11/26/2025
As a resident of Lane County, I am writing this with a heavy heart and growing outrage. What is happening at Lane Community College 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 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.
The behavior of the Lane Community College Education Association, the faculty union, 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.
Their 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.”
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.
As chair of the LCC board, Austin Folnagy should have restored order at the embarrassing Nov. 5 meeting and ensured that the meeting 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.
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 — 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. Maldonado’s dual role as secretary of the Oregon Democratic Party (the local Democratic Party has publicly backed the faculty union), only deepens this conflict of loyalty.
Folnagy’s longstanding membership in the Service Employees International Union 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.
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 Bulger’s proven t…
What is happening at Lane Community College 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.
