Chair, Wenatchee Valley College Board of Trustees
Beyond the Offensive Comments: What the Released Text Messages Reveal About Governance at Wenatchee Valley College
New to this story?
If you are unfamiliar with the recent events surrounding Wenatchee Valley College's administration, Board of Trustees, and the released text messages, begin with the original investigative article for the background and context.
Why the Text Messages Raise Serious Questions About Paula Arno Martinez's Continued Service as Board Chair
Many people have asked a simple question:
"If these text messages are real, why wasn't Paula Arno Martinez immediately removed from the Wenatchee Valley College Board of Trustees?"
The answer is more complicated than many people realize.
The offensive comments contained in the text messages are deeply concerning. They have understandably caused many members of the public to question whether Paula Arno Martinez can continue to serve as an impartial trustee and board chair. Public officials are expected to exercise sound judgment, treat all members of the public with fairness and respect, and maintain the public's confidence in the institutions they serve. The comments alone have raised legitimate concerns about public trust, professionalism, and impartiality.
However, those comments are probably not, by themselves, what would legally justify removing a trustee from office.
The more significant legal concerns are not what Paula said; they are what the text messages appear to reveal about how the Board may have conducted public business.
If the messages accurately reflect what occurred, they raise questions about whether official Board business was privately coordinated, whether the president's administration improperly influenced the Board, whether public meetings were circumvented through private communications, and whether the Board fulfilled its duty to independently oversee the president rather than advocate for him.
Those are the issues that could potentially support a finding of misconduct or malfeasance in office if established through a formal investigation.
Before looking at the individual text messages, it is helpful to understand the legal responsibilities of a Washington community college Board of Trustees and why those responsibilities matter.
The Legal Standards Governing Washington Community College Trustees
A Board of Trustees is the governing body of a public college. Trustees are appointed to represent the interests of the public, not the college administration. Among their most important responsibilities are hiring and evaluating the college president, establishing institutional policy, exercising independent oversight of the administration, protecting the public interest, and ensuring that the college is governed fairly, transparently, and in accordance with Washington law.
The president serves at the direction of the Board. The Board does not serve at the direction of the president. One of a trustee's most important responsibilities is to exercise independent judgment when evaluating the president's performance, deciding whether to renew the president's contract, and overseeing the administration of the college. The Board's duty is to the citizens of Washington, not to the president or members of the administration.
Because trustees exercise governmental authority on behalf of the public, Washington law generally requires that the Board's official business be conducted openly and transparently.
That is the purpose of Washington's Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), Chapter 42.30 RCW.
The OPMA exists to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. It does not prohibit trustees from communicating socially or discussing routine administrative matters. Rather, it seeks to prevent governing bodies from privately deliberating, developing consensus, or effectively deciding official public business outside meetings that the public has the opportunity to observe.
One of the most important concepts under the OPMA is a quorum. The Wenatchee Valley College Board of Trustees consists of five members, meaning that three trustees generally constitute a quorum. When a quorum deliberates, discusses, reviews, evaluates, or conducts official Board business, those discussions are generally expected to occur during a properly noticed public meeting where the public can observe the Board's decision-making process.
The law also recognizes that concerns may arise through what are commonly referred to as serial communications. This can occur when one trustee privately contacts multiple trustees individually to discuss official business, gauge support, relay the positions of other trustees, or otherwise develop consensus outside a public meeting. Whether a particular series of communications violates the OPMA depends on the specific facts and circumstances, but this is one reason investigators frequently examine emails, text messages, and phone records when questions arise regarding compliance with the Act.
Equally important is the principle of independent oversight.
The Board exists to supervise the administration, not to become part of it.
College administrators routinely provide factual information and recommendations to assist the Board in making informed decisions. That is both appropriate and necessary. However, questions naturally arise when senior administrators appear to participate in discussions about how trustees should deliberate, what positions they should take, what public statements they should make, or how they should express support for the president. In those circumstances, the distinction between providing information and influencing the Board's independent decision-making can become blurred.
The issues discussed in this article are not presented as conclusions that any law was violated. Rather, they explain why the released text messages have prompted legitimate questions about whether these principles of open government, independent oversight, and transparent decision-making were followed.
It is against these legal standards, not simply the offensive nature of certain private comments, that the released text messages should be evaluated.
Possible Improper Administrative Influence Over the Board
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the released records is not the offensive comments themselves; it is the apparent involvement of Chief of Staff Maria Iñiguez in discussions concerning official Board action.
As Chief of Staff, Maria served within President Harrison's administration.
The Board of Trustees, however, exists to independently supervise that administration.
That distinction is fundamental to good governance.
College administrators routinely provide trustees with factual information, reports, recommendations, and administrative support. There is nothing improper about administrators supplying information necessary for trustees to make informed decisions.
The concern raised by these text messages is different.
Rather than merely providing information, Maria appears to have participated in discussions concerning how trustees should publicly support President Harrison during consideration of his contract renewal.
For example, Maria wrote:
"A statement at bot meeting, contract extension and a press release is going to send a stronger message."
She also advised trustees:
"When there is a motion and it's seconded, during the discussion part the trustees can state their support for the motion."
After Paula drafted remarks she intended to make publicly, Maria responded:
"I think that's totally acceptable."
Viewed together, these communications appear to show the president's own Chief of Staff participating in discussions regarding Board strategy, public messaging, and expressions of support for the president whose contract the Board was preparing to consider.
Whether this conduct ultimately violated the Open Public Meetings Act, the duties of a trustee, or otherwise constituted misconduct or malfeasance in office is a question for the appropriate authorities after considering all of the evidence.
Nevertheless, these communications raise legitimate questions about whether the administration became too involved in influencing the independent judgment of the governing Board.
Why It Matters
The public expects trustees to exercise independent judgment, not to receive strategic guidance from the president's own senior staff regarding how they should publicly support the president. Even if investigators ultimately determine that no law was violated, the appearance that the administration may have influenced the Board's deliberative process can undermine public confidence in the Board's independence.
Possible Private Board Deliberations Outside Public Meetings
The released text messages also raise questions regarding whether official Board business may have been discussed outside the public meetings required by Washington law.
One message from Board Chair Paula Arno Martinez states:
"I was a good chair and called Tamra and Phylicia to see if they would be on board with doing a statement of support for Faimous."
She later added:
"Phylicia is totally on board. I'll call Steve later too."
Standing alone, these statements do not establish that the Open Public Meetings Act was violated.
However, they raise legitimate questions that deserve further investigation.
The Board consists of five trustees. If trustees were privately contacted to determine their positions before an official meeting, or if those positions were communicated among trustees through a series of separate conversations, it raises the question of whether official Board business was being discussed or consensus was being developed outside the public process.
The public meeting is intended to be where deliberation occurs. Citizens should be able to observe not only the vote itself, but also the discussion and reasoning that lead to that vote.
When the Chair appears to privately determine who is "on board" before the public meeting begins, reasonable questions arise regarding whether the Board's deliberative process was occurring in public, as intended, or whether important discussions had already taken place behind the scenes.
Whether these communications ultimately violated Washington's Open Public Meetings Act would depend upon the complete facts, including additional text messages, phone records, witness testimony, and the substance of any conversations that occurred.
Those facts are not yet publicly known.
Nevertheless, the released records present sufficient questions to warrant careful review.
Why It Matters
The Open Public Meetings Act exists so citizens can observe not only the final vote, but also the discussion and reasoning that lead to that vote. If important deliberations occurred privately before the public meeting, the public may have been deprived of the transparency the law is intended to protect.
Failure to Maintain Independent Oversight
A Board of Trustees does not exist to defend the president.
Its purpose is to independently oversee the president on behalf of the public.
That distinction is one of the cornerstones of public governance.
Trustees are expected to ask difficult questions, independently evaluate the administration's performance, and make decisions based upon the best interests of the institution, not upon personal loyalty to those they oversee.
The need for independent oversight is at its highest when trustees are deciding whether to continue employing the president. A contract renewal is one of the Board's most important responsibilities because it directly concerns whether the president has earned the Board's continued confidence. For that reason, any appearance that trustees may have coordinated support in advance or received guidance from the president's own administration deserves careful scrutiny.
Throughout the released messages, discussions repeatedly focus on how trustees can publicly demonstrate support for President Harrison.
The concern is not that trustees ultimately voted to renew his contract.
Trustees are free to conclude that renewal is appropriate after independently evaluating the president's performance.
The concern is whether the Board functioned as an independent governing body, or whether it had shifted toward acting as an advocate for the administration it was responsible for supervising.
That distinction matters because public confidence depends upon knowing that governing boards independently evaluate those they oversee.
When the released records show discussions centered on coordinating support, drafting supportive statements, and reinforcing confidence in the president before the Board's formal deliberations, reasonable questions arise regarding whether the Board maintained the independence expected of a public governing body.
Why It Matters
Public confidence depends upon knowing that governing boards independently evaluate the officials they supervise. If trustees become advocates for the administration rather than independent overseers, that confidence can be diminished even when the Board ultimately reaches what it believes is the correct decision.
Possible Coordination of Board Messaging and Contract Renewal
The released text messages also raise questions about whether the Board's public messaging surrounding President Harrison's contract renewal was coordinated before the public meeting.
The records show discussions regarding whether trustees should issue a written statement of support, whether they should instead express that support during the Board meeting, whether President Harrison's contract should be renewed, and whether a press release should follow the Board's action.
Maria Iñiguez wrote:
"A statement at bot meeting, contract extension and a press release is going to send a stronger message."
The messages also reflect discussions regarding what individual trustees intended to say publicly during the meeting and how support for President Harrison should be expressed.
Following those discussions, the Board unanimously approved President Harrison's contract renewal. Trustees publicly voiced their support during the meeting, and the college subsequently issued a press release praising President Harrison's leadership and his "commitment to accountability and transparency."
Standing alone, none of those actions establish wrongdoing.
Boards routinely issue press releases, trustees routinely explain their votes, and unanimous decisions are not uncommon.
The concern arises because the released communications suggest that discussions regarding the Board's public messaging, expressions of support, and contract renewal may have occurred before the Board convened publicly.
Whether those discussions merely reflected ordinary meeting preparation or crossed into improper private deliberation would require a complete review of all communications and surrounding circumstances.
Why It Matters
Public confidence depends not only on the decisions a governing board makes, but also on how those decisions are reached. If the Board's messaging and expressions of support were substantially coordinated before the public meeting, citizens may reasonably question whether the public meeting reflected the Board's actual deliberative process or primarily served to announce positions that had already been developed.
Possible Predetermination of Official Board Action
Closely related is the question of whether President Harrison's contract renewal had effectively been decided before the Board met in public.
The released messages discuss identifying which trustees supported the president, encouraging statements of support, discussing a contract extension, and planning public messaging before the public meeting occurred.
None of those facts, standing alone, establish that the Board violated the law.
Trustees are permitted to prepare for meetings, review agenda materials, and consider issues in advance.
The question is whether the discussions went beyond preparation and entered the realm of deliberation or consensus-building outside the public meeting.
Washington's Open Public Meetings Act exists so the public can observe governmental decision-making as it occurs. If the essential decision regarding a presidential contract renewal had already been reached before the meeting convened, the public would have been unable to observe the deliberative process the Act is intended to protect.
Whether that occurred here is a factual question that can only be answered through a complete review of all relevant communications, including text messages, emails, phone records, and witness testimony.
Why It Matters
A college president's employment contract is among the most significant decisions a Board of Trustees makes. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing that trustees openly discussed the president's performance, considered differing viewpoints, and reached their decision during the public meeting, not beforehand through private communications.
Possible Improper Involvement in Executive Personnel Matters
The released records also contain discussions involving senior administrators and staffing matters.
Separate from those messages is an allegation that President Harrison telephoned Chair Paula Arno Martinez the evening before terminating a vice president and cabinet member.
Standing alone, that allegation proves nothing.
Presidents routinely communicate with board chairs, particularly regarding significant institutional matters.
However, if additional evidence were to show that trustees participated in, approved, or directed executive personnel decisions that properly belonged to the president, additional governance questions could arise concerning the appropriate separation of responsibilities between the Board and the administration.
The currently available records do not answer that question. They do, however, identify an area that may warrant further examination.
Why It Matters
The Board's responsibility is to govern the institution and supervise the president. The president's responsibility is to manage the day-to-day operations of the college, including personnel decisions entrusted to the administration. Maintaining those distinct roles helps preserve accountability, transparency, and public confidence in the institution's governance.
Possible Failure to Preserve and Produce Public Records
Beyond the governance questions raised by the released text messages, the records also present a separate issue that warrants careful examination: whether public-business text messages were properly preserved and produced in accordance with Washington law.
As part of several Public Records Act requests, numerous Wenatchee Valley College trustees and administrators signed declarations or certifications stating that they had no responsive text-message records.
Those statements, standing alone, do not establish that records were destroyed or improperly withheld.
However, later records released from the phone of Chief of Staff Maria Iñiguez contain public-business text conversations involving multiple trustees and senior administrators, including Board Chair Paula Arno Martinez, Trustee Wilma Cartagena, Trustee Tamra Jackson, and others.
Those records demonstrate that text-message conversations concerning public business occurred.
That naturally raises an important question.
If those conversations existed on Maria Iñiguez's phone, should corresponding messages also have existed on the phones of the other participants, assuming those records had been retained in accordance with Washington's public-records retention requirements?
The article does not answer that question.
It simply recognizes that the apparent inconsistency between the "no responsive records" statements and the subsequently released text messages merits further examination.
The same concern extends beyond the Board of Trustees.
In a separate Public Records Act request involving Vice President Diana Garza, the college responded that no responsive text messages existed. Yet a publicly available text-message exchange previously posted by former WVC staff member Anna Fransk, formerly Anna Brown, appears to show communications involving Ms. Garza concerning matters related to public business.
Again, the question is not whether any law was violated.
The question is whether all responsive records were properly preserved, searched for, and produced.
Washington law does not distinguish between public-business communications stored on government-issued devices and those stored on personal phones. If a communication relates to public business, it may constitute a public record regardless of the device on which it was created or stored.
Notably, Wenatchee Valley College itself recently adopted Board Policy 000.180, which states that work-related text messages on personal devices are public records and that employees are responsible for ensuring such communications are properly retained and produced in accordance with Washington law. Although that policy was formally adopted in 2026, Washington's Public Records Act and state records-retention requirements existed long before the policy was enacted.
Why It Matters
Public confidence in government depends not only on officials making decisions openly, but also on public records being preserved so those decisions can later be reviewed. When one participant's phone contains public-business communications while other participants report having no corresponding records, reasonable questions arise regarding whether responsive records were adequately searched for, properly retained, or otherwise remain available. Those questions deserve careful examination because public records laws depend upon the preservation of the records themselves.
Conclusion
The released text messages have understandably drawn public attention because of their offensive language.
Those comments have caused many members of the public to question whether Paula Arno Martinez demonstrated the judgment, professionalism, and impartiality expected of a public trustee.
However, the larger concern is not simply what was said.
The records raise broader questions about transparency, independent oversight, the relationship between the Board and the administration it oversees, and whether important public decisions were made through an open and independent process.
Nothing in this article should be understood as a conclusion that any law was violated or that any individual committed misconduct. Those determinations can only be made after a thorough, independent review of all relevant facts.
The purpose of this article is to explain why the released records have prompted calls for further investigation and why many members of the public believe those questions deserve careful examination.
Washington's public colleges belong to the people of this state. Public confidence depends not only on honest outcomes, but also on transparent decision-making, independent oversight, and the assurance that important public business is conducted openly and in the public's interest.
Sources and Further Reading
This article is based upon publicly available records, governing authorities, and materials obtained through Washington's Public Records Act, including text messages, public records released by Wenatchee Valley College, and applicable Washington law.
Readers are encouraged to review the underlying records and supporting materials for themselves.
Released Text Messages
wenatcheevalleycollege.com/textsThe released text messages referenced throughout this article, including communications involving Paula Arno Martinez, Maria Iñiguez, and other Wenatchee Valley College officials and trustees.
Original Investigative Article
wenatcheevalleycollege.com/newsThe original investigative report providing background, context, and additional analysis of the released text messages.
Public Records Retention Investigation
wenatcheevalleycollege.com/retentionInformation regarding ongoing questions surrounding public-record retention, preservation of electronic communications, and related Public Records Act issues.
Applicable Washington Law
- Chapter 42.30 RCW — Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)
- Chapter 42.56 RCW — Public Records Act (PRA)
- RCW 28B.50.100 — Removal of Community College Trustees
- RCW 28B.10.500 — Judicial procedure governing trustee removal
About This Article
This article is an analysis of publicly released records and publicly available information. It identifies issues that, in the author's opinion, warrant further examination based upon those records. It does not assert that any individual violated the law or committed misconduct. Whether any law was violated, or whether any conduct constitutes misconduct or malfeasance in office, can only be determined after a complete review of all relevant facts by the appropriate authorities.
Independent Website Disclaimer
WenatcheeValleyCollege.com is an independent website and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by Wenatchee Valley College. This site is created and maintained for purposes of public discussion, transparency, commentary, and civic engagement.