President Daria J. Willis Statement to Board of Trustees on Faculty Committee Vote of No Confidence
Good evening, Trustees.
Last week, the HCC Faculty Forum Constituency Committee issued a detailed letter expressing no confidence in my leadership. Members provided specific allegations across five categories: leadership instability, disrespect toward faculty, operational failures, financial misconduct, and lack of transparency.
Before I address these allegations, I want to acknowledge something important: On July 31 of this year, you issued a public statement expressing full confidence in this administration. You cited enrollment growth, highly rated faculty, historic fundraising, and unprecedented program growth as achievements this administration has delivered.
This vote puts that statement to the test.
I want to address this directly—all of it. The concerns that reflect real challenges. The claims that are based on incomplete information. And the broader context that is essential to understanding where this institution actually stands.
I am going to be honest. I am going to be thorough. And I am going to use data and specific sources—because data tells the truth, even when it is uncomfortable.
Let me start with their first major allegation: “extraordinary turnover” creating a hostile work environment. They claim “more than 80 experienced faculty and staff have left” under my leadership.
Context matters. 2021 marked the beginning of the Great Resignation cycle when millions of Americans left their jobs. We serve over 2,200 employees. Let me be very specific about what the actual data shows:
In 2021 before my arrival, 70 employees left HCC for various reasons. If 80 faculty members have left under the last four years of my leadership, that would suggest that the 70 total employees in 2021 alone was nearly equal to the departures of faculty and staff over the length of my tenure.
Now, we know that these numbers reflect all departures for any reason—retirements, relocations, people finding better opportunities, career changes, and yes, some dissatisfaction. Annual turnover between 2 to 4 percent is within normal ranges for organizations of our size.
More importantly, these figures do not exist in a vacuum. They must be understood in the context of what this administration has done to retain and reward employees.
The improved employee retention parallels the substantial salary increases this administration has delivered:
FY21 - No increase
FY22* 2%; merit was a one-time bonus of $1500 for FT employees and an additional $500 for FT employees with a level
FY23 7%
FY24 6.5%
FY25 3% COLA; 1% merit for all employees
I want to thank Sarah Angerer, president of our Salary and Benefits committee, who during yesterday’s audit and finance committee meeting of the Board of Trustees, cited some of these numbers in the committee’s recommendation for COLA and merit increases this year. People are indeed leaving, but they are also coming to work and being rewarded for their contributions.
The letter cites “five VPAAs in four years.” This is true. When I started in Dec. 2021, nearly every position of leadership in academic affairs was held by an interim candidate. This is one of the reasons why we moved to HCC Forward and have everyone interview for their positions.
The first round of deans that were hired in HCC Forward were internal. And we gave those deans two years to decide if they wanted to remain in those positions or to return to faculty. Now that some of those deans have returned to faculty, we have interim positions again, and we are working diligently to rehire.
The recently departed provost did what I asked her and left a sustainable model for Dr. Iuzzini to continue.
The former AVP who resigned on his first day? That was his decision. I cannot speak to his reasons then, but I can speak to the reasons he laid out months later when he asked to meet to reconnect about an administrative opportunity, a letter you will find on the screen.
When someone decides a position is not the right fit, whether that becomes clear in one day or one year, respecting that decision is appropriate. But there is also a reason he wanted to come back.
Now, let me address what may be the strongest data cited in the letter: operational failures. HR problems. Payroll delays. IT issues.
Some of their description is accurate. And it is unacceptable. But I need to provide crucial context that the faculty letter omits.
In 2014—eight years before I arrived—an independent audit of this college found glaring problems. Courtesy of SB 813, we have a record of our presentation from August, which I’ll bring back to this table for this conversation.
The college lacked robust processes to verify essential employee documents
We relied on manual tracking that led to costly errors
Critical data lived in separate, unconnected systems, creating high risk for mistakes in everything from payroll to health and retirement benefits
Most revealing: the audit identified what it called a “culture of risk avoidance”—where the college had limited data access so severely that it forced departments to create workaround solutions: an insecure network of spreadsheets and makeshift databases that ultimately created far greater risk than intended
VP Carter wrote about this in August, saying “this was not merely an IT problem; it was a strategic one, leading to wasted resources, chronic inefficiency, and a frustrated workforce spending more time navigating broken systems than serving students.”
This board has acknowledged repeatedly that my administration inherited severely broken systems. The faculty letter describes operational problems as if they emerged under my leadership. They did not. They’ve existed for over a decade. Under my administration, we are finally confronting them.
Modernizing decades of dysfunction has been painful. Transitions always are. But the results are clear and encouraging, even as we work to strengthen those areas.
We changed the pay schedule to align when we could verify adjunct course loads. This was communicated in advance, but apparently not well enough. The impact on adjuncts was real, and we are fixing it.
Employee deductions were not deposited to retirement accounts as quickly as they should have been. We corrected it. It should have never happened—this reflected transition challenges in finance operations during significant staff turnover. That is an explanation, not an excuse.
The faculty cite an advisor-student ratio of 1700:1. That number reflects a point-in-time snapshot during our transition to holistic case-managed advising—which was communicated, planned, and is designed to provide better student support. They cited a 2013 NACADA report that recommends a 300-400:1, with data collected from 2011. The good news is that even with a data citation more than 10 years old, today our ratio is 597:1, and our forthcoming Howard Hub will improve that number after its launch in 2026. We are also fortunate to have a member of NACADA national leadership on our campus. Wiona Porath is our exceptional director of advising, and president of the NACADA national board of directors. I trust her with our students, and under the leadership of Associate Vice President Jarrell Anderson, our entire team ensures students are well-served every day.
Now let me briefly discuss the HR issues. After identifying persistent problems in this area, we brought in CampusWorks—a firm that the college has worked with since 2014. On January 30, we announced that after eight months of partnership, showing notable improvements, this board voted to expand CampusWorks’ scope to provide strategic leadership in HR planning and implementation.
When internal capacity failed, we brought in external expertise. That is not mismanagement, that is problem-solving. Are we moving fast enough for people experiencing these frustrations? No, and I agree with the faculty on this point. But here is what I want to be clear about: We are fixing systemic problems that were identified a decade ago, and they will not take one month or even one year to resolve fully.
The alternative was to operate continually on broken infrastructure. That is not an option.
Mistakes are almost inevitable when modernizing decades of dysfunction, and new talent will come to support the deliberate effort to improve employee experiences. The question is not whether we have had operational problems. The question is: Are we fixing them, or perpetuating them?
We are fixing them. And I will not apologize for that. One example is the faculty’s assertion that learning materials in the campus store are not available on the first day of classes. For context, we chose Slingshot because it was the choice of the faculty committee, which worked with Dewey Grim on the selection of a new campus store vendor.
While other schools offer open-access educational materials, we at HCC do not; the faculty committee, which worked with Dewey Grim on selecting a new campus store vendor, recommended against it, which we accepted.
I should note that their recommendation comes at a significant cost for the college and strains the budget. But to answer the question more directly, some students may not have materials on the first day due to shipping delays, late course registration, or textbook adoptions that are incorrect or arrive late from instructors.
Now, the faculty letter also claims that operational failures have harmed students. Let’s ask the students themselves.
More than 1,300 students completed our most recent Yearly Evaluation of Services by Students (YESS) Survey. It reveals:
96% of students would enroll at HCC again
97% would recommend HCC to others
86% or more agree they feel welcomed on campus, their courses are helping achieve their career goals, and they are receiving an excellent education
34 of our 35 service units scored above 4.0 on a 5-point scale
14 units had satisfaction levels above 75%
Are there operational challenges? Yes. Are they harming student outcomes and satisfaction? The students themselves overwhelmingly say no.
The faculty letter claims I have disrespected faculty by denying emeritus status, making inflammatory statements, and ignoring faculty input.
Let me address each allegation directly.
College policy requires that emeritus status be granted based on specific criteria, including sustained positive contributions to the institution. In these cases, I made decisions with board approval based on information available to me at the time. I understand those decisions were unpopular for the individuals and their colleagues. But they were made following college policy and based on the full record—which I cannot discuss publicly due to personnel confidentiality.
The faculty has quoted me frequently from an interview I did with Inside Higher Ed in which I said “trust no one”— I said this in the context of receiving anonymous letters targeting me and my family within six months of arriving at this college. It was about being cautious during a coordinated letter-writing campaign against me that reached the Governor and all other Maryland lawmakers.
In fact, in your July statement, you explicitly addressed this issue. Quote, “the Board unequivocally condemns any form of bullying, harassment, intimidation, or coercion directed at President Willis or any member of the campus community. Anonymous online hate speech, the willful spreading of misinformation, and the plastering of intimidating posters where President Willis lives are all unacceptable.”
“Trust no one,” a comment I made shortly after my arrival in 2022 and three years before your statement of support, was not about faculty relationships —it was about navigating a coordinated harassment campaign that this Board formally condemned.
“There are exit signs”—I did say this. Here is the fuller context: I was addressing people actively working against the institution’s mission and undermining student success. The message was clear: if you cannot commit to our students as our first priority, find work that fulfills you elsewhere.
This is clarity about priorities. Our mission is our students. Period.
The letter also cites the implementation of seven-week accelerated pathways courses over faculty objection. It is worth noting that faculty began discussing accelerated pathways in 2018, and this administration took action in 2022. I understand that concern. Changes in course structure affect teaching, and faculty input matters. Higher education is notoriously slow when making decisions. While this may be acceptable in some cases, when considering our students’ lives we cannot afford to wait.
But here is a sample of the results, as we published in March of this year. Over 400 Howard County dual-enrollment students took seven-week courses last fall. 278 earned ‘As’—that is 69.5%. And 78% earned a ‘B’ or higher.
Flexible course scheduling is meeting students where they dream and helping them progress faster. That is what matters most. That does not mean faculty concerns were not legitimate—but it does mean the decision was right for students.
The faculty letter alleges financial misconduct through questionable priorities, citing a delegation of faculty, staff, and administration traveling to Japan while faculty positions go unfilled and payroll issues persist.
Let me be direct about this.
The agreement builds upon a 2021 international grant project at HCC, initially funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). More than 135 students participated in collaborative online international learning (COIL) projects with institutions in Denmark, Japan, Thailand, and Ecuador.
The inaugural program was co-directed by Professors Mary Allen, Matt Van Hoose, Hanael Bianchi, Robin Bauer-Taylor, Rick Leith, Alejandro Muzzio, Amelia Yongue, and Yang Yu.
Professors William Lowe, Greg Fleisher, Tara Hart, Sandra Lee, Yulan Liu, and Hsien-Ann Meng led the 2022 cohort of the program.
After the project was no longer funded by COIL, for three years Professor Lowe continued the conversation with Setsunan University to expand study abroad opportunities for our students and to facilitate faculty exchanges. This is an investment in opportunity, not administrative excess. That is what presidents do.
In December 2024, we published an editorial on the looming budget constraints that were soon to impact state and county funding. We tried to preview for our community that we were moving towards lean economic times and greater government oversight of community college spending.
We were not being dramatic. We were being realistic.
This week, Maryland lawmakers learned the state faces a $1.4 billion budget deficit for the next fiscal year. That’s five times larger than the $300 million projected in April.
As Maryland Matters reported on November 11, the deficit is driven by federal policy changes, including President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Medicaid costs, K-12 Blueprint funding pressures, and the fact that Maryland has lost 15,000 federal jobs since January—the largest decrease of any U.S. state at 9.3%.
Every decision this administration has made about hiring, about resource allocation, about prioritizing certain investments over others—has been made with this fiscal reality in mind. The faculty letter criticizes hiring decisions and resource priorities. But those decisions were made in anticipation of exactly the budget environment we are now entering.
The largest share of HCC’s budget is employees. The second largest is in academic affairs. That’s fiscal responsibility.
The faculty letter alleges opaque decision-making and non-competitive hiring processes. The most recent tradition of executive appointments was the hiring of Dr. Kate Hetherington, who, according to college records, was appointed by the HCC Board of Trustees following the tenure of Dr. Mary Ellen Duncan without a formal search or campus-wide search committee.
Under my administration, only two senior leaders have been appointed without a campus-wide search committee. You will note this process is outlined in the Board-approved HCC policy on selection of faculty and staff, a policy which also includes the following language:
Selection of vice president positions are typically made through the search committee process, and also may be made by appointment at the discretion of the college president. When the search committee process is used, campus-wide interviews of top candidates are held to provide an opportunity for all constituency groups to learn about applicants and offer feedback.
So yes, as president I adhered to college policy of hiring some senior level position through appointment. And yesterday, we held a candidate interview for the executive vice president of administration and finance. I invite you to come tomorrow to see the other finalist for an open senior level position.
The faculty letter invokes the 2019 Malcolm Baldrige Award—our recognition for performance excellence—and suggests my leadership cannot maintain that standard. This is false. I was on stage to accept that award on behalf of the college. Zoe Irvin and I have done two presentations (soon to be three) by invitation of the Baldridge Committee on how to teach others about how we maintain this standard.
Let me define how we view institutional performance:
This fall semester:
We surpassed our enrollment target—103% of goal for FTE credit hours, 102% for headcount
Credit headcount has grown by more than 9.7% since 2021
FTE has increased by 4.9% since 2021
During the period the faculty calls chaos, students are choosing us in record numbers.
National recognition includes:
Aspen Prize Top 200 recognition—one of the most prestigious awards in community college education, based entirely on measurable student outcomes. This is our first time receiving this honor since its establishment in 2010.
FamilyU exemplar status—national recognition for supporting student parents
Four Jack Kent Cooke Transfer Scholarship semifinalists—selected from 1,600 applicants nationwide
Resources secured include:
$42 million raised in less than nine months for the Workforce Development and Skilled Trades Center—a facility our first president said in 1980 would be essential to our success
Record fundraising and federal grants, including the three largest single gifts in college history, and the single-largest one-year fundraising total in college history at $5.3 million.
Student support expanded:
Reopened campus childcare center after pandemic closure
Created programs to address food insecurity
Established housing support
Built pathways for justice-involved youth through DJS partnership
These are not talking points. These are real results for real students. So when the faculty say they lack confidence that my leadership can maintain performance excellence—I have to ask:
By what measure are we failing to maintain excellence?
Student outcomes have improved
Enrollment has grown
National reputation has expanded
Financial position has strengthened
Student satisfaction is at record highs
The question is not whether we are achieving performance excellence. The data shows we are—at levels that exceed our past performance. The question is whether we are achieving it in a way that makes faculty feel heard, valued, and included in the process.
It is not just about the decisions made—it is about how they are made and communicated. That is legitimate feedback. And it is something my administration can and will improve.
So where do we go from here?
First: I acknowledge that operational challenges inherited from decades of neglect have created real frustration during modernization. These affect people’s livelihoods and daily work. We’re fixing them, and we need to continue improving the pace and communication around these fixes.
Second: I acknowledge that decisions about process, pace, and communication have not always brought faculty along effectively. That does not mean every decision was wrong—but it does mean the way we have implemented change has created unnecessary friction.
Third: I commit to more substantive faculty engagement on decisions that affect academic operations and campus culture. Not every decision can be made by committee—but more decisions can include meaningful faculty input before they are finalized. This does not mean that I am always going to decide in favor of what faculty want, but rather, what is best for the institution.
Now I am also going to be clear about what I will not change:
I will not slow our momentum. We’re serving more students better than we were four years ago. In a budget environment that is about to get dramatically harder, we need to accelerate our success, not pause it.
I will not apologize for high expectations. I expect excellence from administrators, faculty, and staff—including myself. That is not hostility. That is accountability.
I will not stop making difficult decisions when they are necessary for student success or institutional health—even when those decisions disappoint people. Preparing for a $1.4 billion state budget deficit requires hard choices.
Here is what this really comes down to:
Can an institution transform itself—improve infrastructure, enrollment, outcomes, reputation, and resources—while also making everyone comfortable with the pace and process of that transformation?
I think we all know that the honest answer is that it is very difficult. But it is not impossible. It requires leadership that is both bold and humble.
Journalist April Ryan said, “courage is in short supply,” but I will say that is not true for this board or this administration. We will continue to fix decades-old broken systems. Bold enough to prepare for budget crises before they are obvious. Bold enough to make decisions that prioritize students even when others object.
But we will be humble enough to know that it takes all sides, and to listen when sides are genuine and civil in disagreement. We will be humble in recognizing when process matters as much as outcome. Humble enough to hear that communication needs improvement. Humble enough to acknowledge that good results do not excuse poor process.
The question for this Board is not if we need different leadership. The question is whether this leadership, with better execution on process and communication, will continue delivering exceptional results while bringing more people along.
I believe we can maintain our trajectory of success and improve how we work together.
But that requires commitment on all sides:
I am hopeful for faculty willing to engage in good faith
I am committing to administration willingly creating genuine space for that engagement
I am optimistic about the board’s willingness to hold all sides accountable
The faculty who voted no confidence care deeply about this institution. I do not question their motives or their commitment to students. While a select few have no confidence in me, I have full confidence in every one of them.
I also care deeply about this institution. That is why I am here. That is why I push hard. That is why I am willing to have difficult conversations. And that is why I fixed problems others identified in 2014 but did not solve.
Our students deserve our collective best. Not our perfect best—our collective, imperfect, trying-hard, learning-as-we-go best. We have hard work ahead and I know that building trust takes longer than losing it. Creating inclusive processes requires more patience than making unilateral decisions.
But I am committed to that work. I am committed to this college. I am committed to our students. And I am committed to finding a way forward that honors both our remarkable achievements and our legitimate challenges.
The data shows what we have accomplished. The faculty letter shows some areas where we need to improve. Both are true. Both matter. I believe in this college. I believe in our students. I believe in our future.
And I am ready to do the work—in boldness and humility—to get us there.
Thank you.