The Chancellor Doesn’t Care About Faculty Voices – Part 1.0
Competency-Based Education at Madera Community College
Dr. Gerri Santos’s recent post on X about Madera Community College’s (MCC) Academic Senate votes of no-confidence in President Angel Reyna and Dean Justin Garcia prompted us to investigate further. [image below]
1. The Goldsmith Strategy
Since taking office, Chancellor Goldsmith has adopted an openly adversarial stance toward faculty input. While past tensions between faculty and other administrations were tempered by a shared commitment to participatory governance, that balance has unraveled under Chancellor Goldsmith’s administration. The Academic Senates play a central role in curriculum and academic program development as required by Title 5 of the California Code of Regulation. However, Chancellor Goldsmith has not respected the primacy of Academic Senates’ input as it related to curriculum and program development.
Rather than embracing faculty as vital collaborators in the educational mission, Chancellor Goldsmith allegedly treats them as adversaries to be neutralized. Her administration’s methods are anything but subtle: faculty are routinely handed predetermined outcomes dressed up as dialogue and consultation, subjected to coercive maneuvers, and systematically stripped of influence in academic and professional matters. What passes for “shared governance” under Chancellor Goldsmith has become a façade—behind it, an environment of suppression flourishes, where faculty input is neither welcomed nor safe. This isn’t participatory leadership; it’s administrative domination masquerading as collegiality.
This pervasive strategy has infiltrated every level of State Center Community College District (SCCCD or District) and its college administration. Sources allege that many administrators—especially those in Chancellor Goldsmith’s inner circle—feel emboldened to dismiss and silence faculty voices without any repercussions. At the same time, those who dare to respect or advocate for faculty input reportedly face swift retaliation and punitive measures, further entrenching a culture of fear and compliance.
A striking example of Chancellor Goldsmith’s alleged disregard for faculty voice and expertise is the ongoing saga of Competency-Based Education (CBE) at MCC. This case underscores her determination to sideline faculty voices and bulldoze forward with a top-down agenda—despite repeated objections from the State Center Federation of Teachers (SCFT) and MCC Academic Senate.
2. Competency-Based Education
To grasp the controversy, it’s important to understand the basics of CBE. Unlike traditional courses that follow a semester schedule with fixed deadlines and credit hours, CBE allows students to progress at their own pace, moving forward only after demonstrating mastery of clearly defined competencies. In theory, this flexibility can benefit non-traditional learners—but in practice, it presents profound logistical and pedagogical challenges.
A student might complete a CBE course in two days or take two years. That level of variability demands extensive infrastructure, faculty oversight, and institutional alignment. It also requires one thing the District’s rollout lacked entirely: genuine collaboration with faculty.
Ms. Leticia Barajas, President of the East Los Angeles College Academic Senate, put it plainly: successful implementation of CBE requires “institutional transformative change.”1 At the SCCCD, however, Chancellor Goldsmith reportedly attempted to impose this transformation by fiat—pressuring colleges to adopt CBE without transparency, buy-in, or even basic consultation with the Academic Senate or SCFT. What should have been a careful, inclusive process has devolved into another example of Chancellor Goldsmith’s top-down governance by decree.
CBE could work, but not like this. Not when a Chancellor seeks to strong-arm her way through pedagogical reform with no regard for the people responsible for delivering it. What’s needed is not control, but collaboration—something the Goldsmith administration has shown little interest in pursuing.
3. Timeline
What has transpired at MCC regarding CBE is a blatant violation of faculty and Academic Senate voices. Below is a brief timeline of events, as presented by MCC Academic Senate’s secretary, Mr. Juan Alvarez, during the Senate meeting on September 27, 2024:
August 2021: CBE kick-off meeting.
September 2021: CBE was presented to the Curriculum Executive Council. Dr. Aizon asked a series of questions and outlined some concerns regarding curriculum and process and was asked to join the collaborative. She agreed.
October 2021: Pilot colleges, including Madera, were told by the State Chancellors' office that there was going to be a "pause" in the CBE collaborative to address concerns and challenges.
January 2022: First meeting of the collaborative after a "restructure" that still left a lot of questions unanswered.
February 1, 2022: A document with questions and concerns was sent to President Reyna. President Reyna was asked to take these concerns to the State Chancellors' office; neither CBE faculty lead received a follow-up.
Spring/Summer and Fall 2022: Discussions regarding CBE continue in different groups.
November 15, 2022: Dr. Aizon and I met with President Reyna letting him know that, as faculty leads of the CBE Collaborative, were walking away from the CBE pilot. The issues that Dr. Aizon and I had discussed were emailed to President Reyna after our meeting.
November 18, 2022: A resolution for the addition of District ARs regarding CBE failed to garner support, John Fitzer also spoke on behalf of the union expressing concerns about CBE and the union’s opposition to CBE.
Spring 2023: AgTEC conference in downtown Fresno. No curriculum chairs, no Academic Senate presidents, or union representatives were present. When asked why, the CBEN director stated, “Don’t “worry” about the academic senate, or the union, we will get this far enough down the road that they will have to get on board”
April 28, 2023: Academic Senate presented resolution 2023-002 for the first read.
August 25, 2023: Resolution 2023-002 was passed by the Academic Senate, unanimously, which resolved that our involvement in the CBE collaborative be formally reconsidered and that further involvement in any CBE group be vetted through the Academic Senate. Jeff Ragan also spoke on behalf of the union regarding concerns about CBE and the union’s opposition to CBE.
February 9, 2024: Career Ladders Project Director, Michelle, presented information regarding CBE at the Academic Senate general meeting. In attendance, via Zoom, were Byron and Randy from the Career Ladders Project, along with VP Marie Harris.
February 12, 2024: Career Ladders Project representatives Michelle, Byron, and Randy were present at the Madera’s Curriculum Committee to discuss CBE.
April 5, 2024: Academic Senate called a special meeting to discuss CBE and invited all relevant individuals and groups to the conversation. In this meeting, President Reyna stated “I fully understand CBE is [Academic Senate’s] purview. If you all want to walk away from CBE and not do it, I understand and we're not going to force the issue.”
April 8, 2024: Career Ladders Project representatives Michelle, Byron, and Randy were present at Madera’s Curriculum Committee to discuss CBE once again.
May 10, 2024: The Academic Senate charged the AS President at the time, Bill Turini, and the Executive Council to communicate to President Reyna that the Academic Senate is not interested in continuing to discuss or explore CBE. An email was sent on June 14, 2024.
August 21, 2024: President Reyna communicated to AS Executive Council, in writing, that MCC was still part of the collaborative and that he, could not remove Madera from the collaborative; that control lies with the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor.
September 12, 2024: Five AgTEC CORs were submitted to the Curriculum Committee Chair with Dr. Mosqueda’s name as an author even though she did not write them.
4. Faculty: Ignored, Undermined, and Retaliated Against
For two years, both the MCC Academic Senate and SCFT have made their position clear: they oppose CBE as it has been rolled out by Chancellor Goldsmith. Their opposition has been met not with dialogue, but with dismissal and manipulation. As Dr. Gregory Ramirez stated, he is “deeply troubled by the ongoing neglect of faculty expertise.” Mr. Ray Sanchez added that:
“participatory governance processes were not respected; support of faculty expertise and thus input from faculty was not valued --- even though faculty continue to recognize the concerns that the President must balance between championing faculty perspectives and following streams of income from outside organizations.”
Neglecting faculty is no longer an aberration, it’s a feature of Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership. Just as retaliation and threats have become routine, so has the bypassing of shared governance in pursuit of her agenda.
5. The Fallout: Votes of No-Confidence
The hostile environment for faculty input, a direct result of Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership, left MCC faculty with the only remaining option: vote of no-confidence. As a result of blatant violations of faculty rights, on September 27, 2024, the MCC Academic Senate took decisive action by issuing:
Resolution 2024-002: A formal vote of no-confidence in Dr. Justin Garcia, Dean of Instruction for CTE and STEM, citing his repeated refusal to respect faculty and Academic Senate’s authority.
Resolution 2024-003: A conditional vote of no-confidence in MCC’s President, Dr. Angel Reyna, giving him until October 10, 2024, to take meaningful action by addressing faculty’s concerns and communicating them to Chancellor Goldsmith.
President Reyna failed to meet the deadline.
6. Proxy Power and Administrative Complicity
Our sources allege that Chancellor Goldsmith prefers to operate through proxies—issuing directives behind closed doors and tasking lower-level administrators with executing her agenda, regardless of their professional judgment or ethical reservations. Those who comply, risk complicity; those who dissent reportedly face career consequences, from reassignments to stalled advancement—or outright removal.
Our sources and all available evidence point to one conclusion: Chancellor Goldsmith is the driving force behind the persistent refusal to respect Academic Senate’s voice at MCC. And based on her post, it appears that Dr. Gerri Santos agrees with our assessment. [image below]
7. The Fear Is Palpable, the Pattern Undeniable
In our previous article, we detailed how Chancellor Goldsmith weaponizes threats and intimidation to silence dissent—both within the SCCCD and beyond. That chilling dynamic was on full display on September 27, 2024, moments before the MCC Academic Senate passed its votes of no-confidence. Former MCC Academic Senate President Dr. Gregory Ramirez stood before the administration and issued a stark warning:
“Pride is a powerful thing, as it has led to where we are today—and retaliation following the probable passage of these resolutions will only worsen matters rather than vindicate you.”
The threat of retaliation is no longer whispered—it’s expected. Under Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership, fear has become institutional policy. Faculty, classified professionals, and even some administrators now operate under the constant shadow of reprisal. Ask yourself: Is this the kind of learning environment our students deserve?
What happened at MCC is not an isolated event. It is part of a disturbing trend. Once a rare occurrence, votes of no-confidence have become a hallmark of Chancellor Goldsmith’s tenure. Since her appointment, the District has seen not one, not two, but five such votes—each triggered by administrative actions that silenced, ignored, or retaliated against faculty.
The first came when the Fresno City College (FCC) Academic Senate issued a formal letter-of-concern against Dean Cyndie Luna and then-Vice President of Instruction Don Lopez.
The second involved a joint vote of no-confidence by the Nursing Departments at FCC and MCC, objecting to the appointment of Dr. Stephanie Robinson as interim Dean of Nursing—an appointment planned absent any faculty consultation.
Now, Deans Garcia and President Reyna have joined the list—named in resolutions by the MCC Academic Senate in response to their failure to uphold shared governance and defend faculty rights.
This is not a coincidence. It’s a crisis.
Each of these votes reflects not just discontent, but deep erosion of trust in leadership, in due process, and in the possibility of honest collaboration. Meanwhile, the Board of Trustees remains eerily silent, seemingly unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the chaos festering under their watch.
Their continued support of Chancellor Goldsmith is not just politically short-sighted. It is ethically indefensible. Every day they look away, morale sinks further. And the ones who suffer most are the students they claim to protect.
8. A Culture of Contempt: Faculty Silenced by Design
As outlined in the timeline in section 3, one moment in particular captures the institutional rot spreading under Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership: an AgTEC conference held in downtown Fresno in Spring 2023. Conspicuously missing at the conference were curriculum chairs, Academic Senate presidents, and union representatives. When asked about their absence, the CBEN Director reportedly replied:
“Don’t worry about the Academic Senate or the union—we’ll get this far enough down the road that they’ll have no choice but to get on board.”
That quote is not just a chilling insight into the mindset of those advancing Chancellor Goldsmith’s agenda—it’s a confession. A confession that faculty voices are not simply inconvenient, but obstacles to be bypassed. The playbook is as simple as it is sinister: don’t inform faculty, don’t invite input, don’t collaborate. By the time they realize what’s happened, the train has already left the station—and those who try to stop it are branded obstructionists. The final step? Threats and retaliation to enforce compliance.
This is not just poor management. It’s a deliberate subversion of the very structure of shared governance that under-girds California’s Community College system.
Under California’s Education Code and Title 5 regulations, Academic Senates are granted primary voice in academic and professional matters because faculty are the instructional experts. That’s not just policy; it’s the law. Yet Chancellor Goldsmith and her cabinet have systematically undermined these rights, replacing consultation with coercion and collegiality with contempt.
One reason for this hostility may be disarmingly simple: Chancellor Goldsmith has allegedly never taught a single college course. Not one. Not in a community college classroom. Not online. Not hybrid. Not anywhere. Her detachment from teaching is not just symbolic—it has become a policy platform.
Her lack of classroom experience may help explain her chronic under-funding of academics, her ballooning of student services budgets, and her now-familiar strategy of administrative overreach. For example, Dual Enrollment, once envisioned as a bridge for under-served students, has morphed into an AP-style pipeline, implemented with minimal faculty input and used to displace faculty jobs. And now, CBE is the new tool. Another top-down initiative dressed in innovation but carried out in secrecy and enforced through fear.
At every turn, Chancellor Goldsmith appears to advance an anti-faculty, anti-academic agenda. It is a staggering irony that the leader of an educational institution seems so disconnected from the core mission of education: teaching and learning.
Even more troubling is the continued support she receives from the Board of Trustees. In a previous article, we asked whether that support stems from ignorance or complicity. At this point, the distinction may no longer matter. The Board’s tacit endorsement of Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership is tearing this district apart.
Unless corrective action is taken immediately, more administrators will face more votes of no-confidence, more programs will be hollowed out, and more faculty will be forced to choose between silence and retaliation.
What’s festering now is no longer just low morale, it’s institutional decay. And it starts at the top.
9. A Word for the Board
The fault lies squarely with the Board of Trustees because of their unwavering support for Chancellor Goldsmith’s actions. They, along with the court system, are the only entities that can change this trajectory. The growing number of lawsuits against the district, its ballooning legal expenses, and the mounting legal losses are already straining our budget. But we believe it’s time to specifically call out those Trustees who are perpetuating this problem.
Several members of the Board expressed their unwavering support for President Reyna, Dean Garcia, and CBE program, completely missing the point of the MCC Academic Senate's votes of no-confidence. These statements reflect a disturbing endorsement of Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership, which has systematically undermined faculty voices and violated the rights of Academic Senates. Furthermore, they reveal a troubling lack of understanding among the Trustees regarding the crucial role of faculty input in decision-making.
As we will explore in future articles, some trustees have a history of voting against faculty interests. This election cycle is especially critical. Trustee Nasreen Johnson, who previously enjoyed SCFT’s support, now faces opposition from Mr. Pablo Villagrana, who unlike Johnson has been endorsed by the SCFT. You should ask why the SCFT withdrew its backing. The answer likely lies in her voting record and close alignment with the Chancellor by ignoring faculty voices.
We urge voters—particularly faculty, classified professionals, and administrators—to support candidates who stand for faculty and classified professionals rights and voices rather than those who repeatedly oppose them. This election is a chance to send a clear message: Trustees who disregard faculty and classified voices should be unseated. We must take an active role in the governance of our District. Together, our collective power can demand accountability and respect for faculty and classified professionals. For this reason, we endorse Mr. Pablo Villagrana, becasue we believe he will listen to and respect the voices of faculty and classified professionals.
Moreover, we strongly oppose Measure Q, which seeks nearly $700 million in bonds for the SCCCD. This additional funding would allow the District to reallocate resources for other projects, including administrative salaries and creation of more administrative positions. Chancellor Goldsmith has allegedly expanded administrative positions and increased salaries at an unprecedented rate. We urge you not to support a bond that could be used to further empower an administration that continues to trample on the voices of faculty and classified professionals.
Your vote is your voice. As Chancellor Goldsmith continues to retaliate and issue threats against those who speak up, and the Board of Trustees remains passive, you have the power to make a difference. Use your vote to send a clear message of disapproval and demand accountability.
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