Textbook Mandate of the Communication Department at Fresno City College: Part 2 of 3

The More We Dig, The More We Uncover!

If you haven’t had the chance to read Part 1 of this story, you can access it here.

Before diving into the second part of this story, we need to address a significant development. After we sent the first installment of this investigation to faculty and administrators at Fresno City College, the SCCCD’s IT department flagged our communication as spam. This action led to the suspension of some of our temporary accounts by our email provider. This attempt to suppress our voice was not unexpected and underscores a troubling pattern of suppression of dissent within the District by Chancellor Goldsmith.

We sent our articles to 500 employees. Since Chancellor Goldsmith prefers we not communicate with employees, we will pivot our focus outward, ensuring our stories reach more people outside the District. This shift will likely draw even greater external scrutiny to the SCCCD’s actions.

Let it be known: for every attempt by Dr. Goldsmith to stifle our voice, we will intensify our efforts to expose the truth. Suppression only strengthens our determination to advocate for accountability and transparency.

How You Can Help

We ask our readers to take a few simple steps to combat this suppression:

1. Subscribe to Our Substack: The best way to stay connected is to subscribe to our Substack for free. This ensures you receive our articles as soon as they’re published. Your subscription is entirely private, and SCCCD administrators will not have access to our subscriber list.

2. Fill Out the Contact Form: If you prefer not to subscribe to our Substack, you can provide your email through our Google form, and we will send our articles directly to you.

3. Spread the Word: While our readership is already strong, sharing our articles with others amplifies our message. Every share extends our reach and strengthens our collective voice.

4. Contact Us: If you want to reach us, always use the email address listed in our article, YOUR Voice Matters!

We are deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we’ve received. It has only strengthened our resolve to continue this vital work.

Recap

The first part of our investigation into the textbook mandate implemented in the Communication department between Spring 2019 and Spring 2021 revealed a troubling narrative of greed, manipulation, and ethical misconduct. Under the leadership of Dr. Cyndie Luna, the department mandated digital textbooks, forcing over 14,000 students to purchase them at inflated prices—textbooks that students could neither buy used nor resell to recoup their costs. These sales funneled money into departmental coffers at the expense of students, while also providing royalties and payments to four faculty members described as “authors”. Additionally, the publisher offered yearly $1,000 stipends for full-time faculty and semesterly $250 stipends for part-time faculty, contingent upon incorporating five-question end-of-chapter quizzes into students’ grades—a troubling mechanism designed to compel textbook purchases or impose academic penalties on students.

Critically, this mandate was imposed without transparency regarding the significant financial benefits accruing to Dr. Luna. All evidence points to her prioritizing profit over the welfare of students—many of whom were already facing financial hardships—thereby undermining the integrity of the institution.

Our investigation further revealed an alleged systematic abuse of power. Part-time faculty were excluded from decision-making processes, full-time faculty were coerced into approving the mandate with incomplete information, and justifications for the requirement were misleading. A culture of fear prevented many faculty members from speaking out, while those who did were subjected to retaliation. This culture of intimidation was reportedly enabled by Dr. Luna’s close relationship with Chancellor Goldsmith, which shielded her from accountability.

In this second part of our investigation, we will address Dr. Luna’s disparaging comments about us. Then we will explore the ways in which SCCCD policies and California regulations may have been violated by Dr. Luna in her role as a Dean to continue profiting from the textbooks without necessary public disclosures. We have also uncovered additional information suggesting that Dr. Luna allegedly profited in other ways, including increased business directed to a Fresno sporting goods store co-owned by her husband. Finally, we will examine how the distribution of limited scholarships to students was used as a justification for this exploitative scheme.

Don’t Disparage Us!

We did not take the decision to publish this story lightly. When this investigation began, some members of our group were hesitant to pursue a story involving Dr. Luna because of the high regard in which they held her. However, after thoroughly reviewing the overwhelming evidence in our possession, those same members not only shifted their perspective but also expressed feelings of deep betrayal by her actions.

Some of our sources, proxies, and even Dr. Santos—through her tweets—have informed us that Dr. Luna has publicly denied our allegations and more importantly referred to our publication as a lie.

It is crucial to emphasize that we do not publish every piece of evidence we obtain, as protecting our sources remains a top priority. That said, if our integrity is questioned or we are accused of dishonesty, we will have no choice but to defend our reputation.

To those involved in this scheme: you know what you have emailed, texted, and shared. Be mindful not to disparage us. The people you believe you can trust are likely working with us. To offer a glimpse into the scope of our findings, we will introduce two terms frequently used by Dr. Luna: “The Club” and “The Vault”.

The Club and The Vault

Fortunately for us, it seems that Dr. Luna has never read Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club or watched its movie adaptation, because she violated the first rule of a secret club: don’t talk about the club.

After the publication of the first part of our investigation, additional sources came forward with evidence of what Dr. Luna often referred to as “The Club”. Upon review, it became evident that “The Club” was comprised of a select group of trusted allies in the Communication department who allegedly received preferential treatment. This allegedly included highly desirable short-term and hybrid class assignments, which were never offered to others. Notably, all the so-called “authors” of the mandated textbooks were part of this exclusive group. The members of “The Club” were clearly treated very differently than others.

Equally troubling is Dr. Luna’s use of the term “The Vault” when discussing sensitive matters, including the textbook mandate. Referring to “The Vault” was her way of signaling that certain information should remain confined to her trusted inner circle. The evidence we have obtained regarding communications within “The Vault” is both shocking and deeply concerning. What Dr. Luna expressed in these private discussions starkly contrasts with the image she projects publicly. Once we received this evidence from multiple sources and verified its authenticity, it became clear that the revelations regarding the textbook mandate had to be brought to light—there was no turning back.

The evidence reveals that within “The Club” and “The Vault”, Dr. Luna openly discussed details about the textbook mandate that shed light on her true motives. For instance, she expressed frustration with faculty who did not enforce book purchases, emphasizing that their noncompliance directly impacted her royalties. Such discussions and the structure surrounding them reflect behavior more fitting for a profit-driven enterprise than for a member of an institution of higher education, where ethical standards and student welfare should be the primary focus.

Our team is currently reviewing and corroborating evidence that confirms members of “The Club” received preferential treatment under Dr. Luna’s leadership. These findings will be detailed in the third part of this series.

Our goal is not to disparage individuals but to uncover the truth and demand accountability. This investigation is rooted in the belief that the faculty, classified professionals, and especially students of the SCCCD deserve leaders who act with integrity, transparency, and a commitment to their welfare, rather than profiteering from them.

The 5-Year Contract

In our previous article, we presented evidence of Dr. Luna citing a “contract” with the publisher Kendall Hunt. Below is a portion of the email with the reference highlighted.

Our sources and evidence suggest that this contract spanned five years and was consistently used to justify the mandatory use of specific textbooks while discouraging faculty from exploring alternative options. Dr. Luna and other senior faculty members frequently cited the “5-year contract” whenever concerns about the textbooks were raised, reportedly emphasizing the remaining duration of the contract to reinforce the obligation.

Determined to locate this contract, we conducted an exhaustive search across all available sources. Our findings indicate that Dr. Luna was the sole individual associated with the contract. None of our sources had seen the contract firsthand, though all reported being told that a contract existed between the department and the publisher, Kendall Hunt.

To investigate further, we consulted sources within Administrative Services, who clarified a critical point: any contract obligating a department within SCCCD requires approval from the Board of Trustees. Upon reviewing our evidence, they confirmed that a contract of this magnitude—involving the Communication department and its faculty as a party—would indeed require the Board’s approval. When asked to provide the basis for this requirement, they directed us to specific Administrative Regulations (ARs) and Board Policies (BPs) governing such agreements.

Dr. Luna’s emails clearly indicate that the Communication department and its faculty were a party to the contract with the publisher, Kendall Hunt. Yet, according to Board Policy 6340, “The Board delegates to the Chancellor the authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the District”. Importantly, BP 6340 also states, “Contracts are not enforceable obligations until they are ratified by the Board”.

This means the department as a whole or individual faculty members, department chair, or Dean—Dr. Luna included—lacked the authority to enter into a binding contract without prior approval from the Board of Trustees. We conducted a thorough review of every available notice of contract approved by the Board of Trustees between 2017 and 2021. Our investigation revealed no record of any contract related to the Communication department textbooks and Kendall Hunt, the publisher, being disclosed to or approved by the Board. If Dr. Luna did, in fact, enter into such an agreement on behalf of the department or other faculty, or if she obligated the department—even with the approval of full-time faculty—it would constitute a clear and direct violation of the District’s policies.

Financial Conflicts of Interest

We also investigated whether Dr. Luna’s financial involvement violated the District’s policies on conflicts of interest. Following the publication of the first part of our investigation, three administrators independently contacted us to highlight that certain District employees are explicitly prohibited from financially benefiting from their positions without proper disclosure. They directed us to AR 2710 and AR 2712, which outline the guidelines governing financial conflicts of interest:

1. AR 2710 cites Government Code Section 1090 et seq., which prohibits Board members and designated employees from having a financial interest in contracts they make in their official capacity unless it qualifies as a "remote interest" and is disclosed in official Board minutes.

2. AR 2710 further cites Government Code Section 87100 et seq., which mandates that designated employees with a financial interest must disclose this interest and make it part of the Board’s official minutes. In the case of a designated employee, this announcement will be made in writing and submitted to the Board.

3. AR 2712 § 2 defines “designated employees” and lists the Deans under “Category 2” disclosure requirements. Category 2 disclosure requires these employees to “report investments and business positions in business entities and income (including receipt of gifts, loans, and travel payments) from sources that are contractors engaged in the performance of work, training, consulting or services, or are sources that manufacture or sell supplies, instructional materials, machinery, equipment, or vehicles of the type utilized by the District”.

Our reading of the District policies referenced above leaves us with only one conclusion: Dr. Luna would have been obligated to disclose her financial interest in any contract with Kendall Hunt in writing to the Board of Trustees once she became a Dean, which would have to have been included in Board documents available to the public. Publicly available Board records contain no such disclosure from Dr. Luna.

Implications

AR 2712 § 12 explicitly outlines the consequences of violations of conflict of interest policies and regulations:

“This code has the force and effect of law. Members of the Board and designated employees violating any provision of this code are subject to the administrative, criminal, and civil sanctions provided in the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 - 91014. In addition, a decision in relation to which a violation of the disqualification provisions of this code or of Government Code Section 87100 or 87450 has occurred may be set aside as void pursuant to Government Code Section 91003.”

Conflict of interest laws and policies are designed to ensure transparency in public institutions and to prevent public servants from profiteering at the expense of those they are entrusted to serve or misuse public funds. Dr. Luna’s significant financial interest in the textbooks mandated by the department she supervised should have been publicly disclosed in alignment with these principles. Instead, when Academic Senate leaders intervened to address the mandate, Dr. Luna inserted herself into the meeting in an alleged attempt to uphold the requirement—an action that, if successful, would have continued to benefit her financially.

It is difficult to imagine that the public would support educators profiteering at the expense of their students, particularly those already facing significant financial burdens.

What we have uncovered, and what delayed the publication of this article, is that textbooks are not the only avenue through which Dr. Luna allegedly profited from the District.

First String Sports

During a separate and unrelated investigation—one that we plan to publish in the future—we came across the following information entirely by accident. Multiple independent sources, while providing details on a different matter, informed us that Dr. Luna's husband, Jerry Luna, co-owns and operates First String Sports, a sporting goods store in Fresno, with his brother.

Our sources in Admin Services alleged a stark disparity in how First String Sports was treated compared to other sporting goods vendors. According to multiple accounts, First String Sports consistently received payments more promptly than other vendors. This preferential treatment reportedly led to the store receiving increased business from the district. While the District has allegedly developed a pattern of delayed payments to vendors, this was not the case for First String Sports, which appeared to benefit from expedited payment processing.

We reviewed corporate documents filed with the California Secretary of State for First String Sports in 2022, which list Gerald Luna as the Director of the company. He is also identified as a manager or director for the business on the following websites: Better Business Bureau, ABC 30, Tag Sports Gear. While we could not access corporate ownership records, Fresno County business records identify Gerald Luna as a co-owner of First String Sports since 1996. He is also identified as the owner of the business in two interviews with Formula 4 Media published here and here.

Through multiple sources, we confirmed that Dr. Cyndie Luna is married to Gerald Luna, also known as Jerry. This relationship is further corroborated by Dr. Luna’s author’s bio on Kendall Hunt’s website, where she mentions that she loves to “travel with her husband, Jerry” corroborating our information.

We inquired with our sources at multiple colleges about the total amount spent by the District at First String Sports. While they were unable to provide exact figures without being tracked, several directed us to review the approved District warrants for vendor payments.

The first SCCCD Board meeting with publicly available documentation detailing vendor payments was held on April 4, 2017. This information is recorded under the agenda item “Review and Approve District Warrants and Checks”. From that meeting through the most recent Board of Trustees meeting on November 12, 2024, the District’s payments to First String Sports are as follows:

• 2017 (partial): $5,421.10

• 2018: $6,313.89

• 2019: $3,378.68

• 2020: $5,451.03

• 2021: $4,552.67

• 2022: $1,673.01

• 2023: $36,962.23

• 2024 (partial): $6,632.54

Notably, payments to First String Sports increased dramatically in 2023, reaching $36,962.23—an 821% increase compared to the yearly average of approximately $4,500 from prior years. This data partially corroborates what our sources have alleged about First String Sports receiving increased business from the District due to its reportedly expedited payment process compared to other vendors. Since the 2024 warrants and checks are not yet complete, we cannot confirm the total payments made to First String Sports this year.

Our team conducted a meticulous review of every document available on BoardDocs for the Board of Trustees. To ensure accuracy, we divided into two independent teams to search for any public disclosure from Dr. Luna regarding her connection to First String Sports. Both teams found no record of any such disclosure submitted to the Board in writing or made publicly available as part of the Board’s official minutes, as required by AR 2710.

This evidence indicates that the District and its students have allegedly been treated by Dr. Luna as a significant source of supplementary income. This is despite her already substantial salary. As one of the highest-paid individuals in the District, Dr. Luna’s financial gains from these arrangements raise serious ethical and professional concerns.

Dr. Luna has consistently ranked among the top 1% of earners in the District, according to Transparent California, for the years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, whether measured by total pay alone or total pay combined with benefits. She is also projected to rank in the top 1% again in 2024. In earlier years, she was listed among the top 2-3% of earners. Notably, her compensation exceeds that of many Vice Presidents and Senior Deans, despite having held an administrative position only since 2020.

Our investigations have revealed a troubling pattern: proximity to Chancellor Goldsmith appears to directly impact one’s ability to evade accountability and profit within the District. Multiple sources describe discipline as being administered on a “sliding scale”, heavily influenced by an individual’s relationship with the Chancellor. In Dr. Luna’s case, this dynamic seems to have worked in her favor. She has benefited financially from textbook mandates that directly profited her, allegedly received preferential treatment for her husband’s business, and potentially gained an advantageous placement on the salary schedule.

The Scholarship Account

We now examine another way Dr. Luna and certain faculty members attempted to justify the textbook mandate. According to our sources and evidence, when concerns were raised about the unjustifiable cost of these books, Dr. Luna and her allies pointed to scholarships distributed by the Communication department as supposed evidence of the scheme’s “equity”.

Here’s how the scholarship scheme operated: Approximately 6,820 students per year were required to pay around $100 each for the mandated textbooks. According to our sources, the department allegedly received 10% in royalties, amounting to approximately $68,000 annually. These royalties were reportedly distributed as follows: 45% allocated to the communication program account, 40% to a scholarship fund, and 15% to the O’Banion (Speech and Debate) account. This allocation directed roughly $27,200 per year to the scholarship fund.

The department established an application process for students to apply for $70 scholarships, which could only be used to offset the cost of the mandated textbooks. Evidence indicates that reports from the individual managing the scholarships showed that between 100 and 200 students received the scholarship each fall or spring semester. By our calculations, corroborated by multiple sources, this meant approximately 350 students received a $70 scholarship annually—just over 5% of the 6,820 students required to purchase the books.

In total, the scholarship program likely distributed around $24,500 each year. Meanwhile, the Communication department, with a budget, salaried faculty, and a Dean among the highest-paid in the District, mandated overpriced textbooks for 6,820 students annually—textbooks that students could not buy used or resell. Notably, 67% of these students are classified as low-income. Out of 6,830 students, reportedly only 350 students or %5 received a $70 scholarship, and this was presented as “equity”.

The term “equity” has increasingly been misused and misapplied, and this textbook scheme, as well as the associated scholarship, fall far short of qualifying for such a label. Any effort to present this arrangement as equitable is not only misguided but also a distortion of the concept itself.

This justification becomes even more troubling when comparing the mandated books to those previously used by the department. Before the mandate, many faculty in the Communication department used the textbook Speak UP! for COMM 1. According to our source and based on our independent research, at the time, the Speak UP! book was priced at approximately $70 new and widely available on the used market for $30 to $50. Students could also resell the book for $20 to $50, effectively reducing their net cost to as little as $30 if they bought it used for $50 and resold it for $20. In contrast, the mandated textbook cost students $100 with no resale value and no option to buy used copies. To then provide $70 scholarships to just 5% of the students and present this as equitable is at best flawed logic and at worst a lie designed to cover up corruption and profiteering.

Adding to the irony, the Communication department offers one of the courses that satisfies the “A3. Critical Thinking” requirement of the CSU General Education pattern. This is a department tasked with teaching students critical thinking skills. They, of all people, possess the ability to recognize the contradictions in the reasoning presented to them. Yet, what we have learned is that financial incentives can make people rationalize actions that defy sound reasoning.

We have received information suggesting that the District may have initiated an investigation into this matter. However, as we have detailed in previous articles, the integrity of such investigations under Chancellor Goldsmith’s administration is questionable. For example, in our article, Why Are We Speaking Anonymously?, we highlighted how the president of the faculty union, Mr. Ford, requested that the Board establish a task force to ensure complaints against senior administrators are handled by an independent third party. In The Chancellor Doesn’t Care About Faculty Voices – Part 2, we outlined how Chancellor Goldsmith misuses the District’s complaint procedure to protect her administration and suppress dissent.

Based on these patterns, it is likely that Chancellor Goldsmith will appoint an investigator to oversee this matter. However, our sources indicate that the outcome of such investigations is typically predetermined by the Chancellor or one of her cabinet members—individuals chosen primarily for their loyalty to her. Loyalty is the key qualification for the job. As a result, the investigative process is often reduced to a formality, with the outcome aligning entirely with Chancellor Goldsmith’s desired narrative.

A Word for the Board

No one, regardless of their proximity to leadership, should ever feel entitled to profit from their position. Yet, under Chancellor Goldsmith, a culture has been cultivated where her friends and allies feel emboldened to devise schemes that exploit their roles for personal gain and those who speak out are retaliated against. Rest assured, this is not an isolated example. We are actively working on additional stories, and our network of sources continues to grow daily.

You, as the elected officials overseeing this institution, have a fiduciary duty to safeguard our students and public funds from exploitation. You also have the power to change the culture of this institution—a culture currently steeped in fear, intimidation, and retaliation, perpetuated by Chancellor Goldsmith and her allies. Your unwavering support for Chancellor Goldsmith has not fostered progress; instead, it has enabled a festering environment that demands your immediate attention.

As employees of this District, we deserve better. Our students deserve better. The public deserves better. It is time for action, accountability, and a commitment to integrity.

The continuation of our work depends entirely on your actions. Your inaction has brought about this predicament, and we will persist in our efforts until meaningful action is taken.

If you haven’t noticed, our promises are increasing exponentially.

Our Updated Promises to the Board:

1. Accountability:
   We promised to include your names in our publications, ensuring that your inaction and failure to fulfill your fiduciary responsibilities are permanently recorded in digital archives for future scrutiny:

   • Magdalena Gomez

   • Danielle Parra

   • Robert A. Fuentes

   • Austin Ewell

   • Deborah J. Ikeda

   • Nasreen Johnson

   • Destiny Rodriguez

   • Haiden del Fierro

2. Broader Media Outreach:
   We distributed our previous article to 50 news organizations. This article will be sent to 75 outlets.

3. Communication with Community College Leaders:
   We shared our findings with 25 presidents, chancellors, and trustees of community colleges. This article will be sent to 50.

4. Communication with State Chancellor’s Consultation Council:
   While not promised previously, we sent our last article to the Consultation Council for Chancellor Christian. This practice will continue.

5. Communication with Community Leaders and Politicians:
   Since your IT department marked our emails as spam, as promised, we have decided to redirect our efforts. We will send our article to a list of 500 politicians and community leaders in Fresno and across California. The emails were procured from the Fresno County’s elections candidate contact list from 2020 to 2024.

6. Communication with Academic Senate Leaders:

   One of the college presidents we contacted informed us that the website of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) includes the contact information for the leadership of every Academic Senate in the state. She suggested that we share our findings with them to help ensure vigilance against similar schemes at their institutions. Acting on this recommendation, we sent our previous article to every President, Vice President, and OER Liaison in the colleges in Area A. For this article, we will extend our outreach to include the same positions in all colleges in both Area A and Area B.

Stay tuned for Part 3.

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 - Cyndie Luna