The highly paid chief equity and inclusion officer at taxpayer-funded Kellogg Community College — who posted a picture of himself on social media in December holding a protest sign that read “F**k Trump” — will apparently face no formal sanction.

Trustees at the Battle Creek college heard comments that both denounced and supported Jorge Zeballos when they held a meeting last week, but they took no action.

Responding to an email inquiry from Michigan Capitol Confidential, a KCC spokesman said Tuesday the college “doesn’t comment publicly on confidential personnel matters.”

Zeballos’ 2019-20 salary as the college’s leading promoter of inclusivity is $98,033, KCC revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Request from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

By contrast, KCC’s president, Adrien Bennings, is paid $167,500, and the faculty pay scale for 2019-20 tops out at $91,480.

Adam Heikkila, a community activist and small-business owner in the Battle Creek area, said Zeballos’ profane expression against the president (and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham) didn’t surprise him.

Heikkila said Zeballos, with whom he has interacted with in community- building projects, is a promoter of radical solutions to perceptions of inequitable divisions of political power and a social justice warrior.

Zeballos removed the Facebook post, which promoted his participation at a Battle Creek rally protesting an appearance by President Donald Trump in December, after it drew criticism. He said in a statement that the protest sign is protected by the First Amendment, but he understood that, because of his position, it had repercussions for the college.

“I deeply regret posting the picture on my Facebook page and the controversy it has generated," Zeballos said in a Jan. 3 post on his Facebook page.

“I strive to have respectful dialogue on some of the most challenging issues with anyone who holds an opinion different than mine,” Zeballos said.

On Jan. 7, the KCC Board of Trustees released a statement of its own, declaring that “KCC is a politically neutral, tax-funded institution of higher learning, and does not side with any political party or campaign message.”

“However, this matter is a teachable moment and healthy reminder for all KCC employees that our actions as individuals can have an impact on the institution. Whether that impact affects an individual’s employment status at KCC ... is a determination made via KCC’s ongoing performance management process.”

Heikkila called Zeballos “a nice guy,” and said he doesn’t believe he should be fired. But his protest is an indication of his radicalism and a signal to the college that its commitment to diversity and inclusion and equity is a sham, he said.

“They should eliminate his whole department,” Heikkila said. “He’s not being inclusive. His actions are intimidating to other voices.”

Heikkila said he believes there is a good possibility the college will not renew Zeballos’ contract after this year.

Zeballos was hired last year as the head of a newly created Office of Equity and Inclusion. The college had said the hire demonstrated its “commitment to creating an inclusive environment that fosters respect, supports cultural understanding, demonstrates ethical behavior and champions social justice.”

Prior to his appointment, Zeballos served as the executive director of the KCC Center for Diversity and Inclusion. That office was financed by a grant from the Kellogg Foundation.

Heated disputes over a $4.7 million school bond election in the Dollar Bay–Tamarack City school district last August have persisted, and in October they led Superintendent-Principal Christina Norland to ban two local residents from the school building.

Norland told Michigan Capitol Confidential in an emailed statement that the banned individuals – Cindy Barth, 72, and Kristin Lortie, 48 – may still enter school property under certain conditions.

The limited no-trespass directive requires the women to request permission, in writing, three days in advance of the day they want to visit the school, which is located on Michigan’s Keweenaw Peninsula. That includes shows, events or athletic events held on school property when school is not in session.

Barth, a former substitute teacher for the school district, and Lortie are allowed in the school for school board meetings. But they may not arrive more than 15 minutes before the start of the meeting and must leave immediately after it ends, according to the notification letter the school board sent them.

They may also enter the school to vote on election day but must only use the designated polling location and leave immediately after voting.

Norland told Michigan Capitol Confidential in an email that she issued the directive in late October only after Barth and Lortie had made several unorthodox visits to the school.

The superintendent said that on at least two occasions, the women failed to enter through the correct door, didn’t sign in at the office, and wandered unsupervised throughout student areas of the school building.

“As you can imagine, having visitors repeatedly enter the school through unauthorized doors or during unauthorized hours represents safety concerns for students and staff,” Norland said.

The letter advising Barth and Lortie of their limited ban said their behavior had been disruptive to the learning environment.

“Unfortunately, KL and CB simply cannot be trusted to behave as other visitors do,” Norland told Michigan Capitol Confidential in an email. “KL and CB have not acknowledged posted signs or followed standard school protocols. Our families have expressed concern for their children based on behaviors witnessed by the community. Our employees have been treated rudely. KL and CB have demanded an incredible amount of time from school personnel, which takes time away from the students and staff and daily operations of DB-TC Area Schools.”

Barth and Lortie said they visited the school on several occasions to request public records related to the proposed debt and district spending. They said they were never asked to use a specific door or sign in on those occasions.

Lortie said they got lost in the district building going from the empty superintendent’s office to the principal’s office.

“We got lost,” Lortie said. “This paints us as unreasonable and can’t be trusted. She gave us no warning there was any concern about our behavior. They are making no gesture to work with us. ... They immediately jump to, ‘Our lawyer said we can ban you.’”

Barth and Lortie told Michigan Capitol Confidential the real problem was what they call a “stealth election” for a property tax hike that was scheduled in an odd-year election in the month of August. The measure passed with little more than 25% voter turnout.

They say that many in the community did not know about the vote, and that one of them only learned about the election through whispers at a public meeting.

The women see the ban on their spontaneous visits as a political response to their opposition to the school’s bond election.

In a memo sent to the school board after being notified of the partial ban, the pair called the directive “inappropriate,” and said the reasons for instituting the order were “unfounded and without merit.”

In the memo, they asked for security video that showed them doing what Norland had accused them of doing in the letter. They also said that she hadn’t personally witnessed them doing the things she banned them for doing.

“School districts have the right to determine the time, place, and manner by which individuals are permitted on District property,” Norland said in her reply to the memo. “The no-trespass letter I sent to you was due to concerning behavior on October 16 and before. Since August, you have behaved in ways which have been interpreted by many district personnel and parents as hostile.”

“Because of this, your entry through an unmonitored door (in your case, a friendly student unknowingly let you in through an unmonitored entrance—this means a door that is not monitored by staff with video/intercom/buzz-in/unlocking controls) and unaccompanied route through the school, including being on the third floor and asking personal questions of teachers, was alarming, and caused a disturbance resulting in phone conversations with concerned staff that afternoon,” she wrote.

“People, both staff and parents, are not comfortable with your presence in our school, especially during school hours, and/or at times students are present,” the superintendent continued. “For this reason, after your visit on October 16, I called a lawyer to discuss the situation; her immediate recommendation was a no-trespass letter, being alarmed at the thought of visitors entering a school building through an unmonitored entrance and, rather than waiting in the appropriate office (with doors open and lights on) for the secretary to return, walking unaccompanied through student areas of the building.”

Barth and Lortie said that Norland’s use of the word “interpreted” meant the superintendent had made “nonspecific assumptions leading to a very specific punishment.”

Norland could not provide video of the women’s entire visit to the school – only footage of them leaving.

She told Barth and Lortie, in her response to their memo, that it was the first time the school had ever asked the video surveillance vendor to capture video for them and that “some kind of a tech glitch occurred.”

Lortie stated that the school board has not answered the question about its ban and if it may have violated the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Lortie said Barth has attended all public meetings and neither she nor Barth are aware of the ban being discussed in public.

As residents and voters in the school district, Barth and Lortie say they their goal is accountability from the school superintendent.

“Lack of accountability toward the community has been a pattern in [the superintendent’s] communication and decisions,” Lortie said in her reply to the superintendent’s response to the memo.

The women appealed the ban to the school board and requested a response from each individual school board member explaining why the member voted to ban them. Lortie said nobody responded.

“You have made your position desiring the directive to be lifted known to me and the board, and we have heard,” the superintendent wrote. “But further than this, and confirmed by the lawyer, there is no appeal process. This aspect of the no-trespass directive will remain in effect until further notice.”

Lortie said schools are using security concerns as a reason to ban local citizens concerned about school practices. Lortie said it was an abuse of power and people should be concerned.

“This is a retaliation for following state Sunshine laws,” Lortie said. “We have spoken. We have not been heard.”