The faculty, students and Administration of Sonoma State is now in a civil war. Education? Not at this bucolic campus. Hate speech, rallies, denouncements, back and forth, that is Sonoma State.
“In a referendum held over the previous few days, more than 200 faculty members voted separately on CSU Chancellor Mildred García, Sonoma State Interim President Emily Cutrer, and SSU’s Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs Karen Moranski.
Some 52% of the 409 eligible members of Sonoma State’s academic staff participated in the vote.
Ninety-five percent of respondents expressed no confidence in García. Cutrer, appointed in July 2024, fared only a little better, with 89% of voters confirming that they’d lost faith in her ability to lead.
Moranski was slightly less unpopular, with only 64% of faculty expressing no confidence in her.
The outcome is symbolic and has no formal bearing on the employment of the three administrators. It was followed Thursday by a noon rally on campus involving dozens of faculty members, staff and students who called for Cutrer’s exit.
All of this because the Sonoma State Administration, having lost tens of millions of dollars in support, was forced to fire faculty and end some majors. Those opposing the cuts have no idea where the money would come from to keep the status quo. These are folks looking for attention, who are economic illiterates.
In overwhelming vote, Sonoma State faculty express no confidence in SSU, CSU leadership
The referendum is the latest in a series of high-profile rebukes directed at Sonoma State and the CSU system in just the past few days.
AUSTIN MURPHY AND MARISA ENDICOTT,THE PRESS DEMOCRAT, 4/21/25, https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sonoma-state-faculty-no-confidence-vote-csu/
Sonoma State University budget crisis
Faculty members at Sonoma State have delivered an overwhelming repudiation of their top leaders both on the Rohnert Park campus and in Long Beach, headquarters of the California State University system.
In a referendum held over the previous few days, more than 200 faculty members voted separately on CSU Chancellor Mildred García, Sonoma State Interim President Emily Cutrer, and SSU’s Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs Karen Moranski.
Some 52% of the 409 eligible members of Sonoma State’s academic staff participated in the vote.
Ninety-five percent of respondents expressed no confidence in García. Cutrer, appointed in July 2024, fared only a little better, with 89% of voters confirming that they’d lost faith in her ability to lead.
Moranski was slightly less unpopular, with only 64% of faculty expressing no confidence in her.
The outcome is symbolic and has no formal bearing on the employment of the three administrators. It was followed Thursday by a noon rally on campus involving dozens of faculty members, staff and students who called for Cutrer’s exit.
The vote marks the latest bout of turmoil since January, when Cutrer announced plans to cut more than 100 faculty and staff positions, six academic departments, about two dozen degree programs and all intercollegiate athletics in order to comply with a CSU mandate to close a nearly $24 million budget gap.
The referendum is the second held by faculty in three years at SSU, which is now on its fourth campus president in that period.
In 2022, the faculty delivered a vote of no-confidence against then-president Judy Sakaki, with 62% of voting members casting ballots against Sakaki, who announced her resignation the following month.
“This contempt,” said Sonoma State political science professor David McCuan, referring to the votes against García and Cutrer, “is much bigger, and deeper, than what we have seen before.”
Stefan Kiesbye, a professor in Sonoma State’s English department, said that faculty and staff “are fed up with the tone deafness, the lack of leadership we’ve been experiencing on campus.”
This referendum, he said, “makes me hopeful that this may be the point where other schools in the CSU system look at us and say, ‘We’ve had it with leadership. We don’t want to be treated like chattel.’”
A statement released by Sonoma State spokesperson Jeff Keating said Cutrer “takes this resolution seriously, and understands that there is a need for improved communication and engagement with the Sonoma State community. This has been an extremely challenging time, with decisions that are never easy and that impact the lives of students, faculty, and staff. The focus in this process was developing a strategy that impacted the fewest number of students possible.
“She looks forward to working collaboratively with the Sonoma State community on the Bridge to the Future plan, which was built so that others can provide input and additional structure.”
CSU did not respond Thursday to a request for comment.
The outcome of the referendum, announced by campus representatives of the California Faculty Association, is the latest in a series of high-profile rebukes directed at Sonoma State and the CSU system in just the past few days.
On Tuesday, a Sonoma County judge issued a temporary restraining order against Sonoma State University, requiring the school to stop implementing, for now, its plans to cut those academic programs.
Judge Kenneth English’s ruling did not apply, however, to SSU’s related plans to scrap its entire NCAA Division II athletic program.
That ruling came in response to a request from a group of seven Sonoma State student-athletes who had filed the petition for the emergency order seeking a halt to the sports cuts. The same group sued college and California State University administrators in March.
On Monday, a group of California lawmakers gathered at Sonoma State’s Rohnert Park campus to excoriate the University’s “Bridge to the Future” blueprint plotting a path forward out of its fiscal crisis. The politicians placed much of the blame at the feet of CSU leadership.
“In this budget environment, especially,” said state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, D-Yolo, said of providing more state funding to the CSU, “we have to have a compelling case.”
Alongside state Senate President Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and others, he urged the Chancellor’s Office and Board of Trustees to commit to and invest in Sonoma State, which, Cabaldon predicted, “is just first in line for what half the other CSU campuses are heading toward.”
Sonoma State “is the canary in the coal mine,” McCuan said Thursday.
This no-confidence vote, he added, “means that the canary is singing.”
Based upon the events of the past week – SSU’s setback in court, high-level criticism of the “Bridge to the Future,” this no-confidence vote – “calls for change on campus and within the CSU system are growing, the pressure is increasing,” said McCuan.
That pressure, he added, “extends beyond campus, to Sacramento, to the legislators, the funders.”
“I have never seen such an engaged reaction to things that are going on,” said Tim Wandling, chair of SSU’s English department, responding to the results of the referendum.
Wandling and Lauren Morimoto, chair of SSU’s kinesiology department, planned to introduce a resolution at Thursday afternoon’s Academic Senate meeting, to open a nomination period, allowing faculty to choose their own desired candidate for the next SSU president.
If the resolution is passed and a candidate is selected, faculty would present their recommendation to the CSU Board of Trustees for consideration in their ongoing search for a new permanent president to helm the university.
Cutrer, for her part, has said she will stay until December.
“For the last three decades they’ve brought in outsiders that have run afoul of our culture,” said Wandling, who hopes the CSU Board of Trustees would consider appointing a candidate put forward by the SSU faculty immediately, even if it’s only on an interim basis.
“It takes a while to do a search, and we’re in crisis right now.”
With two-thirds of the participating faculty voting against her, Moranski proved more popular than Cutrer and García in the referendum. McCuan said he believes feelings are more mixed because a lot of what’s gone wrong at Sonoma State has been outside of the provost’s control – the result of decisions made at the CSU level.
“She sees herself as a real champion of the faculty, and so do many faculty. Yet here we are at a place where things have continued to decline on her watch,” he said.
“She’s been leading the academic ship, and that ship is on the rocks.”
Good https://shorturl.at/2breu