I think skimming millions of dollars of funding from a community college for your and your friends personal property and luxuries, when your already being paid almost half a millions dollars a year ruins a lot of things too. But hey, one man’s embezzlement is another man’s new mansion, renovation, or retirement cushion…

I second that. Truer words were never spoken

You can tell an “opinion” piece is more than a little suspect when it has a lot of hyperbole. College of the Canyons is a great school with dedicated hard-working teachers and support staff. It is not “one of the leading community colleges in the nation”. In fact, in the most recent community college ranking it ranks 423rd of the 642 community colleges ranked. COC is not even the top ranked community college in CA.

https://smartasset.com/data-studies/best-community-colleges-2024

COC was not a “tiny college” when Van Hook became the president of the college. The college was founded and developed by Dr. Robert C. Rockwell in the late 1960’s. By the time Van Hook took over in 1988, COC had 60 full time faculty and nearly 5,000 students and the population of the Santa Clarita metro was 108,000. Today the Santa Clarita metro area has a population of 434,000.

COC grew along with the community. Personally, I am tired of this “I and I alone” mentality surrounding how things get done or how to solve problems. No one person was responsible for moving the college from where it was then to where is today. Hundreds of people, both at the college and in the community worked together to make it what it is today.

Dianne Van Hook was rewarded handsomely for her work as evidenced by her $500k compensation package which I believe is the highest for any head of a community college in the state of California. 36 years is a long time to be in essentially the same position. In the non-profit sector that kind of time frame tends to breed a buildup of layers of administration that don’t necessarily serve the interests of the organization. That seems to have been an issue in this case.

The author’s assessment of the campus climate survey where he claims 98% of the people were “happy” is at odds with their own article about the survey published in June of this year.

I am not sure where the author has any support for his claims about the BOD acting as the hammer for the teacher’s union or the “paper trail” claims. Anyone managing a business or institution in California knows that a Board of Directors operates according to their bylaws and that personnel issues and records are not actually public information, much the same as medical records are not.

When they bring on a new President at a lower compensation level and eliminate some of the unnecessary and highly paid administration positions built up over the that don’t benefit the students, COC will actually be reducing expenses. If you want to be mad about the $2 million, you should be mad at Van Hook and her lawyer.

None of the candidates the author is “endorsing” have much in the way of education experience. I believe COC is in good hands with the current board and candidates running who are supported by the teacher’s union including Edel Alonso, Jerry Danielson, Michelle Kampbell, and Andrew Taban.

Put me down for 100 likes of Jordan’s comment.

Dianne Van Hook’s leadership at College of the Canyons has left a legacy marked by intimidation, control, and self-interest. For decades, she ran the college with an iron grip, fostering a toxic, fear-driven culture that impacted faculty, staff, and students alike. Allegations of her authoritarian and abusive behavior are well-documented, yet she continues to demand more from an institution she’s been accused of exploiting.
 
Under her tenure, College of the Canyons became a place where staff feared retaliation for speaking out, and critical voices were silenced. Financial mismanagement flourished as funds intended for students and faculty were redirected toward high administrative salaries and never-ending construction projects. Van Hook herself became one of California’s highest-paid public employees, with an annual salary of $435,000—more than $500,000 including benefits—and a compensation package surpassing that of the President of the United States. Despite this, she is now seeking an additional $2 million through a wrongful termination claim.
 
Her timing speaks volumes. Van Hook chose to retire during an annual performance evaluation, yet frames her departure as “wrongful termination.” She left with a $330,000 severance, lifetime healthcare, and a taxpayer-funded pension close to $500,000 annually. Her claim appears to be a final attempt to take more from a college and community she has already exploited.
 
Despite the facts, recent media coverage presents Van Hook as a victim, conveniently overlooking her history of abusive leadership and the hostile work environment she created. This portrayal disregards numerous complaints from faculty and staff who endured years under her oppressive rule, where favoritism, retaliation, and a culture of fear were prevalent.
 
The narrative of a “smear campaign” against Van Hook is misleading. The criticisms she faces stem from legitimate grievances by individuals who were stifled for years. A campus climate survey, which her attorneys dismiss as a “pretext” to force her out, exposed a deeply ingrained culture of fear. Staff feared speaking up or questioning her decisions, knowing they risked retaliation. Since her departure, campus morale has notably improved—a fact that media coverage has chosen to downplay.
 
This isn’t the first time certain publications have sided with Van Hook, prioritizing her “vision” while ignoring her self-serving actions, authoritarian methods, and disregard for the people who supported the college’s mission. Instead of reporting on the issues that mattered—the hostile work environment, financial mismanagement, and silencing of critical voices—these outlets have repeatedly propped her up, ignoring the lasting damage felt by faculty and staff.
 
Dianne Van Hook’s exit is not the result of a “campaign” but of years of unchecked power finally facing accountability. College of the Canyons deserves better than a legacy of secrecy, oppression, and financial mismanagement. The community deserves media that holds public figures accountable rather than protecting the powerful while disregarding those affected.
 
Van Hook’s recent lawsuit appears to be an attempt to maintain influence over the college, casting doubt on the Climate Survey findings that nearly 50% of employees experienced “psychological harm” under her leadership. Her decision to sue the college reflects poorly on her chosen candidates—Schauer, Arnold, Trevino, and Johnson—who are currently endorsed in advertisements calling the college a “dumpster fire,” a statement that disrespects the hardworking staff and faculty.
 
This election, the choice is clear: Edel Alonso, Jerry Danielsen, Michelle Kampbell, and Andrew Taban represent candidates who genuinely care about College of the Canyons and its community. These are the individuals who have the support of educators and staff who want a positive future, free from the damaging legacy left by Van Hook.