Note to subscribers: Thank you for subscribing! This article is longer than the email system allows. Click the link below for the full piece online.
Note to non-subscribers: We pour untold hours, energy, and resources into every investigation we publish. All we ask in return is that you subscribe—it’s free!
Note to listeners: For those listening to the article using the reader on the Substack app, we have marked the location of images and videos with [image below] and [video below], so you know when to check your screen.
Note to everyone: Friends don’t let friends go without reading The SCCCD Insiders. Share this article!
Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, let’s dive into the article.
Call this piece our mid‑spring omnibus—one article, five razor‑sharp corners. Today we carve into:
1. Tip of the Hat: Saluting West Hills CCD’s Trustees and administrators for choosing full transparency at a critical moment and halting a train-wreck before it left the station;
2. Told‑You‑So: Chancellor Goldsmith’s “national searches” exposed as pure legitimacy theater—a mockery of stakeholders’ voices, and a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars;
3. Race-Baiting Exposed: Unmasking Chancellor Goldsmith’s tired tactic of recasting facts as bias, to deflect scrutiny;
4. Survival Manual: A field guide for administrators who want to keep their integrity and avoid a starring role in our next exposé; and
5. Tort Claim: The vital California deadlines and procedures for those harmed by the SCCCD and considering legal action.
At the end, our signature close—Word for the Board—delivers a stark warning to the Trustees about the dire consequences their chosen course threatens: the District’s stability, its employees’ well-being, and, most critically, our students’ futures.
It’s a sampler platter, but tying up these loose ends clears the runway for the deeper investigations already throttling up.
1. Tip of the Hat
At about 5 p.m. on April 29, 2025, a tip landed on our desk: the Board of Trustees of West Hills Community College District (WHCCD) was poised to green-light an interim appointment. The nominee? Dr. Lataria Hall—Fresno City College’s Vice President of Student Services—tapped to fill the freshly minted position of Vice Chancellor of Educational Services and Institutional Effectiveness at WHCCD.
The alert caught us off guard. For months we’d scoured WHCCD’s Board agendas after rumblings and whispers that Chancellor Robert Pimentel was carving out a landing pad for Dr. Hall, his longtime bedfellow and charter member of the “West Hills Gang.” One more surgical pass through the agenda1 solved the riddle: the position was listed, but Dr. Hall’s name was nowhere to be found. [image below]
Although we’d spotted the new cabinet position in our initial review of WHCCD’s Board agenda, never in our wildest dreams did we suspect Dr. Hall would be assigned to it—especially since we believe, as WHCCD will soon discovers, she is singularly unqualified for the role. Even setting that aside, the omission of her name all but flashed “Brown Act violation.” Every other personnel item named its nominee; this one stood alone in omission.
Within the hour—well before Trustees reached that agenda item—we dispatched urgent email alerts to the Board and senior administrators, warning that approving Dr. Hall’s appointment in secrecy would almost certainly breach the Brown Act. [image below]
Our intervention had a two-fold mission:
1. Transparency: WHCCD owed its constituents an agenda that plainly identified every nominee and welcomed public comment; and
2. Accountability: We were poised to publish a comprehensive exposé on Dr. Hall’s turbulent tenure at FCC—a would-be required reading for the Board of Trustees before any vote.
By omitting Dr. Hall’s name from the agenda, WHCCD turned a theoretical injury into a real one: it denied the public the benefit of our exposé and muzzled testimony during open forum.
Despite our urgent warnings, the Board still approved Dr. Hall’s appointment.
The next day, on April 30—after conferring with attorneys well-versed in the Brown Act—we issued a formal demand for corrective action that made the stakes crystal clear. If the harm wasn’t remedied by 8 am on May 1, we would:
1. File four separate Brown Act complaints with four distinct oversight bodies;
2. Seek injunctive relief in Fresno County Superior Court; and
3. Launch “The WHCCD Insiders,” a watchdog operation in our image and backed by substantial resources.
We also pledged that, should WHCCD meet our deadline, we would forgo those actions and instead publicly salute the Board and administration for their demonstrated commitment to transparency and sound governance.
Anticipating stonewalling, SCCCD-style, we had our attorneys finalize their research, draft the briefs, and queue the complaints for filing. Then, at roughly 7 a.m. on May 1—just as we were poised to click “submit”—an email arrived: WHCCD would re‑agendize Dr. Hall’s interim contract for the May 27 Board meeting.
As poet Robert Service2 writes, “a promise made is a debt unpaid,” and we at The SCCCD Insiders—much like Tyrion Lannister3—always pay our debts.
Upon receiving the news, we emailed WHCCD’s Board and Chancellor Pimentel applauding their swift, responsive action and expressing our appreciation for their commitment to transparency and constituent voice. [image below]
Beyond honoring our initial deal, we took two extra steps to extend goodwill. We decided to:
1. Shelve our ready‑to‑publish exposé on Dr. Hall; and
2. Refrain (as much as possible) from naming Chancellor Pimentel in future pieces.
We take these measures to shield WHCCD from turbulence and collateral fallout—a courtesy earned by their swift, good‑faith response to our reasonable demands.
The only remaining promise on our ledger is a public commendation:
We applaud the WHCCD Board and Chancellor Pimentel for their swift course correction. Their prompt action reflects their transparency and sound governance—standards we wish our Board and administration would adopt and uphold. We regret any disruption our warnings may have caused WHCCD and thank them for heeding their constituents.
With that, our debt to WHCCD is now paid and our business with them concluded.
“Promise made, promise kept” is our guiding creed. But remember while we stand by our word, it is our infiltration and meticulous source-building that serve as our real power tools—tools that have laid bare Chancellor Goldsmith’s corruption, from her rigged searches to her crony-driven and chaotic mismanagement.
2. Told‑You‑So
In our last exposé, we not only unmasked Dr. Robert Frost—the baron of the nontoxic “island of sanity”—but also, on the strength of multiple sources, revealed that the “national search” for Deputy Vice Chancellor, was nothing more than legitimacy theater staged to crown a preselected candidate, just as so many of Chancellor Goldsmith’s other hires have been.
2.1. Timeline and Evidence
Here’s the timeline:
On April 15, we discreetly alerted five reporters that Chancellor Goldsmith had already preselected Dr. Christine Holt for the job.
On April 21, open forum interviews were held for the three so-called “finalists.”
On April 28, we published our exposé, labeling the search “legitimacy theater” and embedding a digital Easter egg in the cover image.
On May 1, Chancellor Goldsmith officially announced Dr. Holt as her choice.
What was the Easter egg in our last article?
Hover your cursor over the octopus in our last article’s cover image to reveal this hexadecimal string:
44722e20436872697374696e6520486f6c74Paste it into any hex-to-text converter and you’ll get:
Dr. Christine Holt
Need more proof? Below is the April 15 email we sent to five journalists about Chancellor Goldsmith’s predetermined choice. [image below]
Chancellor Goldsmith’s hiring processes remain the same old cheap carnival magic trick—the rabbit is tucked in the hat long before the curtain even rises. It’s an expensive charade that squanders taxpayer dollars and muzzles genuine stakeholder input.
2.2. Board’s High-Stakes Gamble
Our advance knowledge of Chancellor Goldsmith’s decision, underscores how deeply our tentacles penetrate her inner circle. Wondering why her own confidants provide us with information? Because even they, see her as a destructive force. Some may profit from her patronage, but they’re all alarmed by the long‑term damage she’s inflicting on the District’s culture, reputation, and most critically our students.
Meanwhile, our Board of Trustees remains the lone hold‑out—either willfully ignorant or deliberately indifferent. Last Saturday at Table Mountain Casino, an all-too-apt setting, the Trustees rolled the dice on Chancellor Goldsmith’s tenure, essentially playing Russian roulette with the future of the District, and by extension, our students. The Board’s high-stakes gamble keeps her on the payroll and us busy all summer. For now, the second floor of District Office—the nontoxic “island of sanity”4—remains the epicenter of mismanagement and corruption with the rot seeping into every campus.
2.3. A Necessary Distinction
Let’s bifurcate the issues. Our indictment is aimed squarely at Chancellor Goldsmith’s sham “national searches,” not at Dr. Christine Holt as a professional. We do not yet have enough evidence to judge whether Dr. Holt will be an effective or harmful administrator. Her association with Chancellor Goldsmith is not, in itself, a verdict on her integrity. Our yardstick for every administrator, Dr. Holt included, is simple: decisions and actions.
Dr. Holt’s record stands in stark contrast to that of Dr. Robert Frost—Goldsmith’s hand-picked “henchman in chief,” whose misdeeds were no secret. We have combed through Dr. Holt’s background and, so far, have uncovered no red flags. Our only lingering question is why she would choose to work under a Chancellor whose leadership is both demonstrably toxic and under the microscope of our reporting. Still, until Dr. Holt’s own conduct gives cause for praise or blame, we reserve judgment and let her future decisions speak for her.
2.4. White Hope or the Harbinger of Doom
Chancellor Goldsmith has a peculiar effect on some administrators. Our sources have highlighted a sinister tactic: she presents herself as an ally with a shared purpose. She uses her silver tongue to convince administrators she’s on their side, only to ensnare them in her corrupt agenda. Under the guise of partnership, she secures their loyalty, turning them into cronies who carry out her bidding and shield her from scrutiny. Once entangled in her web, few find the strength to break free and extricate themselves. Driven by fear, ambition, self-preservation, or simple inertia, administrators stay silent and continue to wield her sword on her behalf rather than expose the rot at its source.
That’s a choice they make—and we won’t pull punches for anyone, regardless of background, especially if they opt to serve as Chancellor Goldsmith’s shield.
To those administrators: Don’t let yourself get tangled in her web of toxicity and corruption. She is not your ticket to success; she’ll discard you in the dust once you’ve served her purpose. Step aside and point your finger at the true architect of this chaos and dysfunction. We’ll be knocking soon.
Chancellor Goldsmith’s lone counter‑move in the face of our documented exposures has been dismissing our investigation as racially motivated. A tired, one-note, and abused routine that has grown so threadbare as to be transparent to anyone paying attention.
3. Race-Baiting Exposed
After seven months of activity and review of evidence and testimonies, one thing has become clear. Chancellor Goldsmith is not interested in collaboration unless she is backed into a corner. When faced with opposition, she employs the same playbook:
First, she stonewalls, denies, and ignores voices while trying to plow through opposition.
If that doesn’t work and opposition persists, she retaliates against those who speak up.
When that fails, she engages in a campaign of misinformation, often resorting to race-baiting or painting dissenters as anti-LGBTQ.
Her cynicism runs so deep that she allegedly staffs her inner circle with people of color, not to uplift diverse voices, but to wield “diversity” as both shield and camouflage for her ambitions. That’s textbook race-baiting, which is defined5 as:
“the act of intentionally encouraging racism or anger about issues relating to race, often to get a political advantage.”
Chancellor Goldsmith has fine-tuned this into an art. But remember, this is the same person who called the police on Dr. Gerri Santos, a Black woman, for opposing her. [images below]
Dr. Gerri Santos spotted and called out Chancellor Goldsmith’s hypocritical attempt at race-baiting in her comment at the May 6, 2025 Board meeting. [video below]
Chancellor Goldsmith’s latest race-baiting stunt is just the newest act in a well-worn playbook. We exposed her orchestrated smear campaign against the MCC Academic Senate when they issued no-confidence votes. She has since tried the same gambit—aiming it at State Center Federation of Teachers (SCFT) and faculty leaders like Ms. Erin Heasley. Attempts that predictably backfired. Stay tuned: the full exposé on that is in the works.
Since we have begun publishing, most employees have grown wise to Chancellor Goldsmith’s antics, rendering her recent attempts at spinning distorted narratives ineffective. Her signature move—hijacking equity and DEI rhetoric as both shield and weapon—only goes so far. The tired old tactic is no longer effective. Many of us have the necessary lived experience and are steeped in the very equity and anti racism work she touts—yet we are the first to tell you, she neither understands nor embodies those principles; she weaponizes them. The era of her race-baiting and misinformation is officially over. We will continue to unmask and expose anyone who wades into her web of corruption, mismanagement, and patronage.
4. Survival Manual
Learning from Dr. Lataria Hall’s recent attempt to quietly sneak away, we’ve compiled a watchlist of guilty administrators who are, or may be, eyeing lifeboats to jump from Chancellor Goldsmith’s sinking ship. We intend to share this list with every Board member, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, campus President, Academic Senate President, Classified Senate President, and Union President throughout the California Community College system. Experience has taught us that administrators seldom change their ways; they merely change zip codes. Districts and colleges deserve fair warning about the caliber of some administrators planning their escape. Those responsible for drilling irreparable holes in this District’s hull don’t get to wreak havoc here, jump ship, and repeat the cycle elsewhere. If you’ve helped Chancellor Goldsmith inflict permanent damage, be prepared to go down on her ship or to have your lifeboat punctured.
Not all administrators at SCCCD are corrupt; however, the toxic culture cultivated by Chancellor Goldsmith has created an environment where—far more than in many other districts—administrators feel pressured to become her cronies and do her bidding to advance their careers. To those administrators with relatively or completely clean hands who are wondering how they can avoid becoming a target of our exposés, our advice is straightforward and simple:
1. Just say NO! Refuse when Chancellor Goldsmith or her cronies asks you to carry out her questionable directives or do her bidding; and
2. Don’t disparage us, faculty, or classified professionals.
Cross those lines, and you become her crony, which earns you nothing but our full, unblinking scrutiny.
We understand the bind you’re in under Chancellor Goldsmith’s regime. Our sources report that she routinely bypasses college Presidents, leaning directly on and pressuring Vice Presidents, Deans, and Directors to execute her agenda. Fear, ambition, or misplaced loyalty often compels compliance. Our sources also indicate that this deliberate bypass of proper channels is intentional and serves two purposes:
1. Enforcing Compliance: At-will administrators lack union protection and job security, making them easy targets for pressure tactics. The case of Ms. Rozanne Hernandez, covered in our last article, demonstrates this toxic approach; and
2. Dodging Accountability: It creates a buffer. When things go wrong and accountability arrives, Chancellor Goldsmith leaves subordinates holding the bag, while she collects the credit if results appear successful. Her attempt to withhold tenure from Ms. Erin Heasley, a dedicated faculty leader, at MCC is a case in point. And the kicker, she claims to be the one who saved her tenure, when we have demonstrable evidence against it.
The ease and frequency with which Chancellor Goldsmith distorts facts—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary—borders on the pathological. It's hard to comprehend how someone can be so careless yet so brazen with the truth. And this is hardly a secret. Nearly every one of our sources recognizes her deception and regularly sends us evidence proving it. In Chancellor Goldsmith’s world, the end always justify the means—a dangerous operating principle. Anyone who operates with such moral bankruptcy will bring destruction not salvation; you would be wise to keep your distance.
Here is practical advice for you: when the Chancellor or her cronies reach out directly and bypass your supervisor, consider it a major red flag. You should ask yourself:
Why are they circumventing my supervisors and proper channels to contact me?
Is this something I should be doing?
Is this the right thing to do?
And perhaps most importantly, what would we—The SCCCD Insiders—do if we find out about it?
Always say NO! but if you are being placed in a position that it is not feasible to do so, protect yourself by documenting the contact and reporting it to your supervisor, allowing them to make the decision. Let as many people as possible know about it because visibility is your ally. Don’t get caught on the hook when our investigations reveal these schemes.
In short, Chancellor Goldsmith’s direct outreach is rarely innocent. It’s often a calculated attempt to offload responsibility onto you while insulating herself from negative fallout. Yet, she and her cronies eagerly step forward for accolades when results are positive.
Despots have always relied on subordinates as pawns and scapegoats, and Chancellor Goldsmith is no exception. If you, as an administrator, choose to carry her sword and sacrifice yourself for your “Queen,” we’ll let you, but then we’ll expose you. Not out of malice, but to ensure the next administrator pauses before falling into the same trap. It’s the only way to promote ethical leadership and prevent Chancellor Goldsmith from continuing to hide behind loyal subordinates, pawns, or even “useful idiots.” Remember, there are only two possible endings when you wield the blade she won’t touch: either the blade cuts you, or the sharpened edge of our exposé does—often both.
We don’t want to investigate your private and professional lives and write about it. Don’t give us cause.
5. Tort Claim
Disclaimer: The information provided by The SCCCD Insiders is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or using this content does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not act on any information provided here without first consulting a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction who can assess your specific situation. If you need a referral, we can connect you with qualified counsel.
TL;DR: You typically have only six months from the date of your injury or loss to formally present a claim notice to SCCCD under the California Tort Claims Act (TCA). Missing this deadline can severely limit or eliminate your ability to sue. Do not attempt this alone. It is complicated and rife with hidden pitfalls that can hurt your case. Retain an attorney immediately to protect your rights. If you need help finding an attorney, reach out to us so we can connect you.
A tort may be defined6 as:
“an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.”
Under the California Tort Claims Act78, you must present and serve a written claim notice on the government entity alleged to have committed harm (e.g., SCCCD) no later than six months from when your cause of action accrued.
The six-month claim deadline can often be a deciding factor for attorneys when choosing to represent a client, especially on a contingency basis (where you pay only if they win damages for you). While you don’t need to understand every detail of tort law, you must comply strictly with the stringent and idiosyncratic requirements of the California Tort Claims Act. Chief among these requirements is presenting a timely claim notice.
According to attorney Michael Fields9:
“The initial ‘written’ claim must be presented and served on the government entity alleged to have committed harm within six months of the occurrence.”
This is backed by California Government Code § 945.410:
“no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented…until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board.”
And according to California Government Code § 911.211:
“a claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property…shall be presented…not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.”
The law firm Sanford, Heisler, Sharp, and McKnight12 emphasizes:
“While most employees have between 300 days and three years to initiate legal action against their employers, those with claims against public entities have only six months to initiate action by ‘presenting a claim’ to the entity.”
They also caution:
“Compliance with the TCA is strictly required in order to sue a public entity for damages. Failure to properly present a claim prior to filing a complaint often results in the case being dismissed in its entirety…The claim presentation process is purportedly intended to give public entities the opportunity to investigate and settle claims without the cost of litigation. Instead, the TCA succeeds only in closing the courthouse doors to aggrieved individuals unaware of its byzantine requirements.”
Since SCCCD is a public entity, the six-month filing deadline applies to some of the claims against it.
What if you miss the deadline? Does that mean all hope is lost?
Not necessarily, but letting the six-month window lapse makes your case far harder and often deters attorneys from taking it on contingency. The California Tort Claims Act is riddled with strict, technical, and byzantine requirements—most attorneys will tell you, “It depends.” Only a California-licensed attorney who specializes in your type of claim can evaluate your options.
We decided to publish this section because we have connected individuals with attorneys who declined representation primarily because the six-month deadline had passed. This section is meant to educate you on the six-month tort deadline and emphasize the urgency in contacting a qualified attorney, not to serve as an indicator or litmus test of your claim’s merits or viability. If you suspect you have missed the six-month deadline, don’t assume defeat. Consult a qualified attorney immediately.
If you need assistance locating experienced counsel, reach out to us—and do so without delay to keep your rights intact.
6. A Word for the Board
The spotlight is widening. National outlets have begun taking notice of our exposés, as word of our investigative work spreads rapidly across campuses throughout California and beyond. Local newsrooms may continue looking the other way—for now—but attempts to intimidate journalists have a limited shelf-life. We’ve seen the emails your employees have sent to reporters to suppress coverage, and we promise it’s only a matter of time before an experienced journalist—backed by a major network and insulated from your parochial pressures—takes hold of the story, engulfing the District in national coverage you cannot control or spin away.
When that happens, it will mark your point of no return. As latent conflict erupts into a scandal cascade, your ability to control the narrative will evaporate. Decisions will be forced upon you by public outrage, external regulators, and the courts. Consider this not a threat, but a prediction—anyone paying attention can see the writing on the wall. You have two choices: act decisively before it happens or brace yourselves for the deluge.
Let our recent interaction with WHCCD demonstrate clearly that “promise made, promise kept” isn’t merely a slogan—it’s our operating principle. For you, this should represent both a daunting prospect and a beacon of hope. Daunting, because we promise our exposés will continue to grow more revealing and embarrassing. Hopeful, because if you fulfill your oversight responsibility and remove Chancellor Goldsmith, we will immediately cease operations and disband, as promised.
Do you know why Chancellor Goldsmith is so rattled by our work? It’s because she understands the gravity of the evidence we hold. The emails and text messages she assumed would never surface—the ones she explicitly instructed others to delete—have survived. Slowly but surely, individuals have sent these records to us, document by document. That is why the Chancellor has pulled out all the stops to identify and silence us: she knows we are serious when we say our reporting will only intensify. She knows exactly what she's done, and she knows that we also know.
As always, the ball remains in your court, but each day you delay the inevitable, our supporters and sources grow—and your position becomes increasingly untenable.
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
If you do not get the reference “nontoxic ‘island of sanity’” read our article, The Chancellor’s Henchman: A Resident of the Nontoxic Island of Sanity.