with standard business: minutes, board remarks, and CEO updates. Three items were pulled from the consent agenda. One involved the substantial modification of the Computer Science associate degree, where newly sworn-in Trustee Jan Gardner questioned why staffing projections dropped while student enrollment was expected to double. The response? Polite, unclear, and ultimately unaccountable.

Later, during the review of BCD-5: President Succession, Gardner asked whether defining a “short-term” presidential absence as six months was too long. Even Chair Kimberlin admitted she’d raised the same concern when the policy was adopted.

And yet, instead of meaningful engagement, the board deferred. FCC’s current chief executive, attending remotely, suggested sending the concern to HR. The Chair moved on. The moment passed—no dialogue. No accountability. The item was listed for discussion. But real discussion never came.

Earlier this year, FCC reported that nearly 40% of its enrollment comes from dual enrollment students. These high school learners are factored into strategic planning. Trustee Ted Luck reinforced this framing during the meeting, describing FCC as part of a “K through 14” system—a seamless path from public school to workforce.

But here’s the contradiction: if FCC embraces K–14, why exclude early childhood education?

FCPS—the very partner trustees referenced—faces persistent shortages of qualified teachers, especially in early childhood and special education. That’s not just a challenge; it’s a workforce development opportunity. Yet FCC closed the Children’s Center—a hands-on lab site that supported both parenting students and the early educator pipeline. Unlike dual enrollment, early learning doesn’t boost FTEs or funding formulas, so it’s politically easy to sideline—even when the need is obvious.

What does that say about the Board’s priorities?

Later that evening, the Board discussed “ownership linkage.” But when a trustee raised thoughtful questions that showed awareness of public concern, the response was to bypass and move on.

How long until Trustee Gardner is expected to fall in line like the rest? Or is there still hope she’ll govern with fidelity to the public she was sworn to represent?

We are not customers. We are owners. And we are paying attention.