As the Dearborn Board of Education prepares to ratify the final list of candidates for the presidency of Henry Ford College at a special meeting scheduled for Monday, March 2, the selection process for the new president of the Dearborn-based community college faces the possibility of collapse and a complete restart.

An alleged breach of Michigan’s Open Meetings Act could reset Henry Ford College selection process to square one

This scenario could unfold if it is formally determined that the expanded Presidential Advisory Search Committee tasked with screening candidates for the position — vacant since last summer — violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act (OMA). The concerns extend beyond the legal question, encompassing allegations of lack of transparency in deliberations and unclear evaluation mechanisms.

Four closed meetings, no public notice

As of the publication of this report, the expanded Presidential Advisory Search Committee had held four closed meetings without public notice.

• The first meeting, on December 9, 2025, served as an orientation for the 24 members. Schedules were organized and expectations were set. Members were also asked to consider a code of conduct.

• On February 4, the committee met and sliced down the candidate pool from 120 to 10 semifinalists. This meeting was held in private with secret ballots, which are not allowed under the OMA.

• A January 13 meeting was dedicated to providing members with electronic access instructions to review applications and verify compliance with submission requirements.

• The committee subsequently interviewed the semifinalists and narrowed the pool to five finalists during two additional closed meetings held on February 20 and 21.:
• Interim President Lori Gonko.
• Wayne County Commissioner David Knezek.
• Henry Ford College professor Anthony Perry.
• Henry Ford College Vice President of Institutional Advancement and Executive Director of the HFC Foundation A. Reginald Best.
• Johnson County Community College Executive Vice President/Provost Mickey McLeod.

Both the preliminary and final lists were selected through secret ballot votes by the 24-member Presidential Advisory Search Committee, even though not all 24 members were present at those meetings. None of the committee’s meetings were ever noticed to the public.

Composition of the Presidential Advisory Search Committee

The expanded 24-member Presidential Advisory Search Committee includes:

• Seven community representatives selected individually by the seven members of the Dearborn Board of Education from a pool of applicants. Each trustee chose one representative during a public and open meeting.
• A representative of Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud
• A representative from the Dearborn Public Schools
• Representatives of administrators, faculty and students from Henry Ford College
• A Board subcommittee consisting of Board President Jamal Aljahmi, as well as Trustees Pat D’Ambrosio and Mary Petlichkoff

Notably, despite Arab Americans constituting roughly one-third of the college’s academic workforce and 30 percent of its student body, the committee’s groups representing administrators and faculty included no Arab Americans. One Arab American student was represented on the committee, though two students were originally slated to serve.

Legal violation?

Legal experts who spoke to The Arab American News cite the Michigan Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Pinebrook Warren, LLC v. City of Warren, which clarified the legal definition of a “public body” and reinforced transparency obligations under the Open Meetings Act.

Legal experts argue that reducing the applicant pool from 120 to 10 constitutes an exclusionary and decision-making function that shapes the outcome of the entire process. Under that interpretation, the Presidential Advisory Search Committee acted as a governing body and is therefore required to meet publicly and provide advance notice of all meetings.

The experts further contend that withholding full candidate files from non-participating Board members and relying solely on shortlists generated in closed sessions strengthens the argument of a significant OMA violation. Under the Pinebrook precedent and the OMA, any deliberations or secret-ballot votes conducted in violation of the Act are deemed legally void.

Possible legal action

Legal experts say that should the Board decline to address these concerns, any individual or group can seek to halt the process through a court action or file a complaint with Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel or Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.

Academic criteria altered without Board approval?

The job qualifications required applicants to hold a “terminal degree” — the highest academic credential in a field — typically a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in higher education administration or a Juris Doctor (J.D.). Additionally, all applicants had to possess at least five years of senior-level management experience.

These requirements were established by the Board, through consultation with the executive search firm hired by it .

However, according to legal experts who spoke with The Arab American News, those qualifications were redefined during meetings of the Presidential Advisory Search Committee without the approval of a majority of the trustees in a meeting open to the public.

Legal analysts argue that modifying formally adopted job requirements outside a publicly noticed Board meeting constitutes an additional procedural violation. Any substantive change to minimum qualifications — particularly for a position of this magnitude — should have required formal Board action in compliance with the Open Meetings Act.

Administrative irregularities

The procedural crisis extends beyond legal concerns.

On November 17, the Board established a clear rule limiting community representation to seven specifically named individuals, each appointed by a Board member. A December 15 Regular Meeting of the Board further ordered that no substitutions would be allowed if a representative withdrew or was absent.

However, while two Board members were not given the opportunity or the notice to replace their absent representatives, one member of the three-person Board subcommittee replaced her community representative four consecutive times through private communications outside public meetings.

Such appointments, critics argue, must occur through open, recorded votes to ensure equal treatment of all Board members.

“The comedy of errors”

In what some describe as an institutional embarrassment, one Board member mistakenly selected a community representative from the applicant list — only to later discover he had chosen the wrong individual due to identical names.

Compounding matters, the selected representative did not attend advisory meetings and was not replaced, thereby reducing the number of community representatives on the committee.

The incident underscores a lack of due diligence in a process aimed at appointing a president whose compensation exceeds $300,000 annually.

Broader political context

The controversy unfolds ahead of a pivotal November election in which four of the Board’s seven seats will be contested. Current members Nasri Sobh, Ali Bazzi, Adel Mozip and Mary Petlichkoff (who is not expected to seek reelection) occupy those seats.

Voters are being urged to closely monitor developments behind the scenes, particularly given prior resignations that destabilized governance. Former member Hussein Berry resigned last year, alongside former member Irene Watts, who relocated. Their departures delayed the presidential search following the resignation of former President Russell Kavalhuna, who left last summer to become president of Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo.

As Henry Ford College now navigates legal uncertainty, administrative disputes and political maneuvering, the fate of its presidential search—and potentially its institutional credibility—hangs in the balance.