The Chancellor Doesn’t Care About Faculty Voices – Part 1.1
Update to the story about Competency-Based Education at Madera Community College.
On October 23, 2024, we published our article, The Chancellor doesn’t care About faculty voices – Part 1, which focused on Competency-Based Education (CBE) at Madera Community College (MCC). We have an important update but first we want to extend our heartfelt gratitude to everyone who provided information on this topic.
While we were aware of the widespread discontent among employees within the State Center Community College District (SCCCD), the sheer volume of support, insights, and additional information we’ve received has been both humbling and eye-opening. Your trust and contributions have been invaluable—thank you!
We rely entirely on our sources for these stories, and we promise to protect their identities and any information that could reveal them. If you want to help us, please read our article: YOUR voice matters! It outlines the topics and ways you can contribute.
If you haven’t yet read our initial story on CBE at MCC, we encourage you to do so before diving into this update.
To all faculty
If you’re a faculty member at the SCCCD, Competency-Based Education is an issue you cannot ignore. We’ve received reports alleging that Chancellor Goldsmith is resolute in her efforts to push AgTEC and CBE initiatives district-wide, even in the face of strong opposition from the Academic Senates at two campuses and the faculty union. It’s worth noting, however, that the faculty union has supported AgTEC and CBE programs at campuses where the Academic Senates have agreed to their implementation.
AgTEC is just the beginning—today it’s AgTEC, but tomorrow it could be your program. Later in this article, we’ll delve into the incentives driving the Chancellor to relentlessly "Ram" this initiative forward while "CRUSHing" any opposition (pun intended).
Update
After publishing our first article, we received credible information revealing that the Course Outline of Records (CORs) for AgTEC—a program chosen to pilot CBE at MCC—was developed by an outside organization hired by the District to “advance” the work of CBE and AgTEC. This act is a blatant violation of the MCC Academic Senate’s and faculty’s rights. Multiple sources have confirmed that program development is a fundamental right of each college’s Academic Senate, protected under established governance policies. Furthermore, our sources indicate that this is not the first time Chancellor Goldsmith and her administration have attempted to bypass the Academic Senates and undermine faculty authority in program development. We are actively investigating these additional violations and will share more details in future articles.
We have also learned that, because only full-time faculty are allowed to submit curriculum—a standard practice across the district—Dean Garcia assigned Dr. Elizabeth Mosqueda, a full-time but not yet tenured faculty member, to develop and submit the Course Outlines of Records (CORs) for AgTEC courses. Dr. Mosqueda allegedly expressed significant discomfort with this task but ultimately submitted the CORs in the Spring of 2024. However, the CORs were tabled at the committee level due to incompleteness.
When Dr. Mosqueda declined to continue working on the AgTEC’s CORs, Dean Garcia hired a part-time faculty member to take over the project. The part-time faculty member completed the work and submitted the CORs to MCC’s Curriculum Committee in the Fall of 2024. Shockingly, the submitted CORs listed Dr. Mosqueda as one of the authors, despite her not having written them or consenting to her name being included. The CORs were never agendized at the Curriculum Committee because of the misrepresentation.
The flip-flop
After extensive efforts by the Academic Senate to ensure faculty voice was heard and their necessary input considered, President Reyna expressed his support for the faculty’s decision to halt CBE efforts and remove MCC from the CBE Collaborative during a special MCC Academic Senate meeting on April 5, 2024. However, in a written communication to the Academic Senate Executive Council on August 21, 2024, President Reyna contradicted his earlier stance, stating that MCC remained part of the collaborative and that he lacked the authority to withdraw the college from it.
We wondered what happened form April 5th until August 21st that led to such drastic change in President Reyna’s promise until we received reports alleging that some college presidents within the district met with Chancellor Goldsmith to express their reluctance to implementing CBE at their campuses. They cited the opposition from the Academic Senates and faculty union but they were allegedly told by Chancellor Goldsmith that they had no choice in the matter. President Reyna’s August 21 email supports these claims, suggesting the Chancellor's firm grip on this initiative and the lack of autonomy afforded to college leaders.
A campaign of misinformation
Before October 1, 2024, the MCC Academic Senate approved a vote of no confidence against Dean Garcia due to his handling of AgTEC and his:
-Failure to engage in participatory governance;
-Disregard for faculty resolutions, input, and concerns;
-Engagement in inappropriate curricular discussions;
-Violations of Distance Education guidelines; and
-Targeting of vulnerable faculty members.
Additionally, the MCC Academic Senate passed a resolution requesting that President Reyna submit a written request to Chancellor Goldsmith to remove MCC from the CBE Collaborative. The resolution stipulated that if President Reyna refused, the MCC AS would have no choice but to consider initiating a vote of no confidence against him. To clarify, no vote of no confidence had been passed against President Reyna as of October 1, 2024.
However, during the October 1 Board of Trustees meeting, numerous community members from Madera, including some public officials, spoke out against the vote of no confidence against President Reyna—even though no such vote had occurred (and, as of this article's publication, still has not). The public comment period lasted approximately an hour, with many speakers lacking accurate information. Instead, several took the opportunity to disparage MCC faculty, with one individual going so far as to state, "Madera educators are addicted to the status quo".
It was evident that a false narrative, implying that the issue was racially motivated and against farm-workers, had been circulated, detracting from the legitimate concerns raised by the Academic Senate and faculty at MCC. The President of the Academic Senate at MCC addressed the false narrative, emphasizing her personal connection to the farming community and her family's background as farm-workers.
We have received information suggesting that these community members were allegedly present at the Board meeting at the request of Chancellor Goldsmith. Furthermore, it appears that the racially charged narrative surrounding this issue was also allegedly propagated by Chancellor Goldsmith. President Reyna, who spoke during the meeting, made no effort to counter or clarify the false narrative, aligning with Chancellor Goldsmith's modus operandi: She is known for leveraging her community connections to rally support when needed. However, this strategy seems to be losing its effectiveness, as many of her connections have grown disillusioned and now offer only superficial support.
Through our proxies, we reached out to several individuals who spoke at the meeting. It became evident that many of them did not fully understand AgTEC or CBE; they were simply there to back the administration. Another clear indication that this support was orchestrated is the fact that community members addressed the Board on an issue that was not on the agenda, raising questions about how they were even aware of the resolutions passed by the Academic Senate at MCC.
Another noteworthy fact is that some Trustees made statements on this issue, despite the Brown Act explicitly prohibiting them from responding to public comments. Ironically, Chancellor Goldsmith begins every public comment session by reminding the Board of this restriction. Even more concerning, several Trustees were observed reading from prepared statements. According to multiple sources informed us that these statements were allegedly provided to the Trustees by Chancellor Goldsmith. This information, if true, underscores the extent of the Chancellor’s influence over the Board. Our group, along with many of the individuals we’ve consulted, is mystified by the hold Chancellor Goldsmith appears to have over the Trustees.
Why President Reyna and Dean Garcia?
To those who believe this has little to do with Dean Garcia or President Reyna, you’re likely correct—this initiative is allegedly being orchestrated from 1171 Fulton St., the District Office, rather than originating at the college campuses. This is precisely how Chancellor Goldsmith operates: positioning administrators as the public champions of her agenda, only to leave them to shoulder the blame when things go awry. By doing so, she advances her objectives while bypassing the consultation rights of faculty, classified professionals, and students. Meanwhile, she strategically distances herself from any fallout, ensuring she can claim credit if the initiative succeeds.
If President Reyna is willing to risk having a vote of no confidence on his record by refusing to communicate the Academic Senate’s rightful demand to the Chancellor—despite being guaranteed support by the Board, as read into the record at the October 1 Board meeting—then so be it. It is widely recognized that this initiative is entirely the work of Chancellor Goldsmith. Administrators who are willing to do the Chancellor’s bidding should take heed: even her closest allies have not enjoyed her lasting support or respect. President Pimentel and Vice President of Administrative Services at Fresno City College, Omar Gutierrez, two of the four so-called "West Hills Gang", left the District, allegedly due to the lack of autonomy and the significant challenges and risk they faced under Chancellor Goldsmith's leadership. If you are wondering, the other two members are Chancellor Goldsmith and Vice President of Student Services, Lataria Hall.
Chancellor Goldsmith allegedly invests significant political capital, time, energy, and public funds into crafting strategies that undermine constituency rights, ensuring that when things go wrong, others take the blame, while she claims the accolades for any perceived success. Her alleged refusal to empower campus presidents to manage their own campuses, fostering of a hostile environment by rallying uninformed supporters to champion her projects, and use of racial divisions to achieve her goals, are all hallmarks of her leadership style—one allegedly shaped by her consultants.
Retaliation and intimidation
Since the MCC Academic Senate initiated the votes of no confidence, the alleged retaliation against faculty and Senate leadership has only intensified—an all-too-common tactic under Chancellor Goldsmith’s administration as we have covered in our article, Why are we speaking anonymously?. The threat of retaliation was made publicly at the MCC Academic Senate meeting on September 27th, when President Reyna stated, “If you all want to be evaluated and scrutinized in the same fashion that [Dean Garcia] is for any little issue that you have with him, let Keith Ford know that the contract is open, we can include that in your evaluation as well.”
President Reyna, like many in Chancellor Goldsmith’s administration, fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of a vote of no confidence. It is not an evaluation; rather, it is the strongest possible statement by the Academic Senate, signaling that the rights of the faculty as a collective body have been violated, despite numerous attempts at dialogue and outreach.
Academic Senate executive member Erin Heasley, the only nontenured member of MCC’s Academic Senate leadership, has allegedly been indirectly threatened with the possibility of being denied tenure. We have received reports that President Reyna has allegedly outlined four specific ways he intends to retaliate against faculty, with one being the issue of Erin Heasley’s tenure. Disturbingly, two of these retaliatory actions are underway, raising serious concerns that the remaining two will soon follow.
The intimidation and silencing tactics continued when the District’s legal counsel, Dr. Kristen Corey, sent a memo to all senators and executive members of MCC’s Academic Senate on September 27, 2024—the same day that the votes of no confidence against Dean Garcia and the declaration of intent to draft a vote of no confidence against President Reyna were scheduled. In the memo, Dr. Corey claimed that the MCC Academic Senate was out of compliance with the Brown Act. She also made an appearance and repeated the allegations during the public comment section of the Academic Senate meeting.
One of her assertions was that the MCC Academic Senate was out of compliance because it used MyOrgs (a District-provided platform) to post its public documents. However, MCC AS had been using MyOrgs for years and based on direct instructions from Chancellor Goldsmith (via Don Lopez, the District Chief Technology Officer) as recently as August 2024. Both Reedley College and Clovis Community College use MyOrgs, yet they did not receive similar memos.
We have also learned that this tactic mirrors the approach taken by legal counsel in Spring 2023 to delay the vote on a letter of concern against administrators at Fresno City College’s Academic Senate. The pattern is clear: if Chancellor Goldsmith disapproves of faculty actions, she resorts to legal maneuvering to silence dissent.
We have also received information suggesting that she allegedly controls the flow of information and narrative presented to the Board of Trustees. One source told us some Trustees see their role as supporting the Chancellor rather than providing oversight. It is deeply troubling that our institution has strayed so far from its mission, with the Board of Trustees ignoring the concerns of faculty, classified, and administrative professionals while allowing the Chancellor to continue the alleged mismanagement of the District.
The incentives
At SCCCD Insiders, we’ve been working to uncover the motivations behind Chancellor Goldsmith’s relentless push for AgTEC, particularly in its CBE format. After much investigation, we believe we’ve deciphered the mystery. Our theory rests on three key factors:
1. Financial Incentives
We’ve received credible information suggesting that significant financial incentives are tied to Competency-Based Education (CBE) programs. Consider this hypothetical scenario: a program like AgTEC offers a course on agricultural welding. A farm-worker who already knows how to weld could complete the course in just three days, as CBE focuses on mastery rather than the time spent in class. The farm-worker earns credit for skills they already possess, but the District still receives full state funding for that student. Meanwhile, the faculty member is paid for just three days of work, and the remaining funds are absorbed by the District.
These courses are likely to be assigned to part-time faculty, as the union has predicted, further reducing costs for the District. Now, scale this model across thousands of farm-workers and a variety of skills for which they can receive credits, and the financial incentives for the District become glaringly obvious.
However, there’s a critical disconnect. When surveyed, farm-workers expressed a preference for English proficiency courses over programs like AgTEC. Their requests highlight a deep understanding of the shifting agricultural landscape. With the potential return of stricter immigration policies, ongoing farm-worker shortages, rising costs due to these shortages, and the increasing affordability of automation powered by artificial intelligence, corporate farms are beginning to invest heavily in automated solutions.
Farm-workers seem acutely aware of this shift and are advocating for educational programs, such as English proficiency courses, that could help them adapt and thrive in a changing job market. Yet, the District appears intent on pushing AgTEC, prioritizing financial incentives over addressing the community’s actual needs.
2. Political Promises
We’ve been informed that Chancellor Goldsmith allegedly makes commitments to community members, including politicians and business leaders, without consulting faculty or understanding the academic implications. Her lack of classroom experience appears to play a significant role in this top-down approach. AgTEC is allegedly one such promise made to community stakeholders, and she seems determined to deliver it, regardless of faculty concerns. This approach contradicts the principles of shared governance outlined by California law, which grant Academic Senates the primary responsibility for driving academic decisions. The lawmakers anticipated scenarios like this and enshrined faculty rights to ensure education remains faculty-led, not administrator-driven.
3. Systematic Erosion of Faculty Rights
Based on our sources, Chancellor Goldsmith has allegedly undertaken a systematic campaign to curtail faculty rights since assuming her role. This strategy is reportedly rooted in advice from RSS Consulting, a firm to which SCCCD has paid $329,340 since 2022, according to records we reviewed. Our sources indicate that RSS Consulting allegedly conducts sessions emphasizing that faculty hold minimal power in governance processes. These sessions reportedly extend to Board members, potentially explaining their passive approach to faculty concerns.
This campaign has been described as a deliberate and methodical effort to undermine faculty influence, marked by heavy-handed disciplinary actions and unprecedented attacks on faculty leaders. According to our sources, this strategy appears to be designed to eliminate dissent and dismantle the collaborative governance model that SCCCD has historically relied upon.
The AgTEC and CBE saga at MCC is just the latest chapter in what our sources describe as Chancellor Goldsmith’s broader agenda. Her approach represents a significant departure from previous administrations and raises serious concerns about the future of faculty rights and governance within the District.
A word for the Board
You have a fiduciary responsibility to the voters, students, faculty, and classified professionals. It’s time to intervene. We have chosen to include your names in all of our future articles, ensuring that any future searches of your names—especially for political office—will reference our coverage:
Magdalena Gomez, President
Danielle Parra, Vice President
Robert A. Fuentes, Secretary
Richard M. Caglia, Trustee
Deborah J. Ikeda, Trustee
Nasreen Johnson, Trustee
Destiny Rodriguez, Trustee
Haiden del Fierro, Student Trustee
Trustees, you are responsible for your sole employee, the Chancellor, yet you are failing all of us. It is time for accountability.
The way Chancellor Goldsmith operates is not what lawmakers envisioned. The community college system was never intended to operate like a corporation with an all-powerful CEO, hence the allowance by lawmakers for shared governance and inclusion of faculty, classified professionals, and students in the decision making process.
Trustees, we have received an overwhelming response and valuable information regarding many of the 18 issues we’ve highlighted in our article YOUR voice matters!. As Trustees, you have failed to provide the necessary oversight for this institution. As a result, we believe it is imperative to inform the public so they can hold you accountable and assist in ensuring proper governance. We urge you to step up and fulfill your fiduciary responsibility to the institution and its stakeholders.
We rely entirely on our sources for these stories, and we promise to protect their identities and any information that could reveal them. If you want to help us, please read our article: YOUR voice matters! It outlines ways you can contribute safely and confidentially.
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