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: One delightful reader recently told us, “I love listening to your articles!” That prompted us to discover a surprisingly useful feature on Substack: You can now listen to our stories. Just download the Substack app on your device.
When you open one of our articles on the app, look for the ▶️ play button in the top right corner. Tap it, and the article will be read aloud—by a surprisingly pleasant voice, we might add. It’s not perfect (it can’t read charts or images), but it does a great job with the text. We’ll mark the location of images and videos with [image below] or [video below] so you know when to check your screen while listening. So if you’re commuting, walking your dog, or simply prefer to listen, give it a try. The corruption at the SCCCD sounds just as outrageous in audio.
Note: Remember to send this article to a friend—because friends don’t let friends go without reading The SCCCD Insiders.
And if you have not subscribed to our Substack account yet, we encourage you to do so for free.
In this article, we expose how the firm, RSS Consulting, and its founder and CEO, Dr. Regina Stanback Stroud, have emboldened Chancellor Goldsmith to view herself as an untouchable despot, silence faculty voices, undermine participatory governance, and retaliate against critics. But before diving into the heart of this investigation, let’s pause for a vignette—a timely reminder for every administrator at the District.
1. A Vignette
Before proceeding, we must clarify a point that Chancellor Goldsmith has repeatedly distorted. She habitually frames legitimate criticism and protected speech as “threats” and “harassment,” and weaponizes law enforcement and the legal system to silence dissent, retaliate against critics, settle scores, and ruin lives. As we outlined in a previous article, her abhorrent treatment of Mr. Edward Madec, stands as a demonstrative example of this destructive tactic. Let us be unequivocally clear: our warnings are not threats. They are rhetorical tools and political speech intended solely to hold accountable those who enable corruption and misconduct in our District, a publicly funded institution.
We have never—and will never—endorse or incite violence, physical harm, or property damage. The truth is our sole instrument—both our weapon and our shield—delivered through exhaustively verified, constitutionally protected investigative reporting. No amount of legal gymnastics—by her taxpayer-funded legal team—will change that.
Despite Chancellor Goldsmith's repeated failed attempts to discredit us and frame our reporting as threat or harassment, her narrative collapses—even in front of her own attorneys—under the weight of documented facts. For the first time in her career, she is learning that spin has its limitations, and a silver tongue can’t trump facts and evidence.
With this clarification made, we renew our recommendation to the administrators.
We've reminded Chancellor Goldsmith’s inner circle and administrators before: Don’t disparage us! Doing so will require us to clear our name, which sometimes necessitates an in-depth investigation into the lives of those who disparage us. After all, we write exposées. It is our only tool. And, unlike Chancellor Goldsmith, our reputation rests and remains on the truth.
Today, we renew that recommendation with even greater urgency and important additions:
Do not disparage us, faculty, or classified professionals!
To those administrators who like to malign us, faculty, or classified professionals: You’re entitled to push any narrative—but doing so entitles us to respond to you, because we are compelled to protect our reputation.
You should know by now that we are everywhere. Your most trusted confidants may very well be our sources—or even our members. In a public institution, even walls have ears, as Chancellor Goldsmith has discovered the hard way.
Let us leave you with this: You now live—perpetually—in glass houses. Think twice before hurling stones at the abyss—the abyss may cast them back.
With that clarified, we now return to the core of our investigation: RSS Consulting, Dr. Stanback Stroud, and their alarming anti-faculty influence, deeply embedded into Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership model, fostering a culture of unchecked power, silencing voices, and relentless retaliation.
2. RSS Consulting
A recurring concern raised by faculty and administrators is that Chancellor Goldsmith considers Academic Senates, the State Center Federation of Teachers (SCFT), and faculty advocates as the primary obstacles to her agenda. Her hostility toward faculty voices—and her pattern of retaliation against those who speak up—has long puzzled us.
Initially, we believed her animosity might stem from her limited classroom experience. While certainly relevant, a deeper explanation emerged once we investigated RSS Consulting and its founder, Dr. Regina Stanback Stroud, who according to many sources, serves as Chancellor Goldsmith’s “mentor” and “coach.”
RSS Consulting is not just another contractor. Its role is unique—and uniquely damaging. Through mandatory “trainings” for faculty leaders and administrators, strategic directives, and direct coaching of Chancellor Goldsmith, Dr. Stanback Stroud has embedded a leadership philosophy at the District that marginalizes faculty, undermines shared governance, and silences dissent through systematic retaliation.
What is unfolding at the State Center Community College District (SCCCD) is no coincidence; it is a partial result of RSS Consulting's influence on Chancellor Goldsmith. We’ll soon present concrete evidence, but first, to fully understand the roots of this anti-faculty agenda, you need to know more about the founder and CEO of RSS Consulting.
2.1. Dr. Regina Stanback Stroud
Dr. Stanback Stroud is the founder and CEO of RSS Consulting. She began her educational career as a nursing professor at Santa Ana College, then moved into administration as Dean at Mission College. She later became the Vice President of Instruction and eventually President of Skyline College. Her administrative trajectory peaked with her appointment as Chancellor of the Peralta Community College District (Peralta CCD).
Dr. Stanback Stroud became widely respected in Academic Senate circles during and after her tenure as the President of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) from 1993 to 1995. Her leadership in equity was so celebrated that the ASCCC named the “Regina Stanback-Stroud Diversity Award” after her, recognizing faculty who advance diversity, equity, and social justice. This makes our recent findings all the more startling.
According to multiple sources, Dr. Stanback Stroud—once a celebrated advocate for faculty—now reportedly leverages her past ASCCC presidency as a credential for districts seeking to suppress faculty voices. Allegedly, she is no longer hired to empower educators but rather to silence them. This transformation isn't just shocking—it's dangerous.
The shift became clear immediately after her appointment as the Chancellor at Peralta CCD.
It wasn’t until we spoke with sources at Peralta CCD—those who experienced Dr. Stanback Stroud’s leadership firsthand and witnessed her troubling transformation from faculty advocate to faculty adversary—that the roots of her mentee, disciple, and close friend, Chancellor Goldsmith’s hostility toward shared governance and faculty advocacy came into sharp focus.
What these sources described about Dr. Stanback Stroud’s leadership, while Chancellor of Peralta CCD, was disturbingly familiar—an almost one-to-one match with the patterns Chancellor Goldsmith has followed at the SCCCD.
2.2. Dr. Stanback Stroud at Peralta CCD: Emergence of a Pattern
Dr. Stanback Stroud was appointed Chancellor of Peralta CCD in October 2019 and resigned effective August 15, 2020—just ten turbulent months later. Her brief tenure left lasting scars, creating a toxic relationship between faculty and administration that according to our sources still reverberates today.
Multiple sources at Peralta CCD confirmed Dr. Stanback Stroud’s anti-faculty stance from the outset. One source noted:
“She was consistently unapologetically anti-faculty and pro-administration throughout her time at Peralta.”
Dr. Stanback Stroud allegedly portrayed faculty as the enemy, which prompted one faculty member to make the following comment to a reporter:
“we are not enemies—we are dedicated faculty who work in a very poor district because we care.”
Another source told us:
“Prior to [her] tenure in our district, we had reasonably good relationships with district administration. After [she] came (and went), multiple district administrators were hostile to us and left under litigious circumstances… . The district became hostile and non-collaborative under [her leadership].”
The hostility wasn’t subtle. According to one source, shortly after her hiring, Dr. Stanback Stroud indicated Peralta CCD’s faculty had a reputation for being strong and vocal, and implied she intended to bring them to heel. Another source described her conduct in shared governance meetings as consistently “downplaying the importance of Faculty Senate and faculty involvement.”
An article published on July 18, 2020, confirms some of these claims. According to the author, Ms. Jacquelyn Opalach:
“Stanback Stroud met pushback from faculty when she restricted district-wide access to the FAS email listserv in April, citing antiquated technology and a vitriolic culture. Faculty claimed the action restrained free speech and ‘created havoc’ in the district. On this occasion and others, Peralta community members have raised concerns about being excluded from administrative decisions that merited shared governance.”
The same article, in reference to a Board of Trustees meeting, states that trustees voiced “concerns about ‘continued hostility’ in governance” in reference to Dr. Stanback Stroud’s leadership.
One of our sources told us regarding Dr. Stanback Stroud:
“She tried to unilaterally implement a number of changes that were within the purview of bargaining and got annoyed and frustrated when we didn't simply agree.”
As one source described, Dr. Stanback Stroud’s leadership style was unapologetically confrontational and dismissive:
“On many occasions, [she] told us (and the community) that she didn't need us and that she would not be beholden to any community/staff/board input. She made it clear that Peralta CCD needed her more than she needed them. In July 2020 (in the midst of a global pandemic) [she] resigned with a very public letter that blamed the union among others for her failures.”
Educational researcher and consultant Dr. Michael Reiner summarized Dr. Stanback Stroud’s leadership philosophy bluntly in a comment he left on this article:
“My experience … was that, like Trump, she used alternative facts, spun narratives to suit her ideology, was inclined to silence speech she found ‘harassing,’ was criticized by employees for cronyism in hiring, and had a leadership philosophy which was best described as ‘my way or the highway.’”
After learning about Dr. Stanback Stroud’s current influence at the SCCCD through RSS Consulting, one source from Peralta CCD expressed dismay:
“I’m not at all surprised; that’s exactly what she did here. It’s disheartening that her consulting firm is now promoting the toxic belief that successful community college leadership requires blatant, overt, and frankly childish disrespect toward faculty.”
Dr. Stanback Stroud’s hostility extended beyond faculty. According to our sources, during her short tenure, district power dynamics shifted drastically toward the District office, weakening the individual colleges to the extent that three of the four college presidents resigned.
Her lasting legacy, according to another source, has been a weakened and intimidated Board of Trustees at Peralta CCD:
“The board basically ran scared and has not made appropriate and difficult decisions ever since - the board has essentially been in service of the chancellor instead of the other way around.”
According to reporting on her departure, Dr. Stanback Stroud attempted to install handpicked loyalists—cronies—into executive positions at Peralta CCD, but “the board overrode two of the chancellor’s choices…and tabled another five.” In response, Dr. Stanback Stroud accused the Board of interfering with her ability to execute her role. When she didn’t get her way, she abruptly resigned—after just ten months in the position.
If you’ve been reading our reporting—or simply paying attention to District dynamics—you’ve likely noticed the jaw-dropping similarities between Dr. Stanback Stroud’s tenure at Peralta CCD, and her mentee and disciple, Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership at SCCCD. The parallels are too many and too precise to be coincidence.
It appears that after departing Peralta CCD, Dr. Stanback Stroud brought her playbook of faculty hostility, unilateralism, disregard for shared governance, retaliatory behavior, and cronyism to the SCCCD—by way of coaching Chancellor Goldsmith and training District administrators to follow suit.
Once, the name Regina Stanback Stroud symbolized faculty advocacy. Today, it stands for anti-faculty bias and the normalization of administrative tyranny—wielding her former ASCCC presidency as both credential and cover. And Chancellor Goldsmith, her most loyal disciple and mentee, has executed that doctrine with chilling precision and perfection across the SCCCD.
2.3 The Cost!
To understand just how entangled RSS Consulting has become in SCCCD’s operations—and how much it’s costing taxpayers—we followed the money.
RSS Consulting was established in May 2019. Just a few months later, in October 2019, Dr. Stanback Stroud was appointed Chancellor of the Peralta CCD.
According to a few sources, while Dr. Stanback Stroud was the Chancellor at Peralta CCD, she was Chancellor Goldsmith’s “dear friend” and “mentor.” However, once Dr. Goldsmith became Chancellor, she negotiated Dr. Stanback Stroud and RSS Consulting into her contract by way of a coach. In a previous article, we reported how Chancellor Goldsmith’s contract included a “Chancellor Coach” clause, at the cost of $10,000 annually, with provisions for her to request additional coaching support directly from the Board. Well, that coach is Dr. Stanback Stroud. [image below]
According to the District’s Warrant and Check documents, since 2019, the SCCCD has paid RSS Consulting nearly $581,000—with the overwhelming majority of that spending occurring after Dr. Goldsmith’s appointment as Chancellor. [image below]
According to our sources, it was then-President Goldsmith who began lobbying the District to contract with RSS Consulting. Initially in 2019, 2020, and 2021, while Dr. Goldsmith was the President at Fresno City College (FCC), most contracts came from that college. But that changed dramatically after Dr. Goldsmith’s promotion to Chancellor in January 2022. Her friend and mentor’s firm became a District-wide staple. [image below]
Our sources confirm that Dr. Goldsmith personally pushed for RSS Consulting’s expansion across the District. Once she became Chancellor, the firm’s “trainings” rapidly spread from FCC to nearly every college and leadership tier across the SCCCD.
But that’s not all. When we totaled all purchase orders issued to RSS Consulting, the number was staggering: $880,380. That’s taxpayers funds—funneled to a private consulting firm with direct personal ties to Chancellor Goldsmith. Let that sink in. [image below]
We thought it might be helpful for readers to see, firsthand, some of the contract descriptions issued to RSS Consulting—just to get a clearer sense of how Chancellor Goldsmith has been directing taxpayer dollars to her close friend and mentor. [image below]
We would like to draw your attention to some particularly egregious line items from the list above:
Agreement C23-07-23: In 2023, the SCCCD awarded $76,500 to RSS Consulting to “provide coaching and professional development” to three Vice Presidents at Madera Community College (MCC). That’s $25,500 per person. Let us ask the obvious: What were the deliverables? What exactly were they “coached” to do? Pilot a plane? Defend a dissertation? This is an egregious misuse of public funds—a masterclass in how not to spend taxpayer money.
Agreement C23-08-15: The description reads “RSS Consulting…to provide profassional development services for MCC.” According to our sources, on August 21, 2023, RSS Consulting conducted an all-day Women in Leadership Cohort training at MCC. The date of event and date of the contract (August of 2023) lead us to believe Agreement C23-08-15, valued at $22,500 was the contract for this training. Nineteen women—administrators, faculty, and classified professionals—attended this “invitation only” event and notably, some female faculty leaders were excluded. During the training, trainees spent four hours learning about and “understanding” their Enneagram personality types, received tiles with designs to color, and were taught the importance of self-care—specifically as women. This account was confirmed by an email sent after the event by Vice President Dr. Marrie Harris, which stated: “Thank you again for participating in the Women in Leadership Cohort. It was an unforgettable experience. During our time together we were introduced to Enneagram, where we learned about the utility of our different personality styles and how we show up as leaders based on those preferred styles. We shared effective tools for self-care and preserving the love of what you do as leaders. And lastly, we explored ideas of purpose driven leadership.” Our sources described the training as “demeaning” and questioned whether male administrators are ever asked to color tiles, study personality charts, or be lectured about self-care. One attendee bluntly called it “a waste of time.” A five-hour training (from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. with a one-hour lunch break) at $22,500 comes out to nearly $1,200 per hour. For that price, shouldn’t leadership development go beyond personality quizzes and crayons?
Agreement C23-12-04: The description reads, “RFQ #2324-09 Equity Based Leadership Support and Development, Districtwide was publicly advertised to allow the district to establish a pool of qualified firms… These services are for equity-based leadership development of the Board of Trustees, district, and college leadership… Based on these evaluations, all five firms are recommended to be placed in the pool… These firms are as follows:
1st Class Educator, Cedar Hills, TX
California Creative Solutions Inc., Poway, CA
Eli Patrick & Co., Hartford, CO
KH Consulting Group, Los Angeles, CA
RSS Consulting LLC, Oakland, CA”
We reviewed every contract, purchase order, warrant, and check that the Board has approved—both before and after the approval of this item in 2023. Now, if you had to guess which of these five firms has actually received any work—any contract, any purchase order, any payment at all—from the SCCCD, what would your guess be? Yup. You guessed it…RSS Consulting. The only one.
In short: Dr. Goldsmith helped build the client. Then she became Chancellor—and turned that client into a District-funded juggernaut. It’s a textbook example of how cronyism translates directly into benefit for the crony and burden for the rest of us. It’s as if the SCCCD has become a purse—and Chancellor Goldsmith and her inner circle have found the perfect setup to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars, all at the expense of students, faculty, and classified professionals.
2.4. You Can’t Make This Up
While reviewing the District’s contracts with RSS Consulting, we came across two purchase orders that left even us speechless.
The first one was in December of 2024 when RSS Consulting was contracted for $37,500 to “facilitate Board evaluation process, support the execution of the Chancellor’s evaluation process, and provide support and guidance to the Chancellor in the evaluation process.” [image below]
And the second one in April of 2025 when RSS Consulting was contracted for $39,500 to “develop, execute, analyze, and report board evaluation process; facilitate the board retreat and follow-up study session to present evaluation outcomes; and support execution of the Chancellor’s Evaluation Process.” [image below]
According to these two contract, RSS Consulting—led by Chancellor Goldsmith’s coach, mentor, and close personal friend, Dr. Stanback Stroud—is being paid $77,000 to among other, facilitate Chancellor Goldsmith’s evaluation.
Let that sink in: the very person who profits significantly from District contracts—courtesy of Chancellor Goldsmith—is also responsible for facilitating the Board’s evaluation of that same Chancellor. It’s hard to characterize this as anything but an incestuous arrangement: Chancellor Goldsmith funnels lucrative contracts to her coach and mentor’s firm, and in return, that same firm and the same person oversees her performance evaluation. And as we have demonstrated above, RSS Consulting is paid handsomely for the favor. This isn’t just a conflict of interest—it’s textbook self-dealing, and it deserves its own chapter in the growing catalog of corruption, cronyism, and ethical collapse under Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership.
3. “Collegiality in Action” or Administrative Tyranny Training?
The central focus of our investigation is an event deceptively named “Collegiality in Action,” organized by Chancellor Goldsmith. According to our sources, this event or anything like it has no precedent at the District before her tenure. The latest session occurred on March 26, 2025, marking the third in the series—the first two taking place during Chancellor Goldsmith’s “Carole-Con” conferences in August 2023 and August 2024. Although we previously reported on RSS Consulting’s involvement at Carole-Con, we did not learn about the troubling nature of these sessions until after our initial coverage.
3.1. What Is “Collegiality in Action”?
Multiple sources have independently described the Collegiality in Action sessions as thinly-veiled attempts by Chancellor Goldsmith to demean faculty leaders, systematically downplaying the role of Academic Senates, legitimizing the silencing of faculty voices, while empowering administrators to ignore or exclude faculty leaders from decisions.
More and more administrators are beginning to see Chancellor Goldsmith as a fraud and a destructive leader. How do we know? Because even administrators in attendance informed us that these so-called trainings are a farce for Chancellor Goldsmith to further expand her powers by brow-beating faculty leaders.
All three Collegiality in Action sessions (2023, 2024, and 2025) were designed and facilitated by Dr. Stanback Stroud. According to multiple attendees, each of the three involved scenario-based exercises crafted by Dr. Stanback Stroud and Chancellor Goldsmith. Participants were presented with hypothetical situations to determine if Academic Senates had the right to participate in governance decisions or if administrators could act unilaterally.
Reportedly, at the first two training sessions during Carole-Cons in 2023 and 2024, none of the scenarios required the administration to consult faculty. Consistently, the message was clear to the attendants: administration can—and should—do whatever it wants without faculty involvement. Such training actively promotes an anti-faculty mindset among administrators, the primary participants of these sessions.
Beyond the troubling philosophy and intent behind these sessions, the specific events at the most recent training warrant closer scrutiny.
3.2. Collegiality in Action on March 26, 2025
The third and most recent Collegiality in Action session—another so-called “training” orchestrated by Chancellor Goldsmith—was held on Wednesday, March 26, 2025.
According to our sources, there were about 20 administrators and 5 faculty in attendance. Attendees included District leadership, college presidents, several vice presidents from each campus, and select faculty from each Academic Senate (one or two from each except MCC). The session was facilitated by RSS Consulting—more specifically, by Dr. Stanback Stroud herself.
Only a handful of faculty were present at the event, and—perhaps understandably—we had a difficult time getting information from them. What did surprise us, however, was who did reach out: administrators who attended the session. The events they described were so alarming, they felt compelled to speak out. And what they told us was nothing short of astonishing.
The event wasn’t just another anti-faculty indoctrination session—it included targeted disparagements that cannot go unaddressed.
3.2.I. The Open letter
According to multiple sources, Dr. Stanback Stroud has criticized our open letter to the Fresno City College presidential candidates in disparaging and derogatory terms. Her contemptuous remarks not only disregard the legitimate concerns of faculty, classified professionals, administrators, and the community but also underscore the toxic culture of administrative arrogance that RSS Consulting and Chancellor Goldsmith have cultivated within the SCCCD.
Dr. Stanback Stroud also questioned who would want to apply to FCC in the face of a letter like that. Let’s be clear: it isn’t our open letter that dissuades candidates from coming to the SCCCD. It’s the corruption, cronyism, and retaliation fostered under Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership. Blaming us, faculty, classified professionals, Academic Senates, Classified Senates, the SCFT, or the CSEA for the SCCCD’s damaged reputation is intellectually dishonest and politically convenient. Instead of pointing fingers at us, it might be more prudent to interrogate the systemic failures perpetuated by the administration, specifically Chancellor Goldsmith, that gave rise to the widespread discontent with the administration and our coalition. But we also recognize that self-reflection is a skill despots and megalomaniacal leaders rarely possess.
We hope that Dr. Stanback Stroud’s few moments of cathartic expression were worth our undivided attention to her and her company.
3.2.II. Faculty Have No Role in Policy
During the Collegiality in Action session, Dr. Stanback Stroud allegedly declared that faculty have no role in developing policy—a claim so absurd it would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. Not only is it false, she must know it to be false. After all, she served as President of the ASCCC for two years. But $880,000 in purchase orders and contracts has a curious way of reshaping reality and getting just about anyone to say just about anything.
We verified with many statewide leaders that her alleged assertion that faculty have no role in policy development to be patently false. Under California Education Code §70902(b)(7), Title 5 regulations §§53200–53207, and the SCCCD’s own BP 2510 and AR 2510, the Academic Senates must be involved and sometimes relied primarily upon in policy development and recommendation for anything related to the 10+1 rights of the Academic Senate. This is also part of the ACCJC accreditation standard 4. That is the minimum requirement and the floor of how much the Academic Senates must be involved.
But why would Dr. Stanback Stroud allegedly make a claim so blatantly false? The answer lies in a quiet but calculated power grab that Chancellor Goldsmith has been orchestrating for the past two years: consolidating power away from the Board of Trustees and into her own office. Stay with us—because what follows explains everything.
One source informed us that the latest Collegiality in Action session was scheduled because Chancellor Goldsmith believed faculty supposedly needed to be “educated” on 10+1. So, naturally, RSS Consulting was brought in to “shape them up.” Why? As a direct response to two developments:
The events at MCC, which we’ve previously reported on; [1] [2] and
A resolution passed unanimously by all four Academic Senates, condemning Chancellor Goldsmith’s attempt to consolidate power by altering Board Policies to shift authority away from the Board to herself.
The resolution that was approved by the Academic Senates is below [image below]:
The fourth “WHEREAS” of the resolution states:
“[T]he Academic Senates of Clovis Community College, Fresno City College, Madera Community College, and Reedley College have consistently rejected languages [sic] changes in BPs… that centralizes authority with the Chancellor and can be interpreted as senates agreeing to limiting proper collegial consultation.”
Why has Chancellor Goldsmith been attempting to rewrite Board Policies to shift power away from the Board of Trustees and concentrate it in her own office? Two reasons—both textbook tactics of authoritarian leadership:
Despots consolidate power when they come into office, and Chancellor Goldsmith is no exception; and
By weakening the Board’s authority, she sidesteps the consultation requirements triggered when decisions intersect with the Academic Senates’ “10+1” rights. That allows her to erode the rights of the Academic Senates even more than she has.
These policy changes are not routine bureaucratic updates—they are part of a calculated strategy to marginalize faculty voices and dismantle shared governance. Faculty leaders are rightfully alarmed. And so are we.
Every faculty member should be outraged and deeply concerned. For that matter, the Board of Trustees should be outraged as well—because their own employee is actively siphoning power away from them. Chancellor Goldsmith isn’t just undermining faculty—she’s undermining the Board itself.
3.2.III. Asking a Faculty Leader to Leave
We’ve been informed that during the Collegiality in Action session, President-elect of the FCC Academic Senate, Ms. Karla Kirk, challenged Dr. Stanback Stroud’s assertion that faculty have no role in policy development. What followed, according to multiple sources, was a heated exchange. Shortly after, Ms. Kirk was asked to leave by FCC Interim President Dr. Kim Armstrong.
Some sources claim Dr. Armstrong acted out of concern for Ms. Kirk’s protection—which raises the question: if retaliation against faculty leaders weren’t so pervasive, would Ms. Kirk even need to be protected? Others told us that she was removed for daring to speak up. We have a policy of giving good administrators the benefit of the doubt—but Dr. Armstrong may be venturing into unsavory territory. Only time will tell. Whatever the reason for Dr. Armstrong’s actions, the result is the same: a respected faculty leader was ejected from a so-called Collegiality in Action session for defending faculty rights. This would be ironic, if it weren’t so tragic.
This is not an isolated incident. Under Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership, this pattern has become routine—faculty leaders who fulfill their roles assigned to them by their peers are retaliated against, marginalized, and silenced. The goal is clear: dismantle the power of the Academic Senates and the SCFT by targeting their leaders.
There are too many examples to call it a coincidence and yes—we will be reporting on them. Stay tuned.
3.2.IV. Faculty don’t care about students?
During the March 26 Collegiality in Action session, several administrators reportedly blamed the Academic Senates and their leadership for our work—insinuating that they are the ones feeding us information, and, more disturbingly, that faculty “don’t care about students.”
We receive information from employees at every level including administrators, faculty, classified professionals, and even student assistants. We also get information from every location including closed Board sessions, the District office, colleges, and centers. We have a strict policy of neither confirming nor denying our sources or members, and that will not change. However, we say this: When an authoritarian regime starts crumbling under the weight of its own corruption and cronyism, it will find a vulnerable group to blame for working with the “outside enemy” as a justification for persecution of that group. Chancellor Goldsmith is no exception.
With that said, we need to address the narrative that faculty don’t care about students. This claim is so absurd, so insulting, and so revealing, that it demands a full-throated response.
Chancellor Goldsmith and her cronies regularly trot out this line—accusing faculty of indifference or obstruction—whenever legitimate concerns are raised.
It is a spin tactic, a distraction, a shield thrown up to protect a crumbling administration.
It is a tired and worn-out talking point from an increasingly desperate regime.
And it is a tactic that says far more about the accuser than it ever could about the accused.
The idea that faculty, who dedicate their careers to teaching, mentoring, and serving students, don’t care about them—while a career administrator with little to no real classroom experience like Chancellor Goldsmith presumes to hold the moral high ground—is as ironic as it is offensive.
Faculty don’t enter this profession for power, prestige, or political favor. They do it because they care. They care deeply. They care relentlessly. They care even when the system they work in is stacked against them. They care even when their voices are silenced. They care even when they are maligned by the very leadership that is supposed to support them. Classified professionals are no different—except they’re afforded even less power within the institution. Yet they show up every day with the same commitment to students, often without recognition or voice.
Chancellor Goldsmith, on the other hand, has built her legacy on retaliation, mismanagement, cronyism, and spin. Her disdain for shared governance, particularly faculty voices, her vendettas against those who speak up, her refusal to engage faculty leaders—those are the actions of someone disconnected from students, not devoted to them. And if you want proof, look no further than the tragic case of Spencer Irwin—a student whose life was cut short.
The classroom is the beating heart of any institution of learning. It is where education concentrates. It is where change happens. It is where student dreams are built, nurtured, and realized. Faculty understand that…Faculty live that… Faculty are that!
No amount of PR spin, no slick one-liners from a stage, no manipulative framing from the Chancellor’s office, nor friendly reporting by YourCentralValley.Com can change this fact: faculty will always care more—by bounds, by miles, by magnitudes—about students than Chancellor Goldsmith and her corruption-ridden administration ever have, ever could, or ever will. So if you’re looking for people who don’t care about students, you may want to stop looking in classrooms—and start looking at the Chancellor’s Office.
3.2.V. Bragging About Firing Faculty
According to multiple sources, Chancellor Goldsmith brags about how many tenured faculty members she has fired. At first, we didn’t believe it—who would proudly boast about something so destructive? But after several independent sources confirmed the same claim, it became impossible to ignore.
Hiring and training faculty is costly. So is firing them. Almost every terminated faculty member must be replaced, and almost every one of them seeks legal action. So why would Chancellor Goldsmith take pride in firing so many? The answer became clearer during the Collegiality in Action session on March 26. According to sources, Dr. Stanback Stroud stated she “would have also fired Erin [Heasley] ‘for the things she pulled’ and bragged about how many tenured faculty she had fired when she was college president or chancellor.”
It is now clear that Chancellor Goldsmith has learned well from her mentor, coach, and close friend, Dr. Stanback Stroud. The glorification of terminating tenured educators is part of a shared philosophy. A dangerous one. One that undermines morale, destroys careers, costs taxpayers millions of dollars, and devastates the institutions meant to serve students.
And where is the Board of Trustees in all of this? They sign off on her destructive decisions and recommendations. And when things go wrong, Chancellor Goldsmith blames them. Under oath, during the hearing in front of the Administrative Law Judge regarding the second firing of Mr. Edward Madec, Chancellor Goldsmith was asked who made the decision to fire him. Her response? She blamed the Board. Repeatedly. Her relentless refusal to take responsibility is staggering to us. This is a leader who brags about retaliation, but takes no responsibility when the consequences come calling. A leader who deflects blame, ducks accountability, and hides behind the very Trustees who rubber-stamp her reign. A leader who has no problem sacrificing lower administrators if it would mean she can get what she wants.
It’s despicable. It’s expensive. And it’s exactly what administrative tyranny looks like. It’s also cowardice—because like all bullies, she hides when it counts. And all bullies are cowards.
3.2.VI. The Board Meeting
At the April 1, 2025 Board of Trustees meeting, Fresno City College Academic Senate President Michael Takeda delivered a heartfelt speech. His remarks came in direct response to the insinuations that faculty don’t care about students—a claim so vile it demanded a response not just in words, but in truth. Watch closely when you view the video. Witness the moment Mr. Takeda chokes up while describing the deep, unshakeable love faculty have for their students—a love born of service, not status. [video below]
As he spoke, faculty stood silently in the audience, holding signs that read:
“FCC Loves Students.”
[image below]
It was a powerful protest—a direct rebuttal to an abhorrent narrative, made all the more absurd by what happened next. The administration, in a move that underscores just how disconnected they are from the sentiments of faculty and staff, posted an image depicting their protest on their official social media—completely oblivious to the fact that it was a protest against their own actions and rhetoric. You can't make this up! [image below]
To the faculty and classified professionals of the SCCCD:
We hear you.
We see you.
We stand with you.
Your courage, compassion, and unwavering dedication to students are the beating heart of this District. And we will continue to do everything we can to help you reclaim this institution from the rot of mismanagement, retaliation, and corruption—for the sake of our students, our colleagues, and our collective future.
3. Connections
We’ve uncovered connections between several candidates and prospective employees and RSS Consulting or Dr. Stanback Stroud. It’s important that they understand this clearly: we know—and we’re watching.
3.1. President-Select Whisenhunt
Just before publishing this story, Chancellor Goldsmith announced Dr. Denise Whisenhunt as the next President of FCC.
Congratulations, Dr. Whisenhunt! We genuinely and desperately want to be optimistic about your leadership. But Chancellor Goldsmith’s well-documented pattern of hiring cronies and sycophants tempers our optimism significantly. What deepens our concern even more is what we uncovered during our research: your connection to Dr. Stanback Stroud. For all the reasons outlined above, that’s a red flag.
If your leadership style mirrors the administrative tyranny of Dr. Stanback Stroud at Peralta CCD—or Chancellor Goldsmith here at SCCCD—then let us be very clear: we’ll be ready on day one. But the opposite is also true: if you prove to be a great administrator, we will be your strongest ally. Well—that is, if Chancellor Goldsmith doesn’t fire you first. After all, the motto for administrators at the SCCCD is: fawn or perish.
One sentence from our open letter to you bears repeating:
“Unlike many administrators who were involuntarily swept into this regime, you are actively choosing to step into it. That makes your decision—and your responsibility—entirely different.”
We’ll be watching. Closely.
And just so there’s no confusion—these public forum statements are now etched permanently in digital record. You can’t walk them back later, and you can’t pretend they were never said. [video below]
As we warned in our open letter:
“This is what true public scrutiny looks like, and we promise to hold you accountable for every decision you make.”
Getting the job doesn’t eliminate your burden of proving to us, the FCC, and the SCCCD community that you are the right choice.
3.2. Dr. Dwayne Hunt
Dr. Dwayne Hunt is amongst the finalists for the position of Vice President of Equity and Institutional Effectiveness at MCC. But here’s the catch: Dr. Hunt is also a consultant for RSS Consulting. [image below]
Given the MCC administration’s bleak track record—marked by deplorable violations of Academic Senate rights, retaliatory leadership, and multiple votes of no confidence against administrators—bringing someone from RSS Consulting onto campus is a recipe for disaster. And rest assured, we’ll be watching—and reporting—on every one of those disasters.
3.3. Administrative Minimum Qualifications
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Chancellor Goldsmith might be using RSS Consulting as an administrative farm: Dr. Stanback Stroud recruits and indoctrinates them in administrative tyranny, and then Chancellor Goldsmith hires them into leadership roles. Apparently, the road to Chancellor Goldsmith’s administration runs straight through RSS Consulting and Dr. Stanback Stroud. We should probably add that to our job announcements at SCCCD—or better yet, add this to the minimum qualifications for all administrative positions:
“-RSS Consulting affiliation or connection to Dr. Stanback Stroud required.”
Even though this article primarily focuses on Dr. Stanback Stroud and RSS Consulting, we need to be clear about one thing: Knowing Chancellor Goldsmith’s pattern of deflecting blame, she might try to use RSS Consulting and Dr. Stanback Stroud as yet another scapegoat. But the fault lies squarely at Chancellor Goldsmith’s feet—for selecting them—and with the Board of Trustees—for rubber-stamping her decisions and allowing her to operate without the slightest guardrail.
A word of advice to Dr. Stanback Stroud: We suggest you stop disparaging us and our faculty. Our research runs far deeper than what’s been published here. If you think this article reflects the full extent of what we’ve uncovered, think again. We’ve left a few proverbial arrows in the quiver. As a preview: Does the name Dr. Siri Brown—one of your firm’s consultants—and her history ring a bell?
4. A Word for the Board
It is nothing short of disgraceful that you have abdicated your fundamental responsibility: overseeing Chancellor Goldsmith, your primary employee. The halls of the SCCCD’s colleges echo with the urgent question that is growing louder each day:
Why isn’t the Board doing anything?
You were elected to represent the public interest, yet you have ignored escalating calls for accountability, the collapse of employee morale, and widespread dysfunction, all driven by Chancellor Goldsmith and her unethical cronies. How many more stories about her failures, mismanagement, retaliations, and cronyism do you need to believe what nearly all District employees have known for so long? How many employees who were wrongly terminated or retaliated against must file lawsuits for you to act? We intend to find out. We strongly recommend that you re-evaluate your legal budget for the year—because Chancellor Goldsmith’s recklessness has a growing number of people looking for attorneys.
You may take comfort in your Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that paint a rosy picture—but they fail to measure some important metrics: employee morale, trust, and respect for leadership. And those metrics, under Chancellor Goldsmith’s toxic leadership, are at historic lows—with consequences that inevitably impact our students. In fact, what the KPIs really show is this: faculty and classified professionals are succeeding not because of the administration’s leadership, but in spite of it.
You are allowing Chancellor Goldsmith to play Jenga with the District. You may think she’s building something—but in reality, she’s pulling blocks from the foundation—employee morale, trust, and satisfaction—and weakening the entire structure. And like any Jenga tower, the District may appear stable—until one move triggers a catastrophic collapse. That collapse is coming. And when it does, you will be to blame—for turning away when we showed you the tremor. The tremor that is Chancellor Goldsmith’s mismanagement, cronyism, silencing, and retaliation.
We urge the SCFT and CSEA leaders to conduct surveys measuring their members’ perceptions of the performance of Chancellor Goldsmith and the Board.
As a stark reminder, here were your grades from the last SCFT leaders survey (on a 4.0 scale):
The Board of Trustees: 1.70
Chancellor Goldsmith: 1.75
College Presidents: 2.27
Academic Senate Presidents: 3.23
Faculty Union President: 3.39
We confidently predict the next survey will show even more alarming results, especially now that over 1,500 readers—mostly SCCCD employees—read our investigative pieces in full. That’s not clicks—that’s scrolling to the end of the article. Conservatively, 1,000 SCCCD employees now clearly understand Chancellor Goldsmith’s authoritarian leadership style, retaliatory actions, financial recklessness, disregard for student safety, and systemic suppression of dissenting voices. Worse yet, employees know that you, the Trustees, have chosen silence and inaction. Your indifference sends an unmistakable message that faculty, staff, and students are expendable to you. As we reported in one of our articles, Trustee Johnson inadvertently highlighted your priorities when in an email she prioritized "the District's relationships with partners and all of our many projects" over student safety and employee welfare. Students like Spencer Irwin, who should be alive today!
By now, you are well-acquainted with our track record: we make promises—and we keep them. So here’s our next commitment: Many of you see your current role on the SCCCD Board as nothing more than a stepping-stone to higher political office. But if you attempt to climb without first addressing the crisis you’ve helped create at the SCCCD, we will follow your political trajectory—every step of the way.
We will continue to document your failures at every new seat of power you seek. We have the team, infrastructure, and rapidly growing reach to guarantee that your record of negligence and complicity continues to be exposed. It will follow you—indefinitely.
Trustees Parra and Fuentes—you and your colleagues have proven you can’t manage a community college district. And yet, one of you is now running for the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and the other for the Fresno City Council? There is no escaping us. We will follow you and we promise you that your decisions on those future bodies will be under far greater scrutiny by us.
Trustees, if you think we’ve reached the limit of our efforts to hold you accountable, think again—this is merely another step in the long line of escalations we have planned. The ball remains in your court—but remember, every day of inaction drives more of your allies to our side.
Do the right thing—and end this charade. Fire Chancellor Goldsmith at your upcoming Board Retreat.
Or don’t—and watch as we publish story after story, exposing the District’s mismanagement to an ever-growing audience. The choice is yours. The spotlight isn’t going anywhere. And it may follow you—for the rest of your political career.
Some of our members are starting to develop a taste for this work—the work of exposing corruption. And that should concern you. There will come a point when our offer to walk away—if you fire Chancellor Goldsmith—will be removed from the table. You are dangerously close to that point. Imagine us, looming over the shoulder of every administrator, indefinitely, watching…listening…and publishing every misstep. Maybe that’s what our District needs. Maybe then, the culture will finally shift.
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 - RSS Consulting - Dr. Regina Stanback Stroud