u/Pale-Reception-6151

Earlier this week, the finalists for the Dean of Innovation role at Brightpoint CC were shared with the college, and open forums are approaching quickly. The reactions across campus have been telling.

Multiple internal candidates reportedly applied for the position, including individuals currently working within the unit itself and others who appear to meet or exceed the stated qualifications. Several of those internal applicants hold doctorate degrees or are actively pursuing them.

Yet not a single internal candidate advanced.

What’s even more surprising is that, reportedly, only one of the external finalists has direct experience actively working on a community college campus.

That reality feels difficult to reconcile with the messaging many employees have heard for years from leadership within the Virginia Community College System particularly from Fiege emphasizing that advanced degrees, professional development, and leadership training are pathways to advancement.

Ironically, one internal rejected candidate was even tasked with helping build a leadership academy designed to grow future leaders from within the institution. If they cannot even secure an interview, employees are left wondering what exactly they are being trained for.

Adding to the disconnect, employees recently received a poem from Fiege celebrating the college and its culture of excellence and community. While the gesture may have been well intentioned, many employees privately noted the contrast between the uplifting messaging and what they perceive as discouraging realities around internal advancement.

So employees are increasingly asking a fair question:

If internal candidates cannot even secure interviews for leadership positions, then what exactly is the purpose of investing in leadership development programs for employees already serving the institution?

At what point does “grow your own leaders” become little more than branding?

And perhaps the bigger question many are quietly asking now is this: when does the VCCS step in and examine whether these hiring and advancement practices are actually aligned with the values the system publicly promotes?

Because from the outside, the process increasingly feels inconsistent, discouraging, and disconnected from the very principles employees are being told to believe in.

I’ve been sitting on this for a while, but after everything that’s unfolded this spring, I can’t shake the feeling that something is really off.

For context, this involves leadership decisions under Bill Fiege (Brightpoint CC) within the Virginia Community College System. I’m not here to rant - I genuinely want to know if others see this the same way.

Here’s what’s happening:

Dean Situation #1 – Health Sciences
An Associate Dean (female, 60s) has been doing the job as interim for two years. Two years. With release time as the only compensation. Now her position is being pushed to a national search this summer—meaning she has to compete for a role she’s already been successfully performing.

Dean Situation #2 – AHSS
This one is even harder to understand. The role is currently being shared by two well-respected interim leaders—both qualified, both interested. Neither was given the opportunity to formally apply.

Instead, the position is being handed to someone else entirely. No search. No interview. Just a direct placement.

That individual (male, around 40) is being moved because his current role is being eliminated. It's worth mentioning that this individual has received 3-4 promotions since coming to the college. In essence doubling his compensation and never interviewing for the job. There are also rumors about past issues at a previous institution (a local prestigious private high school), though I’ll leave that aside since I can’t verify details.

______

So here’s where I’m struggling:

• One long-serving, experienced mature woman has to go through a national search for a job she’s already doing.
• Two qualified internal candidates aren’t even allowed to apply.
• A different candidate is placed directly into a leadership role without a competitive process.

How is that consistent?
How is that equitable?
How is that defensible in a system that’s supposed to value fairness, transparency, and process?

I’m genuinely asking - because from where I sit, it feels like rules are being applied very differently depending on the person.

Has anyone else seen situations like this in higher ed? Is this just “how it works,” or is this as problematic as it feels?