Allowing union to dehumanize, demonize LCC president is dangerous

by John Anderson

As a resident of Lane County, I am writing this with a heavy heart and growing outrage. What is happening at Lane Community College (LCC) is deeply troubling and reflects shamefully on the faculty union and the members of the LCC Board of Education who have allowed this hostile climate to take root and persist.

I’ve read the articles, watched the board meetings, and talked with neighbors, alumni, and parents, and the reaction is universal: People are appalled by the way President Stephanie Bulger is being treated. What’s unfolding at LCC is not “accountability.” It’s a campaign of public humiliation and harassment against a woman who has, in fact, delivered real, measurable progress for the college.

Union members’ repeated smears are disgraceful

The Lane Community College Education Association’s (the faculty union) behavior at board meetings has been disgraceful. These are supposed to be educators—people entrusted with modeling respect, civility, and professionalism for our students. Yet, the conduct on display has been uncivil, aggressive, and shockingly disrespectful. It’s hard to believe that this is coming from individuals who expect to be treated as intellectual and moral leaders on campus.

Your members’ repeated personal attacks, shouting, and public smears are not expressions of free speech. They are violations of the college’s own Respectful Campus Statement, which pledges that “all who engage with the college treat others with respect, courtesy, and kindness.” When you fail to live up to that standard, you degrade the college’s reputation and drive away community trust.

The Nov. 5 board meeting, which lasted nearly five hours and included 63 public comments, was a national embarrassment. Despite Board Chair Austin Folnagy clarifying at the outset that the president cannot legally violate Oregon’s open meetings law, faculty members continued to repeat the same false accusations throughout the night.

Furthermore, when Board Member Julie Weismann tried to stop a speaker who was personally attacking the president, Chair Austin Folnagy overruled her, instead of stopping the speaker and reminding everyone of the college’s Respectful Campus Statement—signaling that hostility and misinformation would be tolerated rather than condemned.

It’s no wonder that the Eugene-Springfield NAACP condemned the faculty union’s behavior as “coordinated personal attacks, repeated misinformation, and open hostility toward President Bulger,” calling it “targeted harassment of a Black woman who has delivered measurable progress for Lane Community College.”

Yes, the First Amendment gives faculty the right to speak freely at board meetings, even to behave rudely; but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from accountability or freedom from moral responsibility. When those entrusted to educate impressionable college students use that freedom to demean others, they betray the very principles they are supposed to teach.

What made the display even more disturbing was that union members routinely shouted down every member of the public who dared to speak in support of President Bulger. It is the height of hypocrisy and privilege to invoke free speech as a shield for their own attacks while using that same freedom to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Even worse, allowing the demonization of a Black woman president in a state with Oregon’s painful racial history sends an appalling message. As the NAACP pointed out, an independent investigation already confirmed that Dr. Bulger faced racist and sexist treatment from a former board chair—yet this has never been acknowledged or addressed by the faculty union.

The hypocrisy is staggering: during the November meeting, the faculty union president publicly claimed that their organization supports BIPOC faculty and stands against harassment, yet they have remained completely silent about the proven racism, sexism, and harassment directed at Dr. Bulger. It takes remarkable nerve to proclaim solidarity with people of color while simultaneously leading the charge against one of the few Black women in higher education leadership in this state.

Furthermore, the optics of a white male board chair presiding over a nearly all-white group attacking a Black woman leader should disturb every decent person in this county. And beyond optics, the human reality is just as troubling. For a Black woman to live and work in an overwhelmingly white community, enduring public hostility from her own faculty while trying to do her job, is not just unfair; it is inhumane.

Board members not acting in best interests of LCC

As Chair, Mr. Folnagy should have restored order and ensured that the meetings reflected LCC’s stated values, as the disruptors were college employees who should be expected to abide by the college’s Respectful Campus Statement. Although he occasionally reminded attendees to quiet down, his efforts were inconsistent and largely ineffective. Union members continued to shout, interrupt, and make disruptive outbursts throughout the meeting, turning a public forum into a spectacle.

Allowing the faculty union to dehumanize and demonize the President is not just unprofessional. It is dangerous. The nation is experiencing a disturbing rise in politically motivated violence, and there are far too many unstable individuals who need little provocation to act. Publicly vilifying a college president in this climate, portraying her as an enemy rather than a leader, recklessly increases the risk of real harm.

According to the Pew Research Center, 85% of Americans believe politically motivated violence is on the rise. In this environment, responsible leaders must make it clear that passionate debate is acceptable, but dehumanizing or vilifying others is not.

Let’s be honest: this behavior doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The faculty union has poured substantial campaign money and support into the elections of several board members—Austin Folnagy, Jerry Rust, Zachary Mulholland, and Jesse Maldonado—who now appear to be advancing the union’s agenda rather than acting in the best interests of the college.

Their voting patterns and public statements make it clear that the union’s influence reaches directly into the boardroom. Mr. Maldonado’s dual role as secretary of the Oregon Democratic Party only deepens this conflict of loyalty (note: the local Democratic Party has publicly backed the faculty union).

Mr. Folnagy’s longstanding membership in the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) presents an even more obvious conflict of interest. As someone whose livelihood is connected to organized labor, he cannot credibly claim impartiality while presiding over meetings dominated by a faculty union whose interests mirror those of his own organization. His divided loyalties raise legitimate concerns about whether he is serving the public or protecting union power. These conflicts are glaring, indefensible, and corrosive to public trust.

The LCC board, under this influence, has increasingly overstepped its proper role and attempted to micromanage the college’s daily operations. The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, LCC’s accrediting body, reminded them at the November meeting that boards set policy and evaluate presidents, they do not interfere in management decisions. Boards in any sector avoid delving into operations because they lack the technical expertise and institutional knowledge required to overrule the professionals running the organization. When they cross that line, it is not out of competence. It is out of politics.

Here, the politics are unmistakable. By controlling a four-member voting majority, the faculty union can push its priorities into decisions that belong solely to the administration, including program approvals, HR actions, labor negotiations, and budget management. This is not oversight; it is interference. It allows the union to bypass established governance processes and substitute its own interests for those of the students and the community.

When a board allows itself to become an instrument of union politics, it jeopardizes the college’s stability, accreditation, and reputation. Instead of respecting boundaries and supporting Dr. Bulger’s proven turnaround—an 18% increase in enrollment, major progress on financial recovery, and a record-breaking $500,000 raised for student scholarships—some board members seem determined to undermine her success. These are achievements that should be celebrated, not punished.

The board’s duty is to govern the college, not to serve as an extension of the union.

Thank you, President Bulger

In stark contrast to the dysfunction and political gamesmanship that have consumed the board and the faculty union, Dr. Stephanie Bulger has exemplified what true leadership looks like. Dr. Bulger, thank you. You have shown grace, courage, and professionalism in the face of behavior that no one should ever have to endure. The Eugene-Springfield NAACP is right: You are delivering results with “transparency, accountability, and an unwavering commitment to the college.”

You inherited a college weighed down by years of declining enrollment and financial instability, yet you are turning it around through discipline, vision, and integrity. Under your leadership, enrollment has increased by 18%, fiscal recovery is underway, and the college’s foundation achieved a record-breaking $500,000 scholarship fundraiser—a tangible sign of renewed community confidence. You have restored a sense of purpose and direction to an institution that had lost both.

You represent the best of what leadership should be: steady, ethical, and student-centered. You have the backing of the broader Lane County community, many of whom have watched these meetings and are dismayed by the conduct they’ve seen. Their support for you is clear, even if it’s not as loud as the few who seek to tear you down. Please do not let this loud, hostile minority drive you away.

To the four-member majority of the Board and the faculty union: your conduct has not only damaged the college’s reputation, it has eroded public trust. The community is watching closely, and the shame does not rest on Dr. Bulger. It rests squarely on those who have chosen politics and hostility over integrity and education.

LCC belongs to all of us

Lane Community College belongs to all of us – not to a handful of loud voices or politically motivated factions. This community deserves a college guided by truth, fairness, and respect, not intimidation and deceit. The time has come for every responsible leader, employee, and citizen of Lane County to speak up. Silence in the face of injustice is complicity. Those who care about this institution must have the moral courage to reject mob behavior, to stand with integrity, and to defend what is right. 

The treatment of President Bulger is not just a personnel issue. It is a reflection of who we are as a community. We can either tolerate a culture of bullying and hypocrisy, or we can reclaim the values that once made Lane Community College a point of pride. The choice, and the accountability, now rest with us all.

The LCC Respectful Campus Statement reads as follows: “Lane Community College is dedicated to fostering a welcoming, inclusive, safe, and equitable (WISE) environment. We encourage open communication, constructive dialogue, and collaboration to ensure every voice is heard and respected. In alignment with our values, all who engage with the college pledge to treat others with respect, courtesy, and kindness.”