The Sonoma State Academic Senate released results for the “no-confidence” vote by faculty in an email sent to faculty and press. The majority overwhelmingly voted in favor of no-confidence against Interim President Emily Cutrer, Provost Karen Moranski, and CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia.
Out of 213 votes, 95% of respondents cast no-confidence votes against Chancellor Garcia. Cutrer followed close behind with 89% of the votes reflecting no-confidence in her leadership. Provost Moranski faced more mixed results, with 64% of respondents voting no-confidence.
In the email, the Academic Senate cited three main reasons for the vote: a breakdown of leadership, decisions made by administration that did not align with the values of the campus and the CSU systems, and the desire for bold and immediate change.
The “no-confidence” vote serves as a formal way for the faculty to show they no longer support the leadership, according to the email, and serves as a non-legally binding statement to the CSU board of trustees.
The Star reached out to the interim president, provost, and chancellor via email for a response to the vote. Provost Moranski and Chancellor Garcia did not immediately respond to the request for comment.
“I take the resolution seriously, and understand that there is a need for improved communication and engagement with the Sonoma State community,” Cutrer said in response.
“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. I look 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,” Cutrer continued.
The results of the vote came only a couple days after California legislators returned to SSU to review the proposed “Bridge to the Future Plan.”
During the legislative forum on Monday, the legislators’ sentiment of disappointment about the plan culminated with a statement by Assemblymember Chris Rogers.
“It feels like we have meat shields who have been put in front of legislators to take the ire of the public while the chancellor’s office has been unwilling to engage in these conversations,” Rogers said.
The “Bridge to the Future Plan” focuses on bringing in new programs and marketing strategies within three to seven years. The plan did not talk about reversing the cuts taken against academic departments, faculty, staff, and athletics.
At the forum, legislators came to the conclusion that more “behind closed doors” conversations with the CSU chancellor were needed, but it is ultimately up to the administration to make the changes.
“Two words: I’m done,” said Calif. Senate President Mike McGuire during the forum, “The chancellor’s office needs to do something.”
The no-confidence results were met with praise by members of the community, including the California Faculty Association, who on Thursday held a march to the interim president’s office to deliver a banking box with a “pink slip” so she could “clean out her desk.”
Madyline Jaramillo, a dance and business major at Sonoma State who was at the march, expressed support for the vote and the work done by the California Faculty Association since Jan., when the cuts were announced.
“We’re setting this example and our pushback against the cuts,” said Madyline, “That we hold the administration accountable to the fullest of our abilities. The endurance is strong.”
At the march, the attendees handed over the bankers box and protest signs to the front reception, as the interim president was offsite that day.
