WVC's Culture Vice President Privately Built Alliances and Criticized Colleagues

As Wenatchee Valley College's vice president of Organizational Culture and Engagement, Lisa Harger holds a position whose title expressly associates her with the College's workplace culture and relationships.

That makes the culture documented in her own text messages particularly striking.

Public records show Harger cultivating separate alliances across the administration, privately criticizing absent colleagues and communicating substantially different versions of her concerns depending on who was receiving the message.

In direct conversations, Harger often appeared encouraging, restrained and collaborative. In separate private conversations, she sometimes described those same colleagues with anger, reinforced attacks on their leadership and shared their communications with third parties.

The records cannot establish when Harger was sincere or what she privately believed in every interaction. They can establish what she told each audience, and the differences are substantial.

The messages document audience-dependent communication, behind-the-back criticism, triangulation, selective sharing of colleagues' messages and private alliance-building. Those practices would raise questions about trust in any executive office. They are especially significant when found in the communications of the vice president whose portfolio is Organizational Culture and Engagement.

A Softer Message to Diana, a Harsher One to Maria

The clearest example occurred on Nov. 3, 2025, during a disagreement over administrative support for WVC's athletics program.

In a direct conversation with Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Diana Garza, Harger raised her concern diplomatically:

“I was just hoping there was a conversation with her prior to her reading it in an email.”

Source: Page 147

Garza responded that she had already been texting the employee and did not want her to be surprised.

Harger then forwarded the employee's message and her own response to former Chief of Staff Maria Iñiguez. Speaking privately with Iñiguez, Harger described the situation much differently:

“It may be obvious but this is ridiculous and pisses me off. Call your employee and handle it Diana!”

Source: Page 108

Iñiguez responded that the employee had confronted her and WVC President Dr. Faimous Harrison. She said she was also angry and complained that Harrison did not need to be involved.

Iñiguez then wrote:

“I'm about to text Diana and give her a directive cause Faimous wont. Get a clue lady!”

Source: Page 108

Harger reinforced the criticism:

“Yes! It's BS. I'll call you when I get to my hotel.”

Source: Page 108

She subsequently wrote:

“Please. She just needs to be directed!”

Source: Page 109

When Iñiguez said Garza “can't lead,” Harger did not repeat that precise characterization. She continued discussing the consequences of Garza's actions, however, writing:

“We might lose Greg over this. It's crazy.”

Source: Page 109

Harger later told Iñiguez she had sent an email addressing the situation:

“I just sent it. Let me know if I need to clean out my desk.”

Source: Page 109

Iñiguez replied that the email was “perfect” and said Harrison had read it with a “big'ol smile.”

The messages do not show that Harger completely concealed her dissatisfaction from Garza. Garza later referred to Harger's “frustrated email.” But the texts reveal a considerable difference between Harger's restrained direct message to Garza and the language she used about Garza with Iñiguez.

Encouragement Given Directly, Criticism Shared Privately

Harger's direct messages to Garza were frequently supportive.

“You are doing great.”

Source: Page 144

After a difficult January 2026 meeting, Harger checked on Garza and wrote:

“How are you doing? You were very strong and very vulnerable tonight.”

Source: Page 149

Harger later described the uncomfortable meeting as necessary and said it could create an opportunity for more open conversations.

Those encouraging statements contrast with Harger's private participation in criticism of Garza. The records cannot establish whether the encouragement was sincere, strategic or both. They establish only that Garza received a substantially different version of Harger's thoughts than Iñiguez received during the Nov. 3 dispute.

That distinction is significant because Harger was not merely maintaining professional composure in a public meeting. She was communicating privately with both administrators while describing the same event in markedly different language.

Treat Became Harger's Principal Private Ally

Harger's extensive conversation with Vice President of Instruction Dr. Tod Treat contains her most sustained criticism of Harrison and other College employees.

The two administrators reassured each other, discussed College meetings while they were occurring or shortly afterward, exchanged information received from colleagues and regularly planned calls, visits and private “debriefs.”

Their conversation frequently presented Harger and Treat as trusted allies attempting to navigate a dysfunctional administration.

When Treat referred to a group as a “Mean girl collective in the back,” Harger responded:

“Yup! They are in full plot mode.”

Source: Page 33

Later, discussing the same workplace tensions, Harger wrote:

“Agree on both points. I truly believe Robin is the source of it all.”

Source: Page 34

Harger also cautioned Treat against revealing information she had given him:

“Please don't call out Jeff on what I shared with you today. I don't think that helps the big picture at all.”

Source: Page 34

That message demonstrates more than ordinary venting. It shows Harger selectively passing information to Treat while asking him not to reveal the exchange in a way that could expose the private channel.

Other messages moved sensitive discussions away from writing. Harger and Treat repeatedly arranged calls, office visits, “sidebars” and debriefs. Telephone conversations can be appropriate when administrators are handling confidential personnel matters, but they also mean the produced messages do not contain the complete substance of their discussions.

Private Frustration With Harrison and Iñiguez

Harger and Treat repeatedly criticized Harrison's leadership.

Their messages portrayed the president as hesitant, isolated and unable to make necessary decisions. They complained that he made decisions “in a vacuum,” suggested that fear was impairing his leadership and expressed frustration that information did not appear to “sink in” for him.

During one conversation, Harger told Treat that her criticism was not directed at him:

“Oh I'm sorry, it's really not. It's Faimous and Maria. Even the email response topic was about the 2 of them. But nothing seems to sink in for him.”

Source: Page 52

This private criticism existed alongside Harger's regular professional collaboration with Harrison and Iñiguez.

Harger worked especially closely with Iñiguez, WVC's former chief of staff. Their messages show them coordinating hiring decisions, personnel issues, budgets, reference checks and responses to workplace problems. Harger frequently requested Iñiguez's advice and sent her drafts for approval.

But Harger also shared Iñiguez's communications with Treat and discussed Iñiguez as part of the administration's leadership problems.

In one exchange, Treat told Harger to wait until she saw what Iñiguez had said to him and offered to send a screenshot. In other exchanges, Harger forwarded or described communications from Iñiguez and Harrison for Treat's private reaction.

This pattern placed Harger inside multiple alliances. She worked closely with Iñiguez while separately giving Treat access to communications and commentary that Iñiguez may not have known were being shared.

“Complete BS” and the “Shit Show”

The messages also document Harger's level of frustration with the administration and some employees under her direction.

On Oct. 30, 2025, she told Treat:

“Just forwarded you my email to Faimous, I'm done with this process until I get back. It's complete BS.”

Source: Page 45

In another message, Harger complained that an employee had ignored her directions. She said she was angry about completing work during unpaid furlough days and wrote:

“I'm ready to check out of the shit show!!!”

Source: Page 46

She then told Treat, “Ok my rant is over. You can reach out anytime.”

These exchanges show that Treat was not simply another colleague. He served as a principal recipient of Harger's uncensored frustration and a participant in her private interpretation of other administrators' conduct.

Robin: Privately Blamed, Publicly Thanked

The records contain another sharp contrast involving an employee named Robin.

Harger privately told Treat:

“I truly believe Robin is the source of it all.”

Source: Page 34

That statement followed the exchange about a “Mean girl collective” being in “full plot mode.”

Later, as Robin prepared to leave the College, Harger asked Iñiguez:

“Should we publicly thank Robin and announce that tomorrow is her last working day”

Source: Page 127

Publicly recognizing a departing employee does not necessarily mean an administrator approves of that employee's conduct. Professional courtesy can coexist with serious disagreement.

Still, the contrast illustrates the larger pattern. Harger privately identified Robin as the source of workplace problems while separately proposing a public expression of appreciation.

Anyone who saw only the public recognition would not know how Harger had privately characterized Robin.

Acting as Cal Goolsby's Confidante

Harger used a different tone with Goolsby, who expressed emotional distress and concerns about Harrison and Iñiguez.

When Goolsby said he felt unsupported, Harger responded, “Please speak up.” After he said he had spoken to the point of tears, she wrote, “I'm so sorry.” Source: Page 1

Harger offered to call him and told him:

“Totally, totally understand. Just know I am here if you want to talk.”

Source: Page 2

She also checked on Goolsby's health, surgery and recovery. In one message, she told him he had been “heavy on my heart.”

When Goolsby questioned Treat's motives and asked whether Treat was positioning himself for a more senior office, Harger defended Treat:

“No, just trying to survive this one.”

Source: Page 14

Unlike the conversations about Garza, Harrison, Iñiguez and Robin, the produced messages do not show Harger later disparaging Goolsby to another colleague. Her communications with him illustrate her ability to become a trusted confidante to administrators who were themselves dissatisfied with College leadership.

They also placed Harger in a position to hear and privately validate criticism from multiple sides of the administration.

Selectively Sharing Other People's Communications

Another recurring feature of the records is Harger's willingness to forward or summarize communications from one person to another.

• Sharing an employee's text with Iñiguez;
• Forwarding or describing emails to Treat;
• Discussing what Harrison or Iñiguez had said privately;
• Receiving and discussing screenshots of messages; and
• Asking that information she provided not be used in a way that identified its source.

Senior administrators must sometimes exchange employee communications to resolve personnel and operational problems. Harger's Human Resources role would necessarily expose her to sensitive information.

The concern presented by these records is not simply that information was shared. It is the combination of selective sharing, private commentary and separate alliances. Communications were sometimes shared not only for decision-making but also as material for private reaction, criticism and reinforcement.

An Unusual Response to a Public Records Request

In an Aug. 26, 2025, exchange, Iñiguez asked Harger, “Did you see the prr that came in last night by email?” Harger responded:

“Yes, it's a research based so we can take a lot of time. Also seems a lot is not an actual record.”

Source: Page 89

The wording is partially affected by the quality of the exported document, but the substance appears clear. Harger immediately discussed the amount of time the College could take and whether much of the requested material qualified as a public record.

The message does not establish that WVC unlawfully delayed a response or improperly withheld records. Determining that would require examining the actual request, the searches performed, the College's response, its production schedule and any exemptions claimed.

It nevertheless provides a candid glimpse into how the College's senior HR administrator initially discussed a request for government records.

A Parallel Conversation Around College Business

The texts reveal what amounts to a parallel communications structure surrounding official College operations.

Formal meetings and group messages generally contain professional, restrained exchanges. Alongside those communications, Harger maintained private threads in which she and selected colleagues interpreted events, evaluated other administrators and discussed how to respond.

That structure allowed different people to receive different versions of Harger:

• Garza received encouragement and restrained criticism;
• Iñiguez received Harger's harsher assessment of Garza;
• Treat received Harger's most extensive criticism of Harrison, Iñiguez and other employees;
• Goolsby received emotional support and validation of his concerns about the administration; and
• Larger groups generally received professional and collaborative messages.

Adjusting one's tone for different audiences is not inherently improper. It becomes significant when the differences concern the same people and events, and when direct encouragement exists alongside undisclosed private disparagement.

Conduct at Odds With the Position's Title

Harger's title makes these exchanges more than a story about ordinary workplace gossip.

WVC identifies her as its vice president of Organizational Culture and Engagement. Although that title does not require constant agreement or prevent her from criticizing colleagues, it places her near the center of the College's responsibility for employee relationships, organizational trust and workplace culture.

The texts document conduct that appears contrary to those purposes. Rather than consistently encouraging candid communication among the people involved, Harger sometimes directed her strongest criticism through third parties. Rather than reducing divisions, she participated in separate private alliances. Rather than ensuring that colleagues heard concerns directly, she sometimes used harsher language about them than she used with them.

That does not establish that Harger failed every aspect of her position. It does create a striking contradiction between the organizational values suggested by her title and the communications contained in the College's own records.

What the Messages Establish and What They Do Not

The records cannot reveal Harger's internal motives. They cannot establish when Harger was being sincere, when she was attempting to manage a difficult workplace or whether she privately believed every criticism she reinforced.

They do establish a documented pattern of:

• Audience-dependent messaging;
• Behind-the-back criticism;
• Private alliance-building;
• Addressing conflicts through third parties;
• Selectively sharing colleagues' communications;
• Reinforcing complaints about people who were not participating in the conversation;
• Using substantially harsher language privately than directly; and
• Conducting candid backchannel discussions alongside official College business.

The distinction matters. It would be speculative to declare that none of Harger's supportive messages was sincere. No one outside Harger can reliably determine that from text messages.

It is not speculative to compare her words.

When speaking directly to Garza, Harger said she hoped a conversation had occurred before an employee received an email. When speaking to Iñiguez, she said the situation “pisses me off” and directed: “Call your employee and handle it Diana!”

She told Garza, “You are doing great,” while participating elsewhere in a conversation questioning Garza's leadership.

She privately identified Robin as “the source of it all” while proposing that the College publicly thank her.

She worked closely with Iñiguez while discussing Iñiguez and sharing leadership communications with Treat.

Those contrasts are contained in Harger's own messages.

A Question of Trust Inside WVC's Administration

The texts portray an executive administration marked by low trust, competing alliances and dissatisfaction with presidential leadership.

Harger occupied a central position within this environment. As WVC's vice president of Organizational Culture and Engagement, she was not merely observing the College's workplace culture from the outside. Her title placed her at the center of it.

Her messages show her coordinating important College business and responding to colleagues who sought her assistance. They also show her participating in the same private alliance-building, disparagement and divided communication that can erode organizational trust.

The issue is not whether Harger was ever kind or helpful. Nor can the messages establish whether any particular expression of support was genuine. The issue is that different colleagues received materially different versions of her assessments.

Taken together, the messages show the official responsible for Organizational Culture and Engagement privately reinforcing separate factions, criticizing colleagues through third parties and reserving some of her harshest assessments for conversations from which the people being discussed were absent.

The contrast between Harger's title and the culture reflected in her own communications is not incidental. It is the central question raised by the records.