The $34.2 Million
Three Years (and Counting) of Chancellor Goldsmith Sabotaging Un-housed Students' Housing
Note: If you are reading this article via email, please be aware that the full article exceeds the maximum length permitted in emails. Click this link to access the complete article.
Note: If you have not subscribed to our Substack account yet, we encourage you to do so.
Our previous exposé, Death of HOPE and Spencer Irwin: A Dismantled Program and A Stolen Life, detailed the devastating impact when Chancellor Goldsmith, President Pimentel, and Vice President Hall deliberately dismantled Fresno City College (FCC)’s Housing Opportunities Promote Education (HOPE) Program. Their targeted destruction of HOPE was reportedly fueled by personal animosity toward the program’s Faculty Coordinator, Ms. Natalie Chavez, whose vocal advocacy for vulnerable students conflicted with the administration’s—particularly Chancellor Goldsmith’s—authoritarian approach.
As we previously reported, abruptly terminating HOPE left 60 students without critical resources, a devastating decision that may have contributed to the tragic death of Spencer Irwin, a housing-insecure student who relied on HOPE’s support. Since publishing that report, compelling new evidence and firsthand testimonies have clarified the source of Chancellor Goldsmith’s hostility toward Ms. Chavez. Yet beyond personal animosity, we’ve uncovered something even more disturbing: tens of millions of dollars deliberately withheld from the District’s most vulnerable students by Chancellor Goldsmith and her inner circle.
This investigation exposes Chancellor Goldsmith’s troubling interference with a critical $34.2 million affordable housing grant intended for FCC’s most vulnerable students. Our findings reveal more than bureaucratic incompetence—they uncover deliberate delays, retaliation, and self-serving decisions that directly undermined essential housing and support services. The sections that follow, meticulously document evidence and timelines, detailing exactly how Chancellor Goldsmith and her administration subverted the grant’s true purpose, ultimately leaving students, like Spencer Irwin, abandoned and at risk. Although we believe the tragic death of Spencer Irwin is the most egregious example of the human cost of Chancellor Goldsmith’s sheer greed and self-serving desire for personal recognition, thousands of other FCC students have also faced severe and life-altering consequences due to her actions.
Before we get into the main story, let’s take a quick detour—a vignette that sheds light on an important issue.
1. A Vignette
Repeated characterizations of Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership as megalomaniacal have raised critical questions about her suitability to lead a public institution entrusted with safeguarding taxpayer funds and student well-being. Her management style, perhaps fitting for a cutthroat Silicon Valley startup, is fundamentally incompatible with the core mission of community colleges—to uplift and support students, particularly the most vulnerable ones. Superficial gestures, such as staging photo-ops with Black people, do not address systemic inequities or hide deeper administrative failures she has created or perpetuated. Meaningful leadership demands substance, not mere optics. Unfortunately, Chancellor Goldsmith appears solely concerned with the latter.
We, along with many of our sources, have observed Chancellor Goldsmith’s troubling pattern of using people of color as props to advance her own agenda. Consider a particularly poignant example. On March 6, 2025, the SCCCD’s official Facebook account shared the following image in a post promoting the Southwest Trail and MLK Active Transportation Infrastructure Project:
We have repeatedly observed Chancellor Goldsmith using staged photo ops with people of color to signal her supposed concern for them. In reality, she does not genuinely care—and ample evidence supports this assertion. Here are just two of the many examples:
1.1. Photo Op Tonight, Write-Up Tomorrow
The Fresno Spotlight published a revealing article, a year ago, titled, Fresno City College: The sticky subject of race. The report describes how, on February 27, 2024, Dr. Gerri Santos, a respected African American counselor at Fresno City College (FCC), was publicly celebrated at a high-profile event at the African American Museum. Her name was proudly added to the Wall of Honor, recognizing nearly 28 years of dedicated service advocating for students, faculty, and racial equity. Chancellor Goldsmith prominently participated, warmly embracing Dr. Santos and posing for photos—eagerly signaling her supposed support for the Black community.
Yet, shockingly, just one day later, on February 28, Dr. Santos received a disciplinary letter from Chancellor Goldsmith’s administration, accusing her of causing “racial division” in an email she had sent months earlier. Dr. Santos’s email had highlighted perceived double standards in how African American staff were treated compared to their Hispanic colleagues, particularly concerning interim appointments. In short, Dr. Santos was cynically used by Chancellor Goldsmith as a convenient photo op during Black History Month, only to be swiftly punished afterward for speaking uncomfortable truths about racial inequities on campus. And unfortunately, it gets even worse.
1.2. Calling Police on a Black faculty
We were already aware of Chancellor Goldsmith’s disturbing willingness to weaponize law enforcement against those who challenge her authority. But calling the police on Dr. Gerri Santos—who served the District honorably for 28 years as a respected professor and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist—simply because she spoke out against her, reveals Chancellor Goldsmith’s photo ops with Black employees and residents for exactly what they are: empty gestures devoid of genuine commitment or understanding.
Chancellor Goldsmith seems to believe that no one sees through her insincere gestures. On the contrary—the harder she tries, the clearer her true intentions become. Using people of color as mere props is disgraceful. We all see her performance for what it is, and no amount of carefully orchestrated videos or uplifting background music can mask the stench of her hypocrisy:
Chancellor Goldsmith proclaims, “And throughout all this change, there is hope; and you see that hope when you go to our colleges…” Yet, the bitter irony is unmistakable: she dismantled FCC’s HOPE program—a true hope for many students like Spencer Irwin—six months before making this hollow statement. We think the hypocrisy is clear enough, so let’s delve into the troubling details of the $34.2 million housing grant.
2. The Inception: Crisis, Ingenuity, and Obstruction
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, FCC’s most vulnerable students faced a devastating new reality. While most sheltered in place to slow the virus's spread, housing-insecure students had nowhere safe to go. Already struggling with under-employment, they lost what little work they had; many were forced onto park benches, into bushes, garden sheds, garages, cars, or atop abandoned buildings. FCC’s nascent HOPE program rapidly became inundated with desperate pleas for help. However, Fresno County’s acute shortage of affordable and low-cost housing options limited HOPE’s ability to offer assistance.
2.1. Desperate Necessity Meets Ingenuity
Amid the crisis, sweeping legislative action unlocked billions in new funding to address basic needs for California’s most vulnerable students. In 2021, with little to no support or clear direction from FCC or SCCCD administrators, HOPE’s Faculty Coordinator, Ms. Natalie Chavez, took initiative from her own living room. Driven by the urgency of students’ desperate needs, she searched for funding solutions, discovering the Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program (HESHGP), established by Senate Bill 169 (SB 169) under California’s 2021-22 budget. The initiative was specifically designed to fund affordable, low-cost, on-campus housing for California’s low-income college students, eventually allocating $2 billion over three years ($500 million in 2021-22, $750 million each in 2022-23 and 2023-24). This discovery marked a critical turning point in addressing student homelessness at FCC.
In June 2021, Ms. Chavez began preparing two grant proposals for HESHGP: an ambitious $34.2 million project providing affordable housing for over 350 low-income students paired with a 3,500-square-foot student support center, and a $7.6 million rehabilitation of an existing commercial structure near FCC into urgently needed student housing and support service center. Both grant submissions are available in the file below:
2.2. Delay and Obstruction: The Goldsmith Factor
The HESHGP funding was divided into two distinct categories: construction grants (totaling $475 million) and planning grants (totaling $25 million). According to the official HESHGP guidelines and FAQs provided below, planning grants were designated specifically for campuses exploring or assessing the feasibility of affordable student housing. These grants could fund feasibility and engineering studies, financing evaluations, environmental impact assessments, architectural designs, application fees, legal expenses, permitting, bonding, and site preparation. In contrast, construction grants were strictly reserved for the direct construction of student housing, or the acquisition and renovation of existing commercial properties into student housing units.
Despite Ms. Chavez initiating her two grant applications in June—well ahead of HESHGP’s October 31, 2021, deadline—her progress was met with repeated obstruction primarily from Chancellor Goldsmith. Multiple credible sources confirmed that Chancellor Goldsmith intervened late in the process, allegedly driven by her desire for self-promotion and favoritism toward specific consultants. Mistakenly believing Ms. Chavez’s proposals would threaten her own grant ambitions, Goldsmith reportedly attempted to sabotage Ms. Chavez’s larger construction grants to ensure the success of smaller planning grants for FCC and Madera Community College (MCC).
Only after FCC’s then-Vice President of Ed Services & Institutional Effectiveness (VPESIE), Dr. Robert Pimentel reassured Chancellor Goldsmith that Ms. Chavez’s construction grants wouldn't jeopardize her own planning grants did she relent—allowing the process to move forward at the eleventh hour. This incident reveals a troubling pattern our investigation has repeatedly highlighted: Chancellor Goldsmith prioritizes personal ambition, public image, and favored consultants over the urgent needs of FCC’s most vulnerable students, like Spencer Irwin.
Ultimately, the SCCCD submitted four applications for HESHGP:
FCC planning grant: $449,000
MCC planning grant: $449,000
FCC construction grant #1: $34.2 million
FCC construction grant #2: $7.6 million
3. The Awarded Grants
Seventy-five institutions applied for the HESHGP’s planning grants, while 42 sought construction grants. Since the total funding requested for planning grants was below the allocated $25 million, all planning applications—including SCCCD’s two submissions—were funded. However, construction grants were significantly more competitive, with only eight of the 42 proposals receiving awards. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) 2022-23 report on HESHGP (provided below), construction grant proposals were evaluated and ranked based on three critical criteria:
whether the project was intersegmental (with all eligible intersegmental projects receiving top rank);
state funding per bed (lower amounts ranked higher); and
proposed rents relative to the statutory limit (with a lower share ranking higher).
SCCCD’s $7.6 million construction proposal for FCC was disqualified for failing to meet the HESHGP’s statutory requirements. The intersegmental project submitted by Imperial Valley College and CSU San Diego secured the top ranking under the first criterion. FCC’s $34.2 million proposal ranked second due to its exceptional affordability, offering both the lowest state funding per bed (criterion 2) and lowest rent relative to statutory limits (criterion 3).
The $34.2 million in construction grant was explicitly intended to create genuinely affordable housing specifically tailored to low-income students. Crucially, this grant was never intended for dormitory-style housing for any student—a significant point, given evidence we’ve uncovered indicating Chancellor Goldsmith sought to redirect these funds to build dorms instead.
4. The Three-Year Delay: An Irregularized Process
In March 2022, FCC was awarded the $34.2 million construction grant—a result reportedly unexpected by Chancellor Goldsmith.
Legally, when the District undertakes significant projects like construction, it must issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Qualification (RFQ) to solicit competitive bids from qualified companies. In this case, Chancellor Goldsmith initiated two separate and unusual bidding processes: the first in 2022, which inexplicably failed, and the second over two years later, in 2024. This delay directly contradicted the District’s explicit commitment in the grant application: to begin construction by the end of 2022 (Refer to the first question on page 8 of the “Grant Applications” PDF referenced in Section 2.1.). Yet, as of today, over two years after the promised date, ground has still not been broken.
4.1. The First RFP: A “Summer Surprise” Gone Wrong
The first RFP for the housing project opened on June 21, 2022 (in summer), and closed on August 12, 2022—a deliberate “summer surprise,” an administrative tactic often used by SCCCD leadership to sidestep faculty input by scheduling controversial actions when faculty are off-contract. (A notable example is the infamous summer surprise to outsource campus bookstores to Follett.)
Chancellor Goldsmith initiated this critical RFP without consulting Ms. Chavez, the original grant author and the District’s most experienced professional in low-income student housing, whose HOPE program had already gained recognition as “California’s most successful college student homeless support program.” [1] Sources repeatedly highlight Goldsmith’s tendency to dismiss expertise when contrary to her agenda, and this situation was no exception.
Remarkably, several developers who submitted proposals never received feedback or formal rejection notices—an unusual and troubling administrative… oversight. Multiple sources indicated that Chancellor Goldsmith favored building dormitory-style, low-occupancy housing aimed primarily at student-athletes, directly contradicting the affordable, high-occupancy, low-income housing promised in the grant to taxpayers. Upon learning of Goldsmith’s intentions, Ms. Chavez intervened, advocating adherence to the original grant’s purpose. Ms. Chavez's advocacy engaged both the Academic Senate and Student Government presidents, highlighting significant concerns and ultimately derailing Goldsmith’s initial plans. It was the failure of the 2022 RFP, which they blamed on Ms. Chavez, that led Chancellor Goldsmith and her inner circle—particularly Vice President of Student Services, Dr. Lataria Hall—to openly despise Ms. Chavez.
4.2. The Second RFP: Removing the Obstacle
After the first RFP inexplicably failed in August 2022, Chancellor Goldsmith waited over two years—until November 22, 2024—to initiate a second bidding process. This extended delay raised critical questions: Why the prolonged wait? Multiple sources familiar with the situation confirmed that Ms. Chavez’s expertise and unwavering advocacy for low-income student housing were seen as significant barriers to Goldsmith’s preferred plan of building dormitories. Notably, the second RFP opened only after Ms. Chavez was laid off and the HOPE program terminated.
Here’s the timeline:
Early June 2021: Ms. Chavez began preparing to apply for the HESHGP.
October 31, 2021: Deadline for the HESHGP application.
January 1, 2022: Dr. Goldsmith became the SCCCD Chancellor.
March 1, 2022: FCC was awarded the $34.2 million grant.
March 2, 2022: Chancellor Goldsmith took control of the $34.2 Million grant.
June 21, 2022: The first RFP opened.
July 1, 2022: Dr. Pimentel became the president of FCC.
August 12, 2022: The first RFP closed.
December 31, 2022: The SCCCD promised to begin construction by this date.
June 30, 2024: Ms. Chavez was laid off.
July 1, 2024: HOPE was dismantled and its students were abandoned.
July 31, 2024: Dr. Pimentel’s last day as President.
August 1, 2024: Spencer Irwin’s body was found.
November 22, 2024: The second RFP (RFQ) opened.
January 8, 2025: The second RFP (RFQ) closed.
The timeline strongly suggests Ms. Chavez’s removal was deliberate—a calculated move by Chancellor Goldsmith to remove a key obstacle to her personal agenda before initiating the second RFP process. This explains the intentional delay of over two years between the failed first RFP and the initiation of the second. Removing Ms. Chavez cleared the path for Chancellor Goldsmith to control the $34.2 million grant without opposition, prioritizing her own self-interest above the urgent needs of FCC’s most vulnerable students.
Equally, if not more troubling is that the SCCCD—or more specifically, Chancellor Goldsmith—has withheld this substantial taxpayer-funded grant for over three years, from March 1, 2022, to the present, without spending it, despite its explicit purpose of providing housing for homeless students like Spencer Irwin. When we say Chancellor Goldsmith recklessly gambles with students’ lives, this is precisely what we mean. Withholding desperately needed resources from vulnerable students not only constitutes a misuse of taxpayer dollars but also demonstrates that she is fundamentally unfit to lead this or any other educational institution.
5. The Grant’s Core: HOPE
A close review of SCCCD’s complete submission to the state for the $34.2 million grant, provided in section 2.1, clearly outlines plans for the development and construction of 75 affordable housing units, specifically designed to accommodate the lowest-income students and their diverse needs. The units would “accommodate the unique needs of the lowest income single students, family households, and shared living units.”
The submission explicitly positioned FCC’s successful HOPE program as its central model. It highlighted HOPE’s public-private partnership, which had rapidly housed 71 students within just six months of its March 2020 launch, funded by California Community Colleges, SAMHSA, and Fresno County. The submission also emphasized Fresno County’s acute shortage of affordable housing as the most significant barrier for FCC’s most vulnerable students, the lowest income homeless and housing insecure students, promising that the “project will lower their cost of attendance by providing the most flexible and affordable rental options.” This meant the proposed housing could operate on an equity-based model, accommodating both single students without income who needed roommates to reduce housing costs, as well as student-parents supporting multiple children.
Central to the entire proposal was the HOPE program’s successful model. HOPE consistently maintained a waiting list of up to 300 students due to this critical shortage. The $34.2 million proposal aimed to eliminate this barrier entirely by providing housing for up to 350 students, along with a comprehensive support center offering vital campus and community-based resources.
Despite these clearly defined intentions and expert recommendations, Chancellor Goldsmith pursued her own agenda—one driven by personal ambition and self-interest rather than the well-being of the students most desperately in need.
6. Speculated Reasons for Delaying Construction
We have investigated possible motivations behind Chancellor Goldsmith’s decision to withhold this $34.2 million housing grant for more than three years:
6.1. Removing the Obstacle
As detailed previously, multiple sources indicated that Ms. Chavez’s removal was intentional—a calculated decision to remove a key obstacle to Chancellor Goldsmith’s agenda. As the author of the original grant, Ms. Chavez was uniquely qualified within the District to fully understand and advocate for SB 169’s affordability requirements. Had Chancellor Goldsmith not laid off Ms. Chavez, she would have remained an outspoken critic of the second RFP, highlighting its noticeable deviation from the grant’s original intent. Specifically, the most recent RFP, which closed on January 8, 2025, explicitly states that the selected developer must:
“[p]rovide reliable positive cash flow from the Project to support the indirect costs of housing as well as the overall educational mission of the District.”
Not only is this new iteration of the housing project required to be self-sustaining, but it's also expected to generate additional revenue for Chancellor Goldsmith’s unrestricted funds. For what purpose? Perhaps to hire more of her favored consultants, fund additional attorneys to defend her reckless decisions, fund Carole-Con for another year, increase her own salary and benefits, or install security systems at yet another of her nine properties. We'll let you decide.
6.2. Interest Accumulation
Several sources speculated that Chancellor Goldsmith might be allowing the money to sit idle in the District’s accounts to accrue interest. Although the grant itself is earmarked, interest earned on the principal could flow into general unrestricted District funds, providing her with discretionary resources. While we could not independently verify this claim, the possibility warrants a mention.
6.3. Need for Control
An email from then-VPESIE Pimentel offers insight into another potential motive: Chancellor Goldsmith’s desire to directly control the project’s funds. In the email below, he indicates, “[n]ormally the president would be the person overseeing this project but Bc we don’t have a full time person now Dr G may be taking lead.” We know Chancellor Goldsmith did take control of the grant. And notably, both RFPs were initiated during periods when FCC had interim presidents—Dr. Marlon Hall during the first, and Dr. Kim Armstrong during the second. Coincidence?
6.4. Raising a False “Match”
We have obtained credible information indicating that Chancellor Goldsmith has allegedly attempted to leverage the $34.2 million grant to solicit additional funding, falsely claiming that securing the grant requires raising matching funds. This assertion by Chancellor Goldsmith is categorically untrue—the grant does not require any match. Any attempt by her to suggest otherwise is misleading, unethical, and a clear breach of public trust.
Ultimately, the burden lies with the District to clearly explain to taxpayers why millions of dollars designated specifically to house homeless students remains unused more than three years later. If the District had begun construction in December 2022—as explicitly promised in the original grant application—the project would have been completed by Spring 2024, offering critical housing and support services to HOPE students like Spencer Irwin. Had this happened, we firmly believe Spencer would still be alive today, supported and protected by the campus services he desperately needed.
Each of the four above scenarios—eliminating obstacles, accumulating interest for discretionary spending, or consolidating control over funds—reflects deeply troubling mismanagement and self-interest. They also highlight a reckless disregard for the urgent housing needs of FCC’s most vulnerable students and represent a fundamental betrayal of the community's trust. Taxpayers, students, and employees deserve transparent answers—and accountability—now.
7. The $449,000 Planning Grants: Consultants Over Expertise
We had another question. How exactly did Chancellor Goldsmith utilize the two $449,000 planning grants for FCC and MCC? Notably, she hired Brailsford & Dunlavey Inc., a consulting firm contracted by the District starting in 2022—the same year Dr. Goldsmith became Chancellor. This firm conducted a housing survey between September 27 and October 20, 2022, submitting its final report to the District on November 3, 2022.
District records reveal that the District has paid Brailsford & Dunlavey a total of $380,963 in 24 payments from November 2022 through January 2025, all charged to the District Office Capital Project pool which is where the grant funds for construction and capital projects are saved. Based on payment dates, we believe approximately $75,159 (three payments of $25,053 each) were specifically tied to this survey alone.
$25,053 on 11/01/2022
$25,053 on 11/15/2022
$25,053 on 11/29/2022
$52,606 on 02/21/2023
$16,276 on 05/30/2023
$62,997 on 07/18/2023
$26,349 on 08/15/2023
$16,485 on 09/26/2023
$14,566 on 10/17/2023
$7,511 on 11/21/2023
$8,519 on 01/02/2024
$5,445 on 01/23/2024
$4,959 on 03/12/2024
$7,490 on 03/26/2024
$5,680 on 05/07/2024
$7,835 on 06/11/2024
$3,850 on 06/18/2024
$3,980 on 08/27/2024
$7,971 on 09/10/2024
$8,140 on 10/08/2024
$6,723 on 10/22/2024
$10,145 on 11/26/2024
$14,213 on 12/17/2024
$14,065 on 1/21/2025
For context, according to Transparent California, in 2022, a full-time Research and Planning Analyst at the District would cost between $106,669 and $119,063 annually (salary and benefits included). The District’s own Institutional Research department—or researchers at its colleges—could easily have conducted this survey at substantially lower cost. However, our investigation has repeatedly uncovered that Chancellor Goldsmith prefers external contractors, routinely sidelining qualified District staff and ignoring local expertise.
Sources familiar with the matter suggest Chancellor Goldsmith uses consulting firms to produce predetermined outcomes rather than genuine discovery. Indeed, Brailsford & Dunlavey’s report predictably concluded that students prefer single-occupancy apartments—a result so obvious it hardly required expensive outside consultants. But the $34.2 million HESHGP grant was never intended to provide students with private apartments; their explicit purpose was to maximize affordability for students in dire financial need and help them move out and seek their own accommodations by providing them resources and training. The Chancellor’s decision to divert planning-grant funds toward external consultants, instead of utilizing internal expertise, raises troubling questions about her true priorities.
There is another troubling issue. It appears that Chancellor Goldsmith paid Brailsford & Dunlavey with funds specifically allocated to FCC and MCC to conduct a survey that also included Reedley College and Clovis Community College. Not only did she waste taxpayer money by hiring expensive external consultants, but she also improperly diverted funds designated explicitly for FCC and MCC. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time we've seen Chancellor Goldsmith playing fast and loose with public funds, and we will be reporting further on this pattern soon. Additionally, our investigation into her extensive reliance on consulting firms—including Brailsford & Dunlavey Inc., RSS Consulting, PPL Inc., Grants R Great Inc., and several others yet to be disclosed—is ongoing. Stay tuned.
8. A Word for the Board
Trustees, at what point does silence become complicity? You passed that point so long ago it’s no longer visible in the rear-view mirror. At what point does your continued inaction make you personally accountable for the harm done, lives irreparably damaged, opportunities lost, and taxpayer dollars squandered? We’ve presented ample evidence; your decision to ignore it speaks volumes. How many more students like Spencer Irwin need to die, how many more millions of dollars should be mismanaged, how many more employees have to sue, for you to take action?
As trustees, your primary duty is oversight. Allowing Chancellor Goldsmith’s unchecked self-interest, retaliation, and reckless disregard for students to persist constitutes a clear abdication of your fiduciary and moral responsibilities. It must stop and we will continue to expose wrongdoing until it does.
We assure you, our investigations are far from finished—they have only just begun. Our reporting will intensify significantly, as we’ve promised before—and every promise we've made thus far has been fulfilled. Increasing numbers of employees are stepping forward, driven by their experiences of mistreatment and retaliation by Chancellor Goldsmith and her inner circle. Even employees once mesmerized by her rhetoric now recognize her destructive impact on the District. It appears you, our elected Trustees, are among the few left who still refuse to see the writing on the wall. Even Chancellor Goldsmith knows what’s unfolding.
Chancellor Goldsmith’s paranoia about who among her trusted inner circle is speaking with us is justified—how else would we know exactly what to look for, and where? In nearly every story, we’ve placed subtle clues—“Easter eggs”— signaling clearly to her that members of her own team are cooperating with us, while carefully protecting their identities. Our network of sources continues to grow rapidly, as more administrators realize that Goldsmith’s tenure as Chancellor is approaching its inevitable end. They now recognize the severity of the actions they've carried out at her behest and how consistently she's left them holding the consequences of her reckless decisions.
Chancellor Goldsmith believed she was quite cunning when used administrators to do her bidding but she left evidence behind. Ironically, despite her megalomania and inflated sense of cunning, she forgot the timeless lesson of Proverbs 16:18.
Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Her futile attempts to uncover and silence us through private investigators were anticipated and countered even before we began publishing 6 months ago. After all, despots throughout history follow predictable patterns when exposed, and Chancellor Goldsmith’s reactions fit their playbook perfectly.
We've begun filing formal complaints with regulatory and oversight agencies—including civil grand jury complaints—and will soon present our findings directly to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors through their public forums. We will not retreat from this mission until you fulfill your duties and terminate Chancellor Goldsmith’s employment. If you remain unwilling or incapable of protecting the students, faculty, staff, taxpayers, and community you were elected to serve, we must question your own fitness for office.
Have you truly taken the pulse of your campuses? Have you listened to what employees say about you? It's not complimentary. You are widely perceived as an ineffective Board, intimidated by your most important employee.
The moment has come for you to decide: Will you choose accountability and integrity, or will you remain silently complicit as Chancellor Goldsmith’s destructive ego continues harming this District? Your choice now will define your legacy. The public—and history itself—awaits your decision.
State Center Community College District (SCCCD) - Fresno City College (FCC) - Madera Community College (MCC)- Clovis Community College (CCC) - Reedley College (RC) - Dr. Carole Goldsmith - Chancellor Goldsmith - Magdalena Gomez - Danielle Parra - Robert A. Fuentes - Austin Ewell - Deborah J. Ikeda - Nasreen Johnson - Destiny Rodriguez - Haiden del Fierro