Trustee candidates debate property-tax burden, state funding, AI and campus safety at Garden City forum

Garden City — Six candidates seeking seats on the Garden City Community College Board of Trustees on Wednesday outlined differing approaches to funding, program review, technology and campus safety at a candidate forum hosted by the Garden City Area Chamber of Commerce.

The forum’s chief lines of contest were how to manage local property-tax support for the college, how assertively trustees should oversee program decisions, and how the college should adapt to technology such as artificial intelligence while protecting campus safety and student services.

The stakes include how the college will pay for operations: “local property taxes make up a huge portion of the community college’s budget, approximately 44%,” said Nicholas Verona, deputy county attorney and candidate. Verona said his top priority would be to “get the property tax levy under control” and press college leadership on budget decisions so taxpayers “don’t shoulder so much burden.”

Incumbent trustee Marilyn Douglas framed the contest around preserving external funding. “I want to continue the fight for fair state funding for community colleges in Kansas,” Douglas said, noting trustees worked with other colleges and lobbyists last legislative session to block proposals she described as attempts to defund community colleges. Douglas also said the college must continue work on student success and federal funding advocacy.

Candidates diverged on the board’s proper role in program decisions. Several candidates, including Douglas and candidate Robert “Bob” Larson, said program evaluation is primarily the president’s role under the college’s policy-governance model and that faculty and administration should lead academic reviews. “It is the faculty and the administration that will look at the effectiveness of the program,” Douglas said, describing the college’s reviews as the basis for improvement plans.

Other candidates pushed for more active trustee oversight. Verona said trustees should not “abdicate” responsibility and must ask whether programs provide community value, have reasonable costs and produce employment prospects for graduates. “You cannot be afraid to expand, or cut, or modify those programs as necessary to meet student demand,” he said.

Technology and artificial intelligence drew sustained comment. Candidate Alexander Olinger urged the college to teach students “how to use AI appropriately,” calling AI an important tool for the future. By contrast, Verona criticized student reliance on AI as a “crutch” that can dull learning, and said the college must ensure technology is used so students learn rather than merely reproduce content.

Partnerships with four‑year institutions were broadly supported as a way to keep students in the region and reduce costs. Multiple candidates cited existing agreements with Kansas State University, Newman University and Fort Hays State University as models to expand seamless degree pathways for local and underserved students.

Safety and campus infrastructure featured in later questioning. Candidates supported maintaining and updating security systems and campus emergency plans. Douglas noted the college’s alert systems and said campus police staffing has been increased; several candidates urged coordination with city and county emergency services. Douglas also identified an aging dormitory as a looming facilities priority and said the college is repairing streets and recently completed a career‑connections remodel that houses adult education and English-as-a-second-language programs.

On transparency and engagement, candidates emphasized availability and outreach. “Being available, speaking to people, is something that I would do,” Verona said; Douglas pointed to the college’s web portal for community comments and to trustees’ role in carrying community needs back to the administration.

No formal votes or board actions were taken at the forum; it was a public question‑and‑answer event for voters to compare candidate positions ahead of the general election.

The candidates and moderators repeatedly returned to common themes — fiscal pressure, student success and adapting to workforce needs — while differing on how activist trustees should be in program decisions and how aggressively to change local funding levels. Voters will decide on the contested trustee seats in the November election.