Chancellor Goldsmith’s Cost for the District: Part 2 of 2
The State Center Community College District: A District that Rewards Mismanagement and Chaos.
Correction Notice
In our previous article, Chancellor Goldsmith’s Cost for the District: Part 1 of 2, we stated that Chancellor Goldsmith was appointed effective January 1, 2021. This was an editorial oversight. Chancellor Goldsmith was appointed effective January 1, 2022. All other data presented in the article remains accurate. We have updated the article to reflect the correct date. We apologize for the error.
Subscribe
We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Stay informed. Subscribe to our Substack or fill out the contact form here to receive our publications directly in your inbox. Don’t miss the stories that matter most to the future of SCCCD.
Overview
In our previous article, we explored the skyrocketing legal expenses that have come to define Chancellor Goldsmith’s tenure. However, legal costs represent just one dimension of the financial and institutional strain her leadership has imposed on the State Center Community College District (SCCCD).
A significant concern is the rampant administrative bloat under her watch. Chancellor Goldsmith has allegedly expanded the administrative ranks by creating unnecessary new positions, diverting vital resources from areas of the institution that desperately need support. This unchecked growth not only exacerbates financial inefficiencies but also raises serious questions about her governance priorities, particularly as the District grapples with ongoing challenges. We will explore the full scope of this issue in an upcoming article.
Another pressing matter is her compensation. Chancellor Goldsmith’s salary increases have consistently outpaced historical trends, revealing a pattern of self-serving behavior. Our thorough investigation of her contracts and pay history, especially during her time as Chancellor, has uncovered unprecedented and troubling trends. These findings shed light on a broader culture of mismanagement that prioritizes personal gain over the welfare of the SCCCD community.
Chancellor Goldsmith’s Pay and Benefits
Chancellor Goldsmith holds a uniquely advantageous position within the District, being the only individual who can craft her own pay package and secure Board approval directly—bypassing the layers of oversight required for other employees. This exclusive access has enabled her to negotiate substantial salary and benefit increases unavailable to the rest of SCCCD’s workforce.
While the Chancellor secures personal financial gains, her administration, led by Vice Chancellor Mosier, extracts significant concessions from District employees during union negotiations. This stark disparity highlights a deeply troubling imbalance in SCCCD’s approach to employee pay and benefits, as evidenced by our findings. We have meticulously gathered evidence that demonstrates what we believe to be inequitable increases in Chancellor Goldsmith’s compensation, highlighting a troubling imbalance in the District’s approach to employee pay and benefits.
Chancellor Goldsmith began her tenure on January 1, 2022. Her initial contract, which sets the terms of her compensation and benefits, is linked below.
Chancellor Goldsmith’s initial salary as a Chancellor was set at $320,000 per year:
In addition to her base salary, she received the following fringe benefits:
Chancellor Goldsmith also enjoyed 22 vacation days per year, in addition to 30 days of paid professional development, for which she has the autonomy to select her own activities:
However, her compensation package extends far beyond these standard benefits. Her contract included a “Chancellor Coach” clause, costing the District $10,000 annually, with provisions for her to request additional coaching support directly from the Board:
Furthermore, she received an additional $800 monthly “Expense Allowance” described in her contract as follows:
This wording indicates that the Expense Allowance functions as discretionary income for the Chancellor, as it is separate from reimbursable business expenses. In effect, it amounts to $800 of unrestricted “pocket money” each month, raising questions about its necessity. Finally, she received a additional $800 monthly “Auto Allowance” to cover travel within the District’s service area:
According to Transparent California, Chancellor Goldsmith’s total pay and benefits in 2022 amounted to an eye-popping $423,885. However, it remains unclear whether the additional perks—such as her $10,000 Chancellor Coach expense, $9,600 Auto Allowance, and $9,600 Expense Allowance, totaling $29,200—were included in this figure.
Notably, the coaching services were reportedly provided by RSS Consulting, a firm that has drawn further scrutiny. Records indicate additional payments to RSS Consulting beyond the documented $10,000 for her coaching, suggesting she may have received more coaching services than the allocated amount. Furthermore, our sources report a troubling connection between RSS Consulting and the ongoing erosion of shared governance rights for faculty and classified professionals. This potential relationship warrants further investigation, and we are actively researching the matter. Stay tuned, as we plan to publish a comprehensive report in the near future.
Chancellor Goldsmith’s extraordinary compensation package, which includes perks far beyond those afforded to other District employees, underscores a significant imbalance in resource allocation within SCCCD. For those familiar with the strained negotiations between the District and its unions, this inequity is glaringly apparent.
Subsequent Increases in Pay and Benefits
Eight months into her tenure, at the August 2022 Board meeting, Chancellor Goldsmith gave herself a raise:
This raise boosted her salary by $25,893, bringing it to $340,992, while all other terms of her contract remained unchanged.
Just 11 months later, at the July 2023 Board meeting, she approved another raise for herself:
This time, she not only increased her annual salary by an astonishing $59,994, bringing it to $369,022, but also secured an additional $13,800 annually in medical insurance compensation from the District. These increases came on top of the perks already embedded in her contract, including the $10,000 annual Chancellor Coach, $9,800 Auto Allowance, and $9,800 Expense Allowance.
According to Transparent California, Chancellor Goldsmith’s total compensation in 2023 amounted to $474,960. However, this figure may not account for the additional perks outlined above which would significantly increase the total value of her compensation.
Then, at the August 2024 Board meeting, Chancellor Goldsmith secured another raise for herself. However, this time, the raise was accompanied by a new contract:
The agenda item below reveals that the salary increase was approved retroactively, taking effect more than a month earlier, on June 1, 2024.
She secured an $18,433 increase to her salary, bringing it to a total of $384,100. However, the details of the new contract revealed an additional significant benefit: a clause providing for a Tax-Sheltered Annuity.
This Tax-Sheltered Annuity adds an additional $17,508 in annual benefits to her already substantial compensation package. We can only hope the rest of us could enjoy such a benefit. Furthermore, Chancellor Goldsmith increased her vacation allowance by two additional paid days, bringing her total to 24 days annually.
Transparent California has yet to release its data for 2024, but our estimates place Chancellor Goldsmith’s total salary and benefits at approximately half a million dollars for 2024 and $520,000 for 2025. And that’s assuming she doesn’t grant herself yet another raise or introduce additional hidden perks to her already exorbitant compensation package.
Comparisons with Previous Chancellors
We have included a chart comparing the total pay and benefits of each SCCCD Chancellor since 2012, based on data gleaned from the Transparent California website. It is important to note that data for 2017 is missing from Transparent California, leaving a gap in the record for that year.
We have also conducted a linear regression analysis using the data from 2012 through 2021. This analysis highlights the predictive trend of salary increases for 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, based on the years before Chancellor Goldsmith’s appointment which offers a data-driven perspective on the escalation of Chancellor compensation over time.
According to our linear regression analysis, if the trend established by previous Chancellors had been followed, Chancellor Goldsmith’s salary and benefits should have totaled:
2022: Based on historical trends, her total compensation including pay and benefits should have been approximately $423,000, closely aligned with the actual total of $423,885.
2023: The analysis suggests her total compensation for this year should have been $448,000, yet her actual total skyrocketed to $474,960.
2024: Historical trends suggest her compensation should be around $458,000, but we estimate it will reach $500,000.
2025: If the prior trend continued, her compensation would have been approximately $462,000. Instead, we project it to balloon to $520,000.
These figures highlight a dramatic deviation from past trends, with Chancellor Goldsmith’s compensation outpacing expectations year after year.
Corporations increasingly prioritize lavish compensation packages for top executives at the expense of their rank-and-file employee. The SCCCD appears to have followed suit under Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership. The District has allegedly transformed into a bloated bureaucracy, prioritizing administrative expansion over its foundational mission as a public institution of higher learning.
Under Chancellor Goldsmith, resources have shifted away from the classroom, redirecting funds toward expanding the administrative ranks and inflating compensation packages for herself, her friends, and her confederates. This trend not only undermines the core purpose of SCCCD but also highlights a troubling departure from the values of equity and educational excellence.
Chancellor’s Performance
While it is reasonable to argue that exceptional management warrants higher compensation, the question remains: how has Chancellor Goldsmith performed? Based on the evidence we’ve presented in our investigations, her tenure has been marked by fear, chaos, and widespread demoralization. Faculty, classified professionals, and administrators alike report a significant loss of enthusiasm and drive to serve students under her leadership.
One of our sources, when asked what could be done to address the systemic issues caused by Chancellor Goldsmith, offered a stark assessment: “The culture perpetuated by Chancellor Goldsmith requires significant changes akin to burning it down and building it back up”.
A critical measure of any Chancellor’s performance is the morale of the employees they lead. To that end, we believe it is essential to highlight the voices of her employees. In a survey conducted by the Faculty Union in 2023, employees provided candid feedback about Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership. The full survey results can be accessed here:
Let’s begin by examining and comparing the approval ratings of key leadership figures within the District: the Board of Trustees, Chancellor Goldsmith, College Presidents, Academic Senate Presidents, and the Faculty Union President. These ratings offer a revealing insight into how these leaders are perceived by the employees they serve and how their leadership impacts the morale and effectiveness of SCCCD as a whole.
Based on the survey data, we calculated a GPA out of 4 to represent the approval ratings for key leadership roles within SCCCD:
The Board: 1.70
Chancellor Goldsmith: 1.75
College Presidents: 2.27
Academic Senate Presidents: 3.23
Faculty Union President: 3.39
The results speak volumes. Both the Board and Chancellor Goldsmith fail to meet acceptable standards, while College Presidents barely manage a passing grade. In stark contrast, the Academic Senate Presidents and Faculty Union President excel, earning high marks that reflect strong approval from their colleagues. Yet another feather in Dr. Santos’ hat.
Chancellor Goldsmith and the Board fail to even achieve a passing grade. While our articles have extensively documented the reasons for Chancellor Goldsmith’s unpopularity, the Board’s abysmal approval ratings are equally troubling. We believe this stems from their role—or lack thereof—in addressing the crisis. At best, they have been passive observers; at worst, they have actively supported what many perceive as an unprecedented assault by Chancellor Goldsmith on shared governance rights of senate, faculty leaders, and dissenters, as well as academic freedom itself. Anyone seen as opposing Chancellor Goldsmith or her allies appears to be targeted. Stay tuned as we will bring to light more of these instances soon.
The survey also sought feedback on Chancellor Goldsmith’s performance. Below are selected comments from faculty members that illustrate how they perceive her leadership and why. We have categorized the comments by theme for clarity.
1. Stifling Voices and Lack of Consultation
Explanation: Comments describing the Chancellor as making unilateral decisions, ignoring shared governance, bypassing faculty input, or creating a climate of fear and intimidation.
“There were a lot of ARs and BPs that had slight wording revisions passed by the board of trustees recently. That was fine, but my concern was the revision that read as though the chancellor now has power to make and approve changes after that without having to run policy by the board for approval in the future. I may have read it wrong, but I don’t think so. The implementation of DEI trends are concerning as well.”
“The support of equity is about the only thing I like. The gulf between the district and faculty is huge. People seem to just be about their careers.”
“Her overall vision, advancing DEIA and more progressive social values, is admirable. However, her need for control and the spotlight are a drag on the colleges. Also, her budgeting has been dishearteningly conservative. There also seems to be a tendency to stifle debate and disagreement. People are beginning to be afraid.”
“She is a strong face of the colleges; that is, she is good are public relations. She is not a good listener or collaborator. She needs to honor and respect faculty and classified professionals more.”
“She needs to listen to and commit to working with the classified professionals and faculty from the colleges. She does neither, thinking that her power is absolute.”
“She has too many lawsuits going on right now. Listen to others not just her administration.”
“She seems to be consolidating power. And, her comments about Reedley College on opening day were hurtful and inappropriate. Especially considering how many of us work overload.”
“I feel she makes everything about her she needs to be open to hearing all sides. It doesn’t matter if you construct buildings with no staff to fill them. We need better planning and shared governance and not just when we are going through accreditation”
“Improve by considering the burdens being placed on faculty and admin to do large tasks on short notice only to change direction after stressing out everyone. Honor processes. The burden placed on Academic Senates to review 40+ ARs and BPs in one semester is unreasonable. Gave herself a raise.”
“Dr. Goldsmith is a good public face for the district and understands how to politick with the city of Fresno/feeder communities. But she seems to forget that she is running a college system and her primary concern should be making sure that faculty and students have what they need to be successful. She seems to care more about having control for herself and a good public image. We saw her hire her cronies at FCC but I lost all faith in her with the MCC/FCC nursing dean debacle.”
“She is a people person that can rally those that want to believe, she unfortunately has put into place (and kept) people that are incompetent and self motivated to continue using a broken system.”
“She controls and micromanages the Presidents of the college. It is no better, and likely worse, than the old boy network because now an ideologue requires the fealty of the Presidents.”
“Morale has never been lower. Lies have never been more frequent. Incompetence is at an all-time high. Her hires. Truth matters not, only winning for her team. She should be fired because she is an authoritarian.”
“She is trying to push through ARs that violate Title V of ed code and what she is trying to do to the nursing department is beyond ridiculous. She needs to be removed from office.”
“Chancellor Goldsmith does not have a good reputation of working with the faculty union in good faith. Instead, she hides behind the Board and abstract ideas about how college should or shouldn't be in order to avoid listening to her employees and actually making decisions that would better all constituencies on campus.
“Micromanages. Muzzles colleges' leadership while wrongly empowering some deans. Power is going to her head. Disregards both the Union and Academic Senates purviews. Does not understand shared governance.
Does not recognize the four different colleges' culture. RE: nursing dean debacle, full healthcare for PT and FT debacle, etc. Awful chancellor. Dr. Deborah Blue was better. "CaroleCon" is not a compliment.”“I do not support the Chancellor, she has attempted to rewrite various board policy and regs without required advice and consent of the Senate and the changes are in direct violation of Title V. I would like to see her removed from office.
“She has turned our district into a complete clown show of confusion, incompetence, delusion, deceit, back-stabbing, loyalty tests, and fear mongering.”
“She exhibits a highly authoritative leadership style, often making unilateral decisions without consulting faculty. This approach not only centralizes power within her role but also encroaches upon the authority traditionally reserved for the board. Individuals she has brought in from West Hills seem to operate with a sense of impunity. She stands out for her pronounced appetite for power and a tendency to favor those who unquestioningly support her agenda.These dynamics raise serious concerns.”
“Leaving would be good.”
“She goes to a lot of events and takes a lot of pictures. She should not micromanage and dictate policy. She should be more collegial.”
“She supported the person with no confidence vote. Doesn’t make sense. She’s not faculty. She should support faculty not her own agenda. Whatever that is? More power for admin I’m guessing is her end game.”
“She doesn't understand or care about consultation. She thinks she is a queen and SCCCD is her queendom.”
“She is great a public relations. However, in my opinion she is out of control. She tried to pass through several ARs that she had modified as ‘Informational’ without consulting the constituency groups. She is not consulting faculty on issues that, by law, she should consult.”
“The cracks are getting bigger and faculty are fed up.”
2. Lack of Sincerity
Explanation: Comments suggesting the Chancellor says one thing but does another, projects empathy or caring that is not believed, or appears inauthentic.
“She talks a lot. She speaks out of both sides of her mouth. She likes attention. She sounds empathetic but I doubt her sincerity.”
“She's articulate and presents herself to be understanding. Speaks of equity but at times her vision and actions speak otherwise.”
“she appears to be effective but not what she claims to be effective”
“She is there for her self-interest only, not with the interest of staff and faculty.”
“She is a dynamic speaker. She knows how to manipulate the media and appeal to the public. She can charm people until you realize that you just agreed to let her have the coat off your back.”
“It appears to be all about her and how she can advance her career. Very superficial and wants no input from faculty who will provide honest feedback. She has her team of puppets (board, admin, faculty, classified) who do and say what she needs. No concern for our campus and student needs.”
“She seems too one sided on topics and issues and messages (echoing what she is expected to say.) For example, sending messages to SCCCD after only particular news and events that show a bias towards cherry picking topics and issues.”
3. Not Understanding Faculty and the Classroom
Explanation: Comments conveying that the Chancellor is disconnected from day-to-day classroom realities or faculty workloads, and lacks sufficient understanding of what it takes to run an effective teaching/learning environment.
“Dr. Goldsmith is a phenomenal spokesperson for our campuses. Her public speaking abilities are beyond reproach. I do not, however, think she is very accessible to faculty. I'm not entirely sure when her last classroom experience was, but I invite her to tour our classrooms and maybe sit-in on a lecture to see what her students are seeing.”
“She is a good speaker but disconnected from us. It seems administrators are in political roles and not aware of what is entailed in running schools.”
“She doesn’t support our campus. Her message to us at Convocation stating that we are over staffed was disrespectful and demoralizing. She refutes to consider our unique staffing needs due to a farm, cafeteria, CTE programs, etc. Her decision to only consider FTEs doesn’t serve the Reedley service area well. The lack of resources require more employees to meet the needs of students. Her staffing and funding decisions lack an understanding of that. Frankly, she is not a good leader.”
“Improve by considering the burdens being placed on faculty and admin to do large tasks on short notice only to change direction after stressing out everyone. Honor processes. The burden placed on Academic Senates to review 40+ ARs and BPs in one semester is unreasonable. Gave herself a raise.”
(Also appears under “Stifling Voices,” but specifically highlights the extra burden on faculty.)
4. Carole-Con
Explanation: Comments critiquing the district-wide convocation (“Carole-Con”)—calling it a poor use of time, money, or not aligned with faculty needs.
“omigosh, the convocation was not a success. What, exactly, did it accomplish?? And the notification(s) about it were cringe-worthy: We're ‘esteemed,’ everything is ‘innovative,’ etc.”
“The added convocation day was long and gone deaf. It was a big rally instead of a meaningful experience. I would have loved for a real speaker to be brought in. I would also encourage her to write shorter emails that feel personal. Her emails are long and sound like AI wrote them.”
“Get rid of that unnecessary all-district convocation that was just initiated this past August.”
“We (faculty) are more than just numbers. Her convocation presentation said otherwise.”
“Friendly but maybe self-important? The idea that faculty should have an extra full day of training so that she can be in charge of one of the days seems excessive.”
“Micromanages. Muzzles colleges' leadership while wrongly empowering some deans. Power is going to her head. … 'CaroleCon' is not a compliment.”
(Also under “Stifling Voices.”)“The Chancellor is egocentric and seems to spend money and resources promoting herself and her self interests. The convocation was a waste of money and valuable time that could have been used for faculty/departments to work together to plan for the year. She interferes with curriculum and makes decisions based on some sort of personal agenda without consultation with faculty stakeholders. Her boundaries are inappropriate.”
5. Concerns about Resource Allocation & Staffing
Explanation: Comments centered on how the Chancellor allocates funding, handles staffing formulas, or places burdens on faculty/administrators that reflect a disconnect from real-world needs.
“She doesn’t support our campus. Her message to us at Convocation stating that we are over staffed was disrespectful and demoralizing. She refutes to consider our unique staffing needs due to a farm, cafeteria, CTE programs, etc. Her decision to only consider FTEs doesn’t serve the Reedley service area well. The lack of resources require more employees to meet the needs of students. Her staffing and funding decisions lack an understanding of that. Frankly, she is not a good leader.”
“Her overall vision, advancing DEIA and more progressive social values, is admirable. However, her need for control and the spotlight are a drag on the colleges. Also, her budgeting has been dishearteningly conservative.”
“Improve by considering the burdens being placed on faculty and admin to do large tasks on short notice only to change direction after stressing out everyone. Honor processes. The burden placed on Academic Senates to review 40+ ARs and BPs in one semester is unreasonable. Gave herself a raise.”
“Her supervision style is very juvenile. It seems that she allows her emotions to designate how she reacts and decisions she makes. For example: fighting Classified on their pay and compensation. Their 8% COLA is now being threatened to not be paid unless they settle on their contract. Many are relocating to other jobs because of lack of support. She also has a history of appointing her friends to positions she creates, and targeting employees to terminate without cause.”
(Also touches on hiring/HR issues.)
6. Cronyism / Questionable Hiring Practices
Explanation: Feedback specifically calling out the Chancellor for hiring “friends,” “cronies,” or others perceived to be aligned with her agenda—often at the expense of more qualified personnel.
“Dr. Goldsmith is a good public face for the district and understands how to politick with the city of Fresno/feeder communities. But she seems to forget that she is running a college system … We saw her hire her cronies at FCC but I lost all faith in her with the MCC/FCC nursing dean debacle.”
“She is a people person that can rally those that want to believe, she unfortunately has put into place (and kept) people that are incompetent and self motivated to continue using a broken system.”
“She also has a history of appointing her friends to positions she creates, and targeting employees to terminate without cause.”
7. Morale & Workplace Climate
Explanation: Comments focusing on low morale, fear, stress, or an overall negative work environment under the Chancellor’s leadership.
“People are beginning to be afraid.”
“Morale has never been lower. Lies have never been more frequent. Incompetence is at an all-time high. … She should be fired because she is an authoritarian.”
“It seems she is doing work to advance LGBTQ causes which I appreciate. But I also hear a lot of grumbling from my co workers so it's hard to say.”
“Just run the college and stay out of the politics and social agendas. Very disappointing.”
“The cracks are getting bigger and faculty are fed up.”
8. Consolidating Power
Explanation: Comments specifically mentioning lawsuits, potential violations of Title 5 or Ed Code, or other legal/regulatory problems.
“She has too many lawsuits going on right now. Listen to others not just her administration.”
“She is trying to push through ARs that violate Title V of ed code and what she is trying to do to the nursing department is beyond ridiculous. She needs to be removed from office.”
“I do not support the Chancellor, she has attempted to rewrite various board policy and regs without required advice and consent of the Senate and the changes are in direct violation of Title V. I would like to see her removed from office.
“Chancellor Goldsmith does not have a good reputation of working with the faculty union in good faith. Instead, she hides behind the Board and abstract ideas about how college should or shouldn't be in order to avoid listening to her employees and actually making decisions that would better all constituencies on campus.”
“She exhibits a highly authoritative leadership style, often making unilateral decisions without consulting faculty. This approach not only centralizes power within her role but also encroaches upon the authority traditionally reserved for the board. Individuals she has brought in from West Hills seem to operate with a sense of impunity. … These dynamics raise serious concerns.”
“She is great a public relations. However, in my opinion she is out of control. She tried to pass through several ARs that she had modified as 'Informational' without consulting the constituency groups. She is not consulting faculty on issues that, by law, she should consult.”
It is evident from the comments and rankings that Chancellor Goldsmith’s performance falls far short of justifying the unprecedented salary and benefit increases she has granted herself.
Horn Effect
Chancellor Goldsmith’s poor leadership has not only tarnished her own reputation but has also cast a shadow over other leaders within the District. Her actions and approach to governance appear to have created a ripple effect, negatively impacting how other leaders are perceived.
The Presidents
For example, when it comes to the College Presidents, the following comments about President Pimentel are particularly noteworthy:
“I have great hope for Pimentel. His hirings have been excellent. He has solid values. He just needs to be more assertive with the District.”
“Seems to be a puppet for the chancellor.”
“Pimentel could do better to make his own stake. He currently seems a bit too in line with and buddy buddy with District admin.”
“I wonder if he is too close to Dr. Goldsmith to be an effective president.”
“He does not appear to exercise autonomous leadership; rather, it seems he is heavily influenced by the chancellor. Their dynamic is more like a puppet and a puppeteer rather than a president and a chancellor.”
“He's personable. He doesn't seem to be the one running FCC. He's a puppet for the Chancellor.”
“He needs to take lead and not rely on the personal relationships of his friends to sway his presidency. For someone so fit, a backbone may be needed.”
“He was not qualified and relies on two of his VPs who equally have no clue to the needs of students, instruction, and staff. He was only selected because he would do what Goldsmith wanted. Shame also to the selection committee that allowed this to happen. We had unqualified selecting unqualified. Titles and positions do not always equal knowledge.”
“Worst president ever. Incapable. Does not lead. Sitting duck. Does whatever the Chancellor or the VPSS tells him to do.”
“He doesn't lead the college; he takes orders from the Chancellor. He has no discernable vision.”
“What leadership. As long as the Chancellor's chains are around his neck, he will not be an effective leader.”
Our sources have revealed that Chancellor Goldsmith has consistently and heavy-handedly micromanaged Fresno City College, effectively stripping President Pimentel of the autonomy to lead. When capable leaders are denied the freedom to manage effectively, they often leave—a reality that may help explain the high attrition rate among administrators within the SCCCD.
Conversely, when poor leaders are not held accountable, they tend to remain and even rise through the ranks, perpetuating a toxic cycle. This festering sore of ineffective leadership within SCCCD continues to demoralize employees at every level, with repercussions that ultimately impact the students the District is meant to serve.
The Board
The perception of the Board of Trustees has not escaped the fallout from Chancellor Goldsmith’s problematic leadership. In the faculty survey, respondents were asked, “How would you rate the leadership of the Board of Trustees?” The following responses stood out to us:
The Tail Wagging the Dog
“Seems like the tail is wagging the dog these days. The board is above the chancellor. However, it appears that the chancellor seems to think that the chancellor is above the board.”
“You have 1 employee, the Chancellor. Rein her in.”
“They vote for everything that Goldsmith wants, so no one can have a position but her. She runs the colleges, and no one stops her.”
“They are elected to represent the people in their districts and not do Goldsmith's bidding.”
“Better: rein in the Chancellor.”
“They are weak-kneed and milquetoast. They are unwilling or unable to ask difficult questions and appear to pretend to oversee SCCCD, but the Chancellor pulls them around on a chain.”
“They seem to blindly approve what the Chancellor wants. They don't question her enough. There needs to be more transparency. A lot of power and decision making is getting delegated to the Chancellor.”
“They vote for everything that Goldsmith wants, so no one can have a position but her. She runs the colleges, and no one stops her.”
“They appear to do whatever Goldsmith and team want. Very political.”
“The Board needs to do a better job of requiring the Chancellor to consult with constituencies.”
“The BOT needs to know that the chancellor works for them -- not the other way around. They also need to honor the BPs and ARs. They need to understand shared governance and honor the so-called 10+1 of faculty.”
“I feel they rubberstamp everything. I feel they listen to the Chancellor and not the public, faculty, staff and students”
“They are letting the chancellor take more and more power.”
“They seem to be diligent -- they take their jobs seriously, for the most part. BUT I think our BOT relies too much on the district personnel to tell them what is happening and what the priorities should be. Such an approach lends itself to a creeping "top-heaviness" of the district -- far too many resources devoted to the district office.”
“They are mere politicians. Where once the BOT would hold the DO and Chancellor accountable, it is the Chancellor who dictates policy. Every decision is one based on how a BOT member might move to the next elected position. SCFT can stop supporting liars and fakes who promise one thing and do something else completely.”
“Our board of trustees have voluntarily given power to their sole employee through agency. When asked about any facts or specifics as to the problems on our college campuses, our board president very clearly represented that she is not given facts merely scenarios. Knowing of these falsities and continuing to back the district narrative is inappropriate behavior, and unacceptable.”
Not Listening to Campuses / Lack of Connection to and Understand of the Campuses
“BOT needs to verify what admin feeds them.”
“The Trustees appear to believe that they are fully informed by the admin. I do not believe this is the case. Trust but verify what the admin is selling.”
“They need to HEAR from more than just the admin.”
“I do not believe that they do anything particularly well. What they need to do is talk to the staff and students of their colleges to gain an actual understanding of who they are serving.”
“They are not aware of what is happening on campus. If they are aware, they are not saying anything, like they are aware of an issue, and how they are working to solve it.”
“It seems like they make choices to protect themselves and not support faculty and staff.”
“They are out of touch with the needs of students and employees. The chancellor and administration has access to influence the board but this doesn't include employee and student perspectives. They should direct the chancellor to allow access to the board. On our campus the protocol is to go through the president's office. Town halls would be helpful.”
“I'm not entirely sure that I've ever meet anyone from the Board. They seem to be shielded from the everyday workings of our campus across the district. Here, again, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about classroom needs/structure.”
“I never got a response or acknowledgment of my email. They need to be available to staff & faculty to know the environment of each colleges. They need to be visible and available to students and faculty”
“When was the last time a board member was on campus, attended an event, performance, talked with students, faculty or staff? In my 36 years. NEVER. Sad”
“Some Trustees are all in it for the job and some are just there not acting on faculty and staff interest.”
“Their decisions show they are not about leading our youth toward a bright future of freedom, prosperity, and truth. They are only about furthering their own personal political ambitions and feeding their hunger for power and authority. They are a regime, not a representative board. Stronger personalities push the weaker members around to present a unified front. Open inquiry and dissent are not allowed. BOT meetings are nothing but theatre. They sit as elites and dare the public to object.”
“Transparency, more shared governance, and less of an separate and entitled attitude. We are all operating in the same system and seeing more appreciation from the District for their instructors and staff would be helpful.”
“I would like to see the higher leadership roles, which includes all Board members, listen more to the faculty on what they need and why. They are too removed from real workers and avoid thinking of our situations outside of the abstract in order to justify withholding budgets and policy changes because it's easier to do nothing than to actually change.”
The Dean of Nursing Debacle
Three Board members—Ikeda, Johnson, and former Trustee Caglia—who aligned with Chancellor Goldsmith and voted against the vote of no confidence signed unanimously by the nursing faculty, were specifically mentioned in the survey. This vote, as previously covered in one of our articles, remains a contentious example of the Board’s alignment with the Chancellor despite overwhelming opposition from faculty.
“Nurses voted no confidence, but chancellor and some board members voted for the person, even with a 100% no confidence vote. Explain that.”
“When 100% of a faculty group presents a concern and 3 out of 4 refuse to even acknowledge that they are professionals in their fields and are worth a discussion and review, then they are not acting as check and balance for the SCCCD, they are either lazy or potentially have biased motives.”
“The Board seems to be blind to changes made at the college level that majorly effect our students and staff. When they are presented with this information, the response is normally "that is managed at a college level" but they also make changes (without input from those of us at the college level) that drastically effect our ability to work. At one of the last board meetings this was painfully obvious when a District Dean of Nursing was going to be appointed without any input from the employees”
“The chancellor recently created a Dean of Nursing position and hired the person for the position without consulting faculty or following hiring practices as outlines in the AR. The nursing department addressed their concerns and a disturbing number of people on the BOT were ok with that! The chancellor is supposed to answer to the BOT, not the other way around”
“I'm not sure, but I think they aren't very faculty friendly.”
It seems that no one within SCCCD has been immune to the detrimental effects of Chancellor Goldsmith’s poor leadership.
Why?
Why has Chancellor Goldsmith chosen this form of leadership? This is the central question we have asked ourselves, our sources, and experts. Based on our findings, we believe those advising her may have convinced her that an autocratic approach is the most effective way to enact immediate change. However, history—and experience—proves otherwise: change through force does not work.
Autocracy inevitably breeds resistance, and the heavy-handed tactics required to suppress dissent ultimately erode trust and taint leadership. Chancellor Goldsmith holds a degree in history, and yet a cursory glance at any world history textbook would reveal a glaring truth: post-revolutionary purges often lead to the downfall of those who wield power through fear and force.
Our conclusion is that Chancellor Goldsmith is reckless, willing to take significant risks at the expense of others. Her approach is marked by unkindness and callousness, qualities fundamentally at odds with effective leadership. A silver tongue can only take a leader so far. True leadership requires integrity, humility, and a genuine commitment to engaging all stakeholders—qualities Chancellor Goldsmith glaringly lacks, as evidenced by the comments shared above.
While risk-taking is an essential aspect of leadership, reckless and forceful attempts to change too much too quickly inevitably lead to failure. Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership is a textbook case of this. The signs of reckless risk-taking are not new—they are present throughout her past actions and continue to manifest in her tenure at the SCCCD.
A Word for the Board
Chancellor Goldsmith has a remarkable ability to garner support from individuals who have little understanding of how an educational institution should function. Her administration is built on grandiose promises, often made without meaningful consultation, cloaked in the rhetoric of “equity”. These hollow gestures serve more as marketing ploys than substantive solutions.
She operates like a seasoned used car salesperson, selling lofty visions to an unsuspecting and desperate audience: the Board of Trustees and members of the public. But as with any deceptive sales pitch, the glittering promises often conceal the flaws beneath.
What Chancellor Goldsmith fails to grasp—or deliberately ignores—is that the process of achieving a goal is just as important, if not more so, than the goal itself. Success achieved through coercion, deception, or disregard for established processes is not true success and erode the foundations of the institution. An army might win a war by dropping an atomic bomb, but at what cost? Should they?
The question for the Board and the public isn’t whether Chancellor Goldsmith can deliver on her promises—it’s whether the methods she employs align with the principles and integrity an educational institution must uphold.
Trustees, did you read the comments of the SCFT survey when they were sent to you? Anyone who took the time to review them would have seen a proverbial powder keg ready to explode. Perhaps you did recognize the troubling signs of Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership, but her silver tongue convinced you otherwise. We can only speculate about the twisted logic she used to dismiss the warnings, but here is what we know for certain: every faculty member in our group can identify their comments in that document.
The warning signs were all throughout that document. Yet your unwillingness to acknowledge the serious issues caused by Chancellor Goldsmith is the reason The SCCCD Insiders exists. We hear the whispers in campus hallways, the hope in our colleagues’ voices when they mention our publication. Do you know what District employees say most often about us? “Finally, someone is saying what we’ve all been saying—and they are making the Board pay attention”.
For years, District employees have raised these issues, but your refusal to listen has allowed a sore to fester into an infection too unbearable to ignore. Your inaction forced us to take these concerns public.
Why haven’t you acted? We are willing to entertain the idea that you were unaware of these issues before. However, your continued support for Chancellor Goldsmith in the face of our well-documented exposures is incomprehensible. By not acting, you are complicit in the alleged chaos, cronyism, demoralization, and repression that now plague the District.
The evidence of her alleged wrongdoing continues to flood in—emails, messages, and testimonies from across the District. Morale is at its lowest in three decades because of what Chancellor Goldsmith and her allies have done.
You have met multiple times since we began publishing without any action. Do you think ignoring our articles will make us go away? Quite the opposite. We are intensifying our efforts. To ensure continued exposure and demand of accountability, we have elicited the help of two dedicated staff writers who will spend 40 hours per week researching and publishing more stories with less time between releases. We have also enlisted the expertise of an SEO consultant to enhance our online visibility, ensuring that taxpayers have greater access to critical information about how their money is being spent.
The solution is clear: Chancellor Goldsmith is not rehabilitable. Her intensified repression of faculty voices in response to our publications is textbook autocratic behavior. History tells us that autocrats do not change; they only tighten their grip. Educational institutions cannot thrive in such an environment. Faculty should not be punished for advocating for their colleagues. Governance institutions should not be attacked. Employees should not profit from students and the District without proper disclosure and oversight. Legal costs should not balloon to $2.5 million.
We deserve better. The employees, the students, and the public deserve a Chancellor who is kind, collaborative, and truly listens. The longer you let this infection spread, the closer we get to losing the institution we all care about. There is no antibiotic for this problem. At some point, you must cut out the rot to save the body. You are the only ones who can do that. The time to act is now. Don’t wait until it’s too late.
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