Destroying Lives Funded by the Taxpayers: Chapter 1
Chapter 1: Mr. Edward Madec's Criminal Case
Preamble
We initially set out to tell this story from the beginning, but its sheer complexity and staggering twists demand a different approach. Instead, we start at the end—where the consequences are unfolding in real time. Yesterday, February 3, 2025, marks the first day of Mr. Edward Madec’s hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). He is fighting—once again—to reclaim his job after the State Center Community College District (SCCCD) fired him for a second time. In Part 2 of this series, we will revisit his first termination, which was deemed unlawful by three courts. This article focuses exclusively on the criminal case against him.
End of a Nightmare, Beginning of Another
On Tuesday, January 28, 2025, Honorable Brian Alvarez delivered a verdict that ended a nightmare for Mr. Madec—and started one for Chancellor Goldsmith and the SCCCD. Judge Alvarez dismissed the criminal case against Mr. Madec, which involved two felony charges of “Criminal Threats” and “Threatening a Public Official”. The Public Official in question was Chancellor Goldsmith.
Why does this mark the beginning of a nightmare for Chancellor Goldsmith and the District? Because the conduct of the District, its agents, and its employees throughout this case will almost certainly lead to a lawsuit that could cost the SCCCD millions of dollars to litigate or settle. We think by the end of this article you would agree with us on this point. This would be yet another multi-million-dollar expense added to an already exorbitant legal budget—one funded by taxpayers—all because of Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership and her personal vendettas.
The criminal case against Mr. Madec played out across multiple hearings—August 22, 2024, January 24, and January 28, 2025. At first, even we struggled to believe what our sources told us. But once we obtained the court transcripts, the picture became clear: Chancellor Goldsmith allegedly orchestrated a campaign to ruin Mr. Madec’s life, using her position, SCCCD’s legal team, and taxpayer funds to take away his job, his livelihood, and nearly his freedom. The next time you hear Chancellor Goldsmith speak about “kindness”—a word she wields like a shield to deflect from her actions—remember this article. What happened to Mr. Madec isn’t just his story; it’s a warning to everyone at SCCCD.
When we first received the District’s email about Mr. Madec’s arrest, most of us dismissed him as a controversial figure—a cautionary tale and a madman. We were wrong. And if you think you know this story, by the end of this article, you’ll be infuriated—not just by what happened to him, but by what it reveals about the unchecked power wielded by Chancellor Goldsmith.
Chancellor Goldsmith doesn’t just retaliate—she weaponizes SCCCD’s vast resources, taxpayer dollars, and political connections to systematically destroy those who dare to stand in her way. Her win-at-all-cost mindset coupled with her access to vast resources of the District, her connections, and the Board's rubber-stamping attitude towards her decisions creates a dangerous leader. At this point, the SCCCD Board of Trustees’ refusal to act is nothing short of dereliction of duty. They cannot feign ignorance and by keeping Chancellor Goldsmith in power, they are complicit.
The Criminal Case
The case of People of the State of California vs. Edward Madec (Case No. F23907527) is one that, according to Honorable Brian Alvarez:
in a lot of ways, doesn't pass the smell test, frankly. There's something going on here that is above and beyond your normal garden-variety criminal case.
Dictionary.com defines the “smell test” as an “instinctive assessment of whether someone or something is ethical and genuine or deceptive and corrupt”. This is likely the closest you’ll get to a judge saying the case against Mr. Madec was not ethical or genuine but instead deceptive and corrupt.
Telling the story of a case this complex is no easy task. Last week, we obtained the critical documents in this case and since then, we have worked tirelessly to piece together the full picture. Some details may seem overwhelming at first, but we urge you to stay with us—every piece fits into a larger pattern. By the end, it will all make sense. As Galileo once wrote: “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them”.
What Happened?
At the core of this case is a statement made by Mr. Madec while lecturing in class. However, no two witnesses who testified at the hearing provided the same account of what transpired that day. The testimonies were riddled with contradictions, making it impossible to establish a clear narrative. Based on the transcripts of the hearings, we can identify the following undisputed facts:
Mr. Madec taught a class on Tuesday, August 15, 2023, at 9:00 AM at Fresno City College.
During his lecture, he made a statement about his previous lawsuit with the SCCCD. However, none of the witnesses who testified in court against him agreed on the exact wording.
<Student 1> who had missed the first week of class and was attending for the first time on that day, perceived a threatening statement towards school officials. She spoke with her stepmother but we couldn't determine when she did. We will return to her stepmother later in this article.
According to <Student 1>, she emailed her counselor three days later, on Friday, August 18, 2023, and met with him on Monday, August 21, 2023.
A SCCCD Police Officer, Kallee Olivas, contacted some of the students on August 22, 2023, conducted an investigation, and wrote a police report.
Officer Olivas who conducted the investigation testified twice in court. The first time on August 22, 2024 and then on January 28, 2025. We have provided both hearings’ transcripts for you. They are very long so we have provided some of the pertinent parts of the testimony throughout this article. However, we encourage you to read the first transcript. It is the testimony of Officer Olivas.
The transcript of the hearing on August 22, 2024 is below (84 pages):
The combined transcript of the hearings on January 24 and 28, 2025 is below (226 pages):
Note: We have meticulously verified this information multiple times. Legal professionals, including multiple attorneys, have confirmed that court transcripts are public records unless explicitly sealed by the court. This includes the names of students who testified in this case. With this foundation established, let’s delve into the investigation.
The Investigation
The investigator assigned to this case was Officer Kallee Olivas of the SCCCD Police Department. According to her testimony, she previously worked for the Reedley Police Department for four years before joining the SCCCD Police Department. At the time of her testimony, she had been a sworn officer for five years.
Officer Olivas testified that she was trained in criminal investigations, evidence collection, and report writing. When asked in both hearings whether she had been taught about exculpatory evidence, she affirmed, “Yes”. She also testified that she had investigated between five and ten criminal threat cases before. You should keep this information in mind while reading her testimony.
We highly recommend that you read the 84-page transcript of the hearing on August 22, 2024. Most of the transcript is the testimony of Officer Olivas. Reading the transcript will make it clear to you, as it did to us, that something nefarious happened in this case. Furthermore, if you appreciate courtroom drama and revel in Perry Mason-style moments, you’ll find this exchange particularly compelling.
However, several points demand your attention. During the examination by Mr. Carroll, who is Mr. Madec’s attorney, Officer Olivas agreed that the alleged threat by Mr. Madec was “cobbled together” by her through a “sloppy investigation”.
Even more concerning, Officer Olivas admitted to selectively omitting exculpatory evidence from her report—simply because she didn’t deem it relevant or important. The most striking example of this omission was the exclusion of testimony from a retired probation officer who explicitly stated she did not hear anything that could be interpreted as a threat. It stands to reason, a retired sworn peace officer knows a threat when she hears it.
This was not an isolated incident. Out of the 12 students she interviewed, Officer Olivas included only four in her report—the four who made accusatory statements. Seven witnesses, whose statements contained exculpatory evidence, were left out. Most of them reported that they heard nothing alarming or threatening. This deliberate omission raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation and whether the case was built on a predetermined conclusion rather than factual evidence.
We invite you to ponder why would Officer Olivas—an officer with five years of experience and multiple criminal threat investigations—conduct an inquiry so riddled with inconsistencies and omissions?
The Complaint
We simply couldn't believe when we learned that Mr. Douglas Haas, a Sr. Deputy District Attorney, signed the complaint against Mr. Madec while he was also a part-time faculty at Fresno City College.
While this appears to be a conflict of interest, additionally, according to a court filings by Mr. Madec’s attorney, Mr. Haas made his decision to file the charges,
despite his obvious conflict after only reviewing Officer Olivas’s four page police report. Mr. Haas apparently ignored all the red flags, including the bolded statements at the top of the page 2. *** Body camera was activated during this call for service***. He also ignored the mention of two students who gave exculpatory statements in the report, the multitude of problems with the basic elements of the crime, the one week time gap in reporting and the multitude of other red flags and problems.
Mr. Carroll further explains through his filing that,
No recorded statements were reviewed, even though every single witness was recorded. In fact, there were almost twice as many witnesses (7) who gave exculpatory statements. It is outrageous and frightening to think an agency that has the power to incarcerate, convict and destroy a person's life would act so recklessly. Especially considering Mr. Madec was out of custody and already on administrative leave.
We invite you to ponder why would Mr. Haas, despite a clear conflict of interest, sign off on a complaint given the glaring problems and circumstances surrounding the case?
The Arrest
Our sources informed us that Mr. Madec’s arrest was also precarious. Mr. Madec was arrested on Oct 13, 2023, two months after the date of the alleged threat, in Merced County by the Los Banos Police Department after he came in contact with an officer for a routine traffic stop. We were able to obtain the arresting officer’s report.
Mr. Madec was stopped and the officer checked his name against the Wanted Persons System, which alerted the officer of an active felony warrant out of Fresno County. Mr. Madec was placed under arrest without incident and his Apple iPhone was sized as evidence. Mr. Madec even provided the lock code to the officers which our sources tell us without it, the investigators couldn’t have possibly accessed the data (Apple has won multiple cases against law enforcement on this issue). When the officer contacted the SCCCD Police Department’s investigators, they briefed him on the matter. He found probable cause for the search of Mr. Madec’s vehicle. Mr. Madec also gave the officers consent to search his vehicle. No weapon was found on him or in his vehicle. They towed his car and booked him in the Los Banos City Jail. This is where things take a disturbing turn.
According to our sources, Mr. Madec actually paid Eight Ball bail bonds to bail him out the same day on October 13, 2023. However, according to our sources, allegedly after his release and while he was still in the building, Officer Michael Allison from the SCCCD Police Department showed up abruptly. Officer Allison reportedly asked Mr. Madec a series of questions about why he hates the Chancellor, then handcuffed him again. According to our sources, the dispatcher at the Los Banos City Jail allegedly told the officer, “Let him walk. He is not dangerous. We searched him”. She allegedly went on to say, “What are you doing? You know this is wrong and you can’t do this”. Officer Allison allegedly told the dispatcher, “Stay out of it. This is our jurisdiction and I’m taking orders from above”. The dispatcher allegedly rolled her eyes in response.
Sources familiar with the issue told us, Officer Allison, drove Mr. Madec back to Fresno, drove through the Fresno City College campus and then to the Fresno County Jail in downtown Fresno. We are told that the bail through Eight Ball bail bonds was squashed and they refunded the money on October 15, 2023. Mr. Madec had to bail out from the Fresno County Jail.
We invite you to ponder why would Officer Allison drive all the way to Los Banos, allegedly override a bail release, re-arrest Mr. Madec two months after the incident, and assert, “Stay out of it. This is our jurisdiction and I’m taking orders from above”?
“Witness Tampering”?
On Tuesday, January 28, 2025, during <Student 2>’s testimony and in response to a question from Mr. Carroll, who represented Mr. Madec, the following exchange ensued (Q represents question from Mr. Carroll and A represents an answer from <Student 2>):
Q: Thank you. Did you review anything before coming to court today?
A: Last time I reviewed something was yesterday.
Q: Okay. And what was that that you reviewed?
A: I had reviewed over some documents that had been, um, sent by someone from S.C.C.C.D.
Q: From where?
A: S.C.C.C.D., the campus police.
Q: Okay. And what was that that you reviewed?
A: It was a document regarding my previous statement.
Q: So, it was a police report?
A: Somewhat, yes.
Q: Okay. And did you speak to Mr. McClaskey?
A: I did not, no.
After Mr. Carroll finished his questioning, Judge Alvarez (THE COURT) asked <Student 2>:
THE COURT: Okay. I've got some questions for you I'm going to ask you on this.
THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.
THE COURT: Did you say that the State Center Community College Police Department gave you police reports about a week ago?
THE WITNESS: It -- um, I have it on my phone. I wouldn't know if it's called a police report, but it was a document. I was spoken to yesterday, I gave my statement -- or excuse me, my testimony and I received that last night around 10:00 p.m.
THE COURT: How did that come to be where you received that document in that manner?
THE WITNESS: Um, so a woman named Yesenia had reached out to me. We had a brief conversation around ten or so minutes. That was yesterday around 2:00. And then she sent me the documents last night through text message around 10:00 p.m.
THE COURT: And initially when this incident was alleged to have happened, you didn't report it to the campus police?
THE WITNESS: I did not report it, no. Someone had reached out to me.
THE COURT: All right, thank you. Anyone have any further questions on this issue?
MR. MCCLASKEY: No.
MR. CARROLL: I do actually. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Mr. Carroll then questioned <Student 2> again:
Q: Do you know who this Yesenia was?
A: I just know her as "Yesenia." That's who it was. Her name's Yesenia and I believe she worked for the police department or something to do with the campus police.
Q: And you didn't request it, she contacted you?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Let me -- that's two questions. So, you never requested it?
A: Correct.
Q: So, she contacted you?
A: Correct.
Q: And she asked you if you wanted it?
A: If I wanted what, sorry?
Q: The -- a copy of the police report.
A: Um, no. It -- it wasn't a police report. It's a document. And I have it on hand. But she -- all she needed was my signature to ensure that I was giving the information what I knew.
Q: And -- do you have your phone on you right now?
A: I do, yes.
MR. CARROLL: Your Honor, can we approach and look at --and see what he has on his phone?
THE COURT: Sure. Why don't you go ahead and pull it up. Counsel can approach and why don't you let them observe that.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you, <Student 2>.
THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.
MR. CARROLL: And just so you know, <Student 2>, you have done nothing wrong. We're just –
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
THE COURT: Yeah, I want you to know that too. Just go ahead and show both attorneys what you have.
THE WITNESS: See, Yesenia, she sent me over the document. And then all I had to do was sign it. And here it is signed. And that is just my statement.
MR. CARROLL: This is from the civil attorney, Judge. The civil attorneys sent -- it's tampering with a criminal witness.
THE COURT: Well, that's not -- that issue is not before me. If there's a civil case pending, I don't know -- so, Yesenia sent you this document?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Noted for the record. And, Counsel, it looks to the Court that it is some kind of a pleading of some type. Noted.
MR. MCCLASKEY: Your Honor, just for the record, I did not know about that until right now.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, this was just recent. This was last -- yesterday, I was first called around 2:00 p.m. and then they sent over the document around 10:00 p.m.
THE COURT: Can I see it again?
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Like, the text message or the document?
THE COURT: Is there a text message too?
THE WITNESS: Uh, yes, that's all it is. That's all it states. And you can go ahead and grab it if it's easier.
THE COURT: Do you want to approach Counsel to see these texts also? It purports to be from the attorney Yesenia Carrillo, so you can approach.
MR. CARROLL: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Anything further of this witness?
MR. CARROLL: Judge, I would ask that the text messages and the email be printed out and become part of the record. I don't think it's appropriate for a civil attorney to be texting and sending emails to a criminal -- to a witness who's gonna testify in a criminal matter.
THE COURT: You're asking for third-party discovery and the Court's compulsion of directing <Student 2> to provide that to you?
MR. CARROLL: I want it to be part of the court record and I would also like discovery of that. But I'd also -- I don't think I've ever dealt with this issue directly. But I don't think it's appropriate for a civil attorney to be directing a witness, giving a witness in a criminal matter materials before they testify in a criminal matter.
THE COURT: Yeah, I don't know who this attorney is and I don't know the context of their involvement. So, all I have is this matter here before me. Let's do this, do you have an email address or a number for which <Student 2> might send each of you maybe this document?
MR. CARROLL: I do, Your Honor. I would –
THE COURT: We'll go off record for that, but I just want to know if you did and you can arrange that off record.
MR. CARROLL: Yes. And for the record, Your Honor. The letterhead on the -- on the email is from Liebert Cassidy, they're the attorneys for the school. And currently he's also -- there's dual litigation going on. There's a civil for termination and then there's this criminal case. And so, Liebert Cassidy sent <Student 2> this email that you can -- I saw the letterhead and so it's really concerning to me. I mean –
THE COURT: Okay, noted. But, again, the precise issue isn't necessarily before me because I am not the judge presiding over any of the civil litigation. Whether or not and how that's to be taken up with the State Bar will be up to both attorneys, quite frankly. So, <Student 2>, the attorneys are going to give you some contact information, can you forward that document and maybe the emails?
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, sounds -- I never received an email, I just received the document through text.
THE COURT: And the text.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. CARROLL: Oh, okay. Thank you for that clarification.
Ms. Yesenia Carrillo is an attorney at the Fresno office of the law firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW). She is on the LCW’s website as one of their attorneys in Fresno (you need to refine by location). If you recall, LCW is one of the 14 law firms on the District’s payroll.
The use of this and other screenshots complies with fair use policy.
We confirmed that she has been licensed to practice law in California since November 30, 2015.
Our search revealed something even more disturbing about Ms. Carrillo. Initially, we continued to run into a Yesenia Carrillo, a Trustee and the Vice President of Board of the Central Unified School District. We found this Instagram page when searching her name.
We dismissed it as a coincidence until we saw her picture on the LCW’s website. Ms. Carrillo is not only an attorney for LCW, but also a trustee for the CUSD. She is a public official.
We learned through court transcripts that <Student 2> wasn’t the only witness she contacted. After <Student 2> testified, <Student 3> took the stand. During cross examination, the following conversation ensued between <Student 3> and Mr. Carroll, who represented Mr. Madec in court:
Q: I'm sorry you went through that. Did you receive a text message from anybody about testifying today?
MR. MCCLASKEY: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: No, I think given Mr. -- given the last witness's testimony, I'm going to overrule the objection. Of <Student 3>, I mean. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: Um, no, I didn't get any -- any text message.
MR. CARROLL: Q Did you review with this gentleman (indicating) anything about your testimony?
A: Like, have I gone over it with him before?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: Okay.
A: No. I have not gone over it. I did -- the only person I talked to was him (indicating) in the middle -- I'm sorry, I forgot the name. And Yesenia, which I don't know where she's at but…
Q: Yesenia?
A: Yeah.
Q: And when did you speak to Yesenia?
A: Last -- last week. Last week, I spoke to her last week. We just talked about everything.
Q: And did she talk to you about what you may testify to today?
A: Yeah. She just was kind of going over everything, like, how I'm supposed to talk and I'm not doing that amazing, but she's, like, saying to keep everything brief and don't kind of go crazy with your answers.
Q: Did she suggest any answers that you should give?
A: No, she didn't. She just said to be a hundred percent honest and with the best memory that you have, recollection and everything.
Q: Did she show you any documents?
A: No.
After all the testimonies concluded, Honorable Brian Alvarez asked Mr. Carroll, Mr. Madec’s attorney the following:
THE COURT: To what extent, if at all, should I consider the fact that <Student 3> received -- and another witness received communication from a civil attorney, Yesenia Carrillo, from the law firm related to the civil case from the firm Liebert, Cassidy and Whitmore?
MR. CARROLL: I do think you should consider that, Judge, because they were -- they -- those witnesses said that they --it influenced or helped them or -- no, it wasn't helped. They said it influenced -- it was interference and I think it influenced the way they testified, I do believe that. I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought for a second.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make that happen. So, if you need a minute, that's perfectly fine.
MR. CARROLL: No, I do think that's important. I do think there's a lot of undue influence going on in this case, people trying to influence witnesses, trying to get them to go in a certain direction, trying to get them to say what they want them to say.
THE COURT: I will say that it's highly unusual for that to occur, but I just didn't know what weight and how to consider that, if at all.
After the attorneys finished their oral arguments, Honorable Brian Alvarez issued his decision and directly addressed the contact between Ms. Carrillo, a civil attorney representing the District, and the witnesses. He said:
This is one of those instances and cases where there is a paucity in evidence as far as the elements of each of the offenses charged. I think against that observation is the fact, and the Court can't overlook it, that there was evidence that a law firm in a civil matter that may be related to this case may be outreaching and contacting witnesses in this case. That kind of paints this whole case in a way and gives it background in a way that brings context to why maybe we're here today. It also creates an issue for the Court with regards to believability of witnesses. Didn't have any reason to disbelieve any of the witnesses and when they told the Court that they received some communication from the civil attorneys from Liebert, Cassidy and Whitmore, with regards to a civil matter. I would note that the Court has taken judicial notice of the Court of Appeal opinion that was requested by Defense. And those attorneys are the attorneys of record, likewise, for that civil case.
As Honorable Alvarez stated, “Whether or not and how that's to be taken up with the State Bar will be up to both attorneys, quite frankly”. We will forward this investigation and all the relevant evidence in our possession to the State BAR of California but Mr. Medec is the one with standing. We strongly encourage Mr. Madec to file a complaint against LCW, Ms. Carrillo, and anyone involved in contacting and influencing the witnesses before his criminal trial. A trial that could have led to his incarceration.
We invite you to ponder why would Ms. Yesenia Carrillo, a licensed attorney and a public official, and the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore—legal representatives of the purported victim, Chancellor Goldsmith—interfere with witnesses in a criminal trial?
A Meritless Case
In the end, Honorable Alvarez ended the charade of Chancellor Goldsmith’s vengeance on taxpayer’s dime with this:
So, that's kind of the background of this. And so this, in a lot of ways, doesn't pass the smell-test, frankly. There's something going on here that is above and beyond your normal garden-variety criminal case… I cannot hold him to answer. This is one of those cases where the preliminary examination is -- the purpose of it was to weed out meritless cases.
And this is one of those cases where it just didn't rise to the occasion of probable cause. And so, frankly, for that reason, he is discharged.
A meritless case, yet the SCCCD, armed with its own police force, 14 law firms on retainer, an in-house attorney, and an ever-growing multi-million-dollar legal budget, pursued this case anyway—an astonishing misuse of resources in service of Chancellor Goldsmith’s vendetta.
The parallels between Chancellor Goldsmith’s actions and the tactics of autocratic regimes are impossible to ignore. History teaches us that one of the hallmarks of authoritarian rule is the use of state police and security forces to silence dissent and eliminate opposition. The SCCCD’s aggressive pursuit of this case, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is a chilling example of power wielded without accountability.
We invite you to ponder why was a “meritless” case with such severe consequences for Mr. Madec pursued with such unrelenting aggression by the SCCCD?
The Origins
So how did this meritless case begin? Honorable Alvarez gave a hint in his decisions:
The state of the evidence is that none of these students got up and left and contacted the law enforcement authorities. Instead, it was some time later afterwards that they were contacted by law enforcement. The reporting came about when <Student 1> had told her stepmother and her stepmother got in contact with some somebody that was in the Office of Education, and then that person somehow got in contact with the counselor or maybe the counselor reached out to <Student 1>, as stated and the evidence shows, and then that was reported back. Against that backdrop is the whole civil case that was pending against Mr. Madec by the State Center Community College District and the manner in which he coached maybe and some of the allegations that were made.
It stands to reason that Chancellor Goldsmith could have encouraged the student to do this. We won’t know unless there is an investigation. However, what we do know is that independent investigations mean absolutely nothing under Chancellor Goldsmith.
Did You Ponder?
Throughout this article, we have asked you to ponder on some important points. We invited you to ponder:
Why would Officer Olivas—an officer with five years of experience and multiple criminal threat investigations—conduct an inquiry so riddled with inconsistencies and omissions?
Why would Mr. Haas, despite a clear conflict of interest, sign off on the criminal complaint given the glaring problems and circumstances surrounding the case?
Why would Officer Allison drive all the way to Los Banos, allegedly override a bail release, re-arrest Mr. Madec two months after the incident, and assert, “Stay out of it. This is our jurisdiction and I’m taking orders from above”?
Why would Ms. Yesenia Carrillo, a licensed attorney and a public official, and the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore—legal representatives of the purported victim, Chancellor Goldsmith—interfere with witnesses in a criminal trial?
Why was a “meritless” case with such severe consequences for Mr. Madec pursued with such unrelenting aggression by the SCCCD?
Could the answer to all these questions be Chancellor Goldsmith herself? In Chancellor Goldsmith’s Cost for the District: Part 2 of 2, we discussed her “Horn Effect” and how her leadership style poisons decision-making within SCCCD. We wrote:
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.
Her influence extends beyond policy decisions—it manipulates law enforcement, legal professionals, and administrators, all of whom have undergone ethics training. And yet, time and again, they followed her directives, seemingly disregarding their ethical obligations.
Nearly every key player in this case—the investigative officers, the arresting officer, the Sr. Deputy District Attorney, a civil attorney—were her subordinates. The evidence leads to one conclusion: they all did her bidding. However, we found them and exposed them, because we care about the institution, students, faculty, classified professionals, and the honest administrators who still remain. And we promise, honest administrators do exist. We are talking to them. They are sick and tired of Chancellor Goldsmith, but they are afraid.
To the Administrators: If you choose to do Chancellor Goldsmith’s bidding, we will uncover and expose you. And make no mistake—when the time comes, she will throw you under the proverbial bus. Our advice to you is simple:
Just Say No.
At the beginning of this article, we warned about Chancellor Goldsmith’s win-at-all-costs mindset, her unchecked access to District resources, her political connections, and the Board’s blind allegiance. Now, the dangers of her leadership should be crystal clear. Chancellor Goldsmith plays with people’s livelihood and freedom, utilizing the vast resources available to her to settle her grudges. All of this unfolded because she allegedly holds a grudge against Mr. Madec for repeatedly defeating her in court. What will it take for the Board to act?
A Word for the Board
Board of Trustees, we have told you before, and we will say it again: our investigations are only becoming more revealing. We take no pleasure in exposing the rot under Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership, but the responsibility to act rests squarely on your shoulders. By now, you, like all our readers, should have grasped the reality of the situation:
We have never fabricated or misrepresented facts. Every story we publish is meticulously researched and backed by evidence.
The volume of grievances against Chancellor Goldsmith is insurmountable. She has proven to be an ineffective leader—if she ever was one to begin with.
We will continue publishing these stories, increasing in severity, until you act. We as constituents, taxpayers, and employees have the right to ask for accountability from our public officials.
Have you considered how this affects recruitment? Under this leadership, SCCCD will not attract top-tier talent—only those who have no better options. This decline will stain the District for years to come.
Your indifference to the well-being of the SCCCD is apparent. For most of you, this position is merely a stepping stone to higher office, and we recognized that from the beginning. But now, the employees, students, community leaders, taxpayers, and your own constituents are recognizing it too.
We have a steady flow of material lined up, ready to be released weekly for the rest of the semester. Our communication channels are flooded with new leads and requests for coverage. Your inaction fuels our resolve. It is the same negligence that is eroding the SCCCD’s reputation. We are unwavering, relentless, and committed to exposing the truth. The decision on when this ends rests with you. The ball is in your court.
Chancellor Goldsmith is on the verge of making some decisions that you will rubber-stamp without scrutiny. These decisions will open the floodgates of new information. Many sources are poised to come forward the moment they see those decisions materialize. We suspect you will continue granting us the privilege of uncovering the truth. The question remains: how much more will it take before you act?
As a reminder, as always, we will send this article to a lot of people. The list is too long to fit in here, but you can trust us to deliver.
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