President Sakaki’s lack of active leadership at the university has led to a period of declining enrollments, budget crises, and a precipitous drop in the morale of students, staff, and faculty. These problems are likely to continue, and even be exacerbated, as long as President Sakaki remains in her current position. 

• During President Sakaki’s tenure, student enrollment has declined from 9408 (Fall 2016) at SSU to 7182 (Fall 2022). Although some other Northern California schools have seen modest enrollment declines, few have been as precipitous as the drop at SSU during a period when the CSU saw an enrollment increase from 478,600 to 485,500 students.
• SSU’s budgets have been slashed due to the declining enrollments. In academic year 2022-2023, the SSU Academic Affairs budget faces a $5.5 million shortfall.
• Morale among faculty and staff has declined dramatically as evidenced by record participation in the early exit program and high rates of attrition among tenure line faculty.

President Sakaki has failed to engage with faculty and faculty governance in a substantive way during her tenure.

• Dr. Sakaki has infrequently attended faculty governance meetings, budget forums, and other campus events. She has abrogated responsibility for shared governance, leaving much of the work of running the university to the provost, cabinet officers, and the faculty.
• Without meaningful consultation, the Sakaki administration dismantled the Office of Faculty Affairs and moved the Center for Community Engagement to the Office of the President.
• An increasing number of faculty grievances during President Sakaki’s tenure have resulted from a lack of clear policy guidance for deans and other administrators.    
• When the president has come to faculty governance meetings, she has responded to faculty suggestions and questions with platitudes and deflection to other administrators rather than action-oriented leadership.
• High turnover among administrators illustrates instability at the highest levels of the university. At the same time, faculty complaints and labor grievances against administrators have increased significantly. Failure to assemble a consistent and competent leadership team is, in fact, a failure of leadership.

President Sakaki’s handling of allegations involving her husband and her alleged retaliation against the previous provost have undermined enforcement of university policies, damaged the public image of the university, and cost the system financially. 

• The university did not transparently address allegations of sexual harassment against President Sakaki’s husband (an official volunteer at the university) as it would have another university employee. After the allegations surfaced, the president’s husband continued to participate in campus events in ways that made staff and faculty uncomfortable.  
• The president did not adequately address the claims that she retaliated against the former provost for alerting the CSU about the above allegations. The lack of communication about this incident further eroded trust in the president and led to negative press coverage just as SSU was recruiting new students.
• Fear of retaliation in the wake of the incident with the former provost has had a chilling effect on campus dialogue about the Sakaki administration and on trust in the Title IX process at SSU.
• The CSU’s $600,000 settlement with the former provost in the retaliation case cost the university system financially (potentially in the form of higher insurance premiums) at a time when the faculty and administrators are being asked to slash academic budgets.   

In short, Dr. Judy Sakaki has failed to lead Sonoma State University. The president has overseen a decline of university enrollments and budgets. She has delegated nearly all of her responsibilities to subordinates, and she has not engaged with students, staff, or faculty in meaningful ways to plan for the future of the university.  - Rationale presented with resolution to the Senate

I support President Sakaki - Carole Judd-Lamb, student

This feels like a witch hunt. Once again a woman of color has to shrink herself due to a white man. I don't feel there has been adequate discussion of this within the senate or campus at large. I also think it is entirely unfair that only faculty gets to vote on this considering how much of these rationales affect staff. - Staff

Con - Margaret Anderson

President Sakaki has changed what SSU means for many - including our North Bay community, students, faculty, and staff including many underrepresented groups across the state. An institution that was never centered around the student experience or faculty success is now one of the most promising places to work for student affair professionals, investing in faculty success, an HSI, and engaging alum like never before. What we love and appreciate about this campus now is a result of her leadership. As she has mentioned multiple times she did not have a say in how the settlement was decided. The leaders above her are letting her take the fall and that’s not okay. She was competent enough to become our president after many years in higher education and I don’t believe the solution is to remove her after this situation. Let’s use this as an opportunity to systemically change what’s been going on for many years- not just in the last few weeks. It’s unfair to blame the president for a decrease in enrollment when the enrollment and recruitment department was restructured and people pushed out as a result of the previous Provost’s decision and leadership. Let’s approach this through a lens of restorative justice which holds the president accountable but also allows the opportunity to learn from mistakes. Let’s continue leading the amazing initiatives, academic programs, and research that many of us are working on. SSU cannot afford to restart with new leadership that will back track the progress this institution has made in the last few years.- Staff

I believe the university community should consider the unique discriminations the President has faced as a consequence of being Japanese American woman of her generation, and how the racism and sexism she has faced have shaped the administrative forces she has been challenged by at Sonoma State University. The sensationalized media coverage of this issue has overshadowed the fact that we simply do not know, for legal reasons, when she was made aware of sexual harassment allegations (she has stated she did not know for a long period of time); whether she was allowed to discuss these Title IX issues even when she was made aware of them; what her lived experience with the Provost was; whether she actually retaliated; and whether she was forced by CSU administrators to sign the settlement (she has stated that she did not want to sign it, and did not know from which funds the settlement money would ultimately derive). President Sakaki has saved students and faculty a great deal of money from the Green Music Center by facing down Arminana's policies and personnel in the year she arrived. The fire and pandemic enrollment losses were neither caused by her, nor are they entirely fungible (interchangeable with the losses at universities at other locations). I believe we should not create a hostile environment with a vote of no confidence, which will not cause her to leave, but instead create a more adversarial working environment. We as Faculty can use this critical moment with President Sakaki to request the information and changes faculty, staff, and students need. She has already pledged to restructure the Title IX office. Let us be mindful of the racism, sexism, and media sensationalism, as well as the legal restrictions, the President has faced, and be mindful of her humanity, and not as a community succumb to the insensitivity we seek to criticize.- Janet Hess

Bullying and retaliation are the ways of SSU! Employee Relations and Compliance is here for management, not the staff. Why has title 9 had so much turnover?!? - Staff

I argue AGAINST a vote of no confidence because we do not have enough facts in this case. We have allegations of sexual assault that were dismissed and no witnesses willing to come forth, and we have a retaliation settlement from a disgruntled employee that is common in corporate America. In fact, according to Buffington Law Firm (2022),."In California, the percentage of civil lawsuits that settle as opposed to going to trial and verdict is usually right around 96% in any given year." Settlement does not indicate either innocence OR guilt. Here is the URL for the entire article if anyone wants to read more:  I don't know what amount Lisa was asking for, what the evidence is, and why she filed suit. I also don't know why Judy has not disclosed more information. We don't know if there was a "no admission of liability" clause and we don't know the details about any "mutual release" clauses. I would like more facts before making my decisions from what I have only learned from the front page of the newspaper. In terms of the budget, many universities in Northern California have budget issues. Mills College is merging with Northeast University which has a large online presence. No one is happy about this decision but the historic women's college has not been able to maintain financial viability. We have had major fires and almost three years of a pandemic, back to back. I would prefer that we work collaboratively to solve these issues.- Faculty

Con - faculty

This has all played out in the press in a very contrived way. This really reads like a well organized and manufactured PR campaign against President Sakaki. There are larger issues at hand that have impacted the SSU community. President Sakaki should not be accountable for acts of her husband, and it seems pretty obvious that there is more to the narrative than the press leaks (or parties seeking to damage Sakaki by being those leaks). President Sakaki did not know of the allegations until she was being consulted to sign the settlement by the CSU lawyers and Chancellors office. They should be held accountable for misadvising President Sakaki and forcing her to stay quiet. Although she could have been more transparent in July 2021 when the settlement was signed, it seems she was still trying to protect Lisa Vollendorf's reputation by not 'outing' the fact that SSU would not have her continue on as Provost. The wild fires and Covid have OBVIOUSLY led to the decline of enrollment, this cannot be solely blamed on President Sakaki. Additionally, I do think the President is in the ideal moment for transformation and carrying SSU forward - especially now that she is out from under the manufacturing of 'retaliation' from parties that seem to be seeking to undermine her. I vote NO on the 'vote of no confidence

Cons:President Sakaki has done enormous efforts to enhance DEI issues at SSU by hiring more people who come from marginalized groups in her Cabinet. Before President Sakaki joined SSU's most key administrative positions were taken by white males. You had to be a white male to hold a key administrative position at SSU before Dr. Sakaki started her tenure at SSU. DEI is one of the SSU core values. Unfortunately, the DEI was ignored by the white administors such as deans at SSU. Also, President Sakaki has restructured Green Music Center which has helped SSU save millions dollars annually. These kinds of President Sakaki's achievements should not be underestimated and tarnished due to the scandal. For the scandal, we need more data, evidence and listening from both sides of the parties including President Sakaki not just from the articles from newspapers which may not echo what really happened. The legal settlement does not mean that President Sakaki is wrong. It appears that the academic senate led by white faculty may have had prejudice against President Sakaki because she comes from the most vulnerable group in our society. I am deeply concerned by the white faculty driven the academic senate.- Faculty

I believe that the incident at hand represents a failing of Title IX, both on our campus and at the Statewide CSU level – and that this is being conflated with other challenges on our campus (some of which are due to fires and COVID). I am troubled by the ease with which we vilify and desire to take down individual scapegoats in a corrupt and broken system. I am also deeply troubled by sensationalized news reporting being regarded as truth when we have not been given all of the information; when full investigations have not happened. In both cases, before full and fair investigations could be carried out, persons of color and first-generation/in higher education folks, President Sakaki as well as our former Chancellor Castro, are going to take the fall after being put in impossible situations by systems of hegemony and hierarchy (i.e., forced to sign documents and make deals by corrupt lawyers and power structures). Taking these individuals out is scapegoating and does not help the problem or change the system - the opposite is often the case (the immediate feeling a satisfaction can impede real change- actual restorative justice is a much longer much more complex process). Harassment is always wrong, and I believe these victims and all victims (I have been a victim of sexual harassment myself), but I do not believe that we have enough information here for this referendum of No Confidence. I do not believe that this referendum will be beneficial to this institution in the long run. - Wendy Ostroff

(while the commentor does not advocate either position, it is posted here since it is a "counter narrative")

To take a vote of no confidence is a weighty matter. The timing and rapidity with which it passed through faculty governance makes if apparent that it is linked to recent events on campus. I would like to offer a counter narrative to the dominant narrative currently circulating--a narrative in no small part reflecting the rather thinly contextualized and not transparently unbiased reporting of the local press. Prior to Lisa Vollendorf’s termination as Provost, it was no secret that there was significant tension between she and President Sakaki including talk of visions on Vollendorf’s part of replacing Sakaki as President. Many of us recognized that Vollendorf was skating on thin ice. I am sure she realized that herself. When she became aware of the questionable behavior of McCallum, she saw an opportunity to gain leverage over Sakaki; leverage that could be used to shield herself from dismissal at least, and at best, to lead to Sakaki’s resignation with herself poised to step into the position. Ultimately, this plan failed, and she was dismissed anyway (and I recall few tears shed on the part of faculty when this happened; implicit support on the part of the faculty, I would argue, for the dismissal). The lawsuit by Vollendorf claiming retaliation was actually retaliation on the part of Vollendorf. I would remind everyone that the only beneficiary of the recent settlement by the CSU is former Provost Lisa Vollendorf. The funds, including student tuitions dollars, are going directly into Lisa Vollendorf’s bank account, not to help alleged victims. I would argue that the alleged victims have been twice harmed: first as targets of sexual harassment and second as having been cynically used as pawns in a game of politics. None of this is to express a position on the upcoming vote of no confidence. It is only to offer another narrative, one that I believe is more accurate. In short, I would hope that when my faculty colleagues vote, their vote reflects their objective evaluation of President Sakaki’s performance as leader and manager of the Sonoma State University, rather than an emotional response to current events. Sidebar: The press has made much of Sakaki’s performance evaluation given shortly before Vollendorf’s dismissal. People familiar with the process of such evaluations, especially at higher levels of management, know that they are frequently of marginal value. Given the high level of subjectivity and the extreme difficulty of linking specific management decisions to specific outcomes, except in the most egregious cases, the actual benefit of such evaluations is quite minimal. Conversely, the costs, including time and money, of defending a less than high rating when grieved or sued can be quite large. Consequently, supervisors often give inflated performance evaluations more as a defensive act than as a reflection of actual job performance. Noble, no. Pragmatic, yes. Consequently, I think it silly to put much weight on the evaluation. - Faculty

As a senior faculty member who was tenured in the Armiñana era, I want to acknowledge President Sakaki's many career accomplishments, the historic nature of her presidency, and her significant contributions to SSU in her early years here. She professionalized Student Affairs, aligned the campus budget with our academic and community priorities, and renewed our commitment to the underrepresented communities in our service area.

However, after that initial burst of very welcome activity, we have been rudderless. The turnover in the President's office, at the VP level, and among the Deans has been nearly constant. The instability means that administrators do not receive proper professional development or oversight. Just replacing the people who leave has been such a huge task that it has left no room to mentor or, if necessary, fire poor leaders at any level. It is no surprise, in this environment, that we have seen decreases in enrollment worse than any other CSU campus -- even Chico, which suffered equally horrific wildfires.

The harassment and retaliation issue is complicated, and of course we don't know all the facts. But what is substantiated by many witnesses is that Patrick McCallum's behavior made numerous women uncomfortable over a multi-year period. If President Sakaki were the listener or the leader she purports to be, she would have known about and corrected this situation much sooner. We have to ask why no one felt comfortable approaching her -- or, if they did, why nothing was done until the CSU chancellor's office was involved.

So many people in our community -- students, faculty, and staff -- have experienced their own traumas associated with harassment and retaliation. President Sakaki has permanently lost credibility on this critical issue. More broadly, to reverse SSU's declines in recent years, we need a strong, hands-on, and visionary leader with widespread support from the campus community. Regardless of fault, I am convinced that President Sakaki can no longer be that leader and would urge my fellow faculty to vote no confidence. - Faculty

As some of you may know, I was a faculty leader and organizer of the prior vote of No-Confidence. I think that was the proper response in 2007, one that had been built up over a decade of frustration with a lack of consultation and a misalignment of resources to mission. I have read carefully the resolution to hold this referendum. While there are serious issues facing the president and this campus, I do not think the current situation merits such a response and I cannot support the proposed referendum of No-Confidence. I urge voters to vote no on this referendum. I believe it would be better to rally around this president, rebuild the reputation of this university, and address our enrollment crises with joint efforts from administration, faculty, staff, and students. I have not been involved in day to day governance of late, but I will offer my perspectives as a former Chair of the Senate as one who remembers working here prior to 2017. Vision and eloquence matter. I am sure that as is the case for most of us, my response is based on my own intuition and feelings and not just facts. I admire President Sakaki’s eloquence and vision. These things matter to me. It matters to me that when our country elected a racist, anti-immigrant president, she stood up to him countless times and refused his orders. He made it hard to live in this country but she made it easier for me to work here. I admire that she and other CSU leaders stood up to him and refused to act upon his string of terrible executive orders. When it comes to many of the concerns listed as a reason to hold this referendum, I find it almost impossible to separate the twin disasters of wild fires and Covid Pandemic from concerns with the President’s leadership. I know there are gray areas and others will disagree, but that is how I feel. The most concerning issue facing us is enrollment. I believe President Sakaki and her team acted correctly and justly to realign our enrollment strategies to make our student body look more like our service area and the state of California, rather than the suburbs of Orange County and San Diego (where the prior administration focused its recruitment efforts). I have noticed the composition and diversity of our student body has changed for the better, although we have also lost student numbers (but so too have all northern California campuses); it is hard to separate the non-campus causes for this from the campus strategies. But the current budget crises, tied to declining enrollment, is also the result of bad financial planning and over-leveraging of campus resources from the prior administration. Faculty repeatedly expressed concerns over putting the campus into so much dept, all while building the campus up as the “rich kid” destination of choice. I recall pre-2017 as dark times. The prior president used to pound his fist on the table, show open disdain for faculty positions and leadership, and always told us to “be careful what we wished for, we might just get it.” In the case of the current referendum, I think the cautionary message is apt. You might be angry about recent events, or the state of things, but there is no guarantee you’ll get better, and you might get a manager like the prior one, whose priorities seemed out of line with the educational mission of this university. That was a common and wide-spread opinion that faculty felt during the time from when I got here (1997) until 2016. I feel President Sakaki's messaging and her proprieties are in line with the educational mission of Sonoma State. When I met with the Board of Trustees to discuss the 2007 NC vote, they told me prior president was “too” involved with face to face meetings with faculty. Given that, it may follow that current faculty leaders feel that President Sakai has delegated too much of that face to face work to others, as stated in the rationale for this referendum. It is also true that she came up via Student Affairs, which is her strength, while we have a strong and effective Provost who works more closely with faculty leaders on the Academic Affairs side of the university. Speaking of Student Affairs – that part of the campus was moribund under the prior president. It had been stripped of anything that could generate funds (which were relocated to A & F). The students were not being adequately served and those services were in dire need of excellent leadership and resources. My sense is that there has been much improvement in that area. As recommended by the Academic Senate Resolution in 2019, President Sakaki signed the President's Climate Leadership Commitment. In this area and in the areas of diversity and Title IX issues, there is much work to be done. Today there is frustration and debate related to these issues; prior to 2017, discussion was stifled, especially for staff and management. Like everyone, I am concerned about the “scandal” and its effect on student and campus morale. I wish that $600K could be donated to improve our campus’ Title IX efforts. But I do not have full knowledge of all aspects of that scandal and I am not sure that I should. Ultimately, we face a test here in how we want to be seen by a CSU system that is already problematic in its top-down management of our campus. How will they respond if we vote No-Confidence two presidents in a row? I think this is an untimely move and hope that the referendum will not pass. Yours, Tim Wandling Professor, English Faculty Chair, 2007-08

Con - Charlene Tung

I write in favor of a vote of no confidence in Dr. Judy Sakaki's leadership at Sonoma State University. I am in agreement with most of the failings of President Sakaki outlined in the resolution asking for a referendum, but believe there is a vital omission. The original resolution indicates that President Sakaki did not adequately address the claims of retaliation against former Provost Vollendorf nor did university-wide communications—a department that directly reports to the President's Office—transparently address allegations of sexual harassment against President Sakaki’s husband. On these two points, I have some additions that will be informing my vote of no confidence in President Sakaki. I will not attempt to adjudicate whether claims of sexual harassment or retaliation are valid or not. Nor do I believe comments of such nature are appropriate for anyone, given the limited public information available on either matters. Comments that attempt to do so will ultimately consist of conjecture. It is also important to note that I do not hold President Sakaki to blame for the system-wide failures that led to a lack of a full Title IX investigation into allegations made against Patrick McCallum as well the decisions by the Chancellor's Office to settle the retaliation case brought against President Sakaki. Rather than fully investigate claims of sexual misconduct or retaliation, the Chancellor's Office twice chose an easier path that prioritized saving face over revealing truth. In regards to this failure, the appropriate remedy is an independent investigation led by the state legislature into the handling of Title IX cases across the CSU system, including our own campus. The failures for which I do hold President Sakaki accountable are her recent responses and communications following the breaking of this story in media outlets. President Sakaki's communication on the matter since not only lacks transparency and adequacy, but also contains blatant untruths that benefit her image and campus standing. I wish to outline those specific inaccuracies below:

1.) In her most recent recorded speech to Academic Senate on April 28, 2022, President Sakaki stated in regards to the retaliation claims against former Provost Vollendorf, "The Chancellor’s investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing, no substantiation of [Vollendorf's] claims". This statement is complemented by the un-authored, university-wide message sent out April 14, 2022 (entitled "University statement regarding media coverage of a personnel matter"), which attempts to impartially assert that "claims [of retaliation by Dr. Vollendorf] are without basis". Yet no third-party investigation of retaliation allegation nor examination of evidence attached to those charges ever took place, since instead the Chancellor's Office chose to settle former Provost Vollendorf's allegations with a quiet payout, presumably to avoid negative public reaction. Nor am I aware that this case was dismissed after a process of pre-trial discovery. As such, neither the Chancellor's Office nor President Sakaki get to proclaim that there were no findings of wrongful conduct in this matter. Determinations of innocence and substantiality of evidence can only come with a trial—an option declined by the Chancellor's Office and President Sakaki in favor of an out-of-court settlement. Statements that an investigation took place are misleading, at best. Statements that a fictitious investigation found no evidence are self-serving, at best. At worst, this irresponsible claim of innocence perpetuates harmful myths around false reporting and diminishes mechanisms for administrative accountability outside their immediate spheres of influence.

2.) Similarly, President Sakaki contends that the allegations against her spouse, Patrick McCallum, lack substantiveness. In her address to Academic Senate on April 14, 2022 President Sakaki repeatedly described these as "allegations with no findings". Moreover, President Sakaki's address at this same Senate meeting and public statement appearing in the April 13, 2022 Press Democrat makes mention of an 'investigation' into said allegations, which led to said 'no findings'. In both of these forums, President Sakaki remarked "...the Chancellor's Office led and oversaw investigation into those allegations". Yet, CSU officials deny that any such investigation took place, as stated by the Los Angeles Times' April 13, 2022 article. According to this article, "Pressed for more information about the case, Cal State officials acknowledged they did not launch a formal investigation into the sex harassment claims", instead speaking directly to President Sakaki and her spouse and launching a review of the allegations which ultimately "involved interviewing only three people" and for which Patrick McCallum was never interviewed, as confirmed by President Sakaki in the April 14 Academic Senate. Statements made by Sonoma State's AVP for Strategic Communications corroborate the official CSU position, characterizing actions as merely a review that did not amount to a full-scale investigation. These same university spokesperson also indicated that this review "concluded that the conduct that was reported would not likely constitute sexual harassment by policy's standards". It should be noted that failing to meet a policy threshold for what constitutes sexual harassment does not mean that evidence for such behavior was lacking, as President Sakaki's oft-repeated "no findings" assurances would have one believe. In addition to her false assertions that a Title IX investigations took place, it is disturbing that Dr. Sakaki has repeatedly conflated "no findings" of sexual harassment allegations with the actual determination of the preliminary review—namely that sexual misconduct allegations made against President Sakaki's spouse did not meet the threshold for a full investigation. Considering no investigation took place and merely a preliminary review was conducted, presenting "no findings" as plain fact is disingenuous, lacking accountability, and potentially further perpetuates harm against past and existing victims of sexual harassment in this case and others. Word choices like "investigation", "no findings", and "without basis" matter. Such language attempts to mislead and convince the public that official protocols were followed through to their fullest extent and that those procedures ultimately absolved the accused parties. Do not be misguided by such inaccuracies. Instead I implore you to critically examine who benefits from such falsities and whom they hurt. Given President Sakaki's known reputation as a skilled wordsmith, it is difficult to believe that she has not put great thought and intention into her language choices when responding to recently surfaced allegations of professional misconduct. If you situate these recent misrepresentations of events with President Sakaki's demonstrated history of obfuscation and prevarication alluded to in the original referendum, you will find a leader that seems incapable of honesty, let alone transparency. Rather than half-truths and self-serving mischaracterizations, what is needed at this crisis point is a leader who can fully speak truth to power and thereby begin taking steps to shepherd us towards campus healing and restorative action. President Sakaki has shown she is incapable of being that leader. - Faculty

President Sakaki's lack of leadership since her appointment as president has led to enrollment decline, low morale, and most of all, in our trust in her ability to lead. She is rarely in attendance at important university meetings regarding budget issues and enrollment decline, and instead leaves the work for the Provost or other cabinet members to do. She speaks in platitudes. When questioned directly, she either deflects the question or blames others or redirects for others to answer. The current scandal in the press involving her retaliation against past Provost Lisa Vollendorf, who was just doing her job in reporting Title IX accusations, has caused significant damage to the university's reputation, and exactly at the time we are trying to recruit students for enrollment. By not addressing the allegations (as well documented by the LA Times, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, and even the California edition of the New York Times) of her husband's accusations of sexual harassment at the time they were occurring–– and not being transparent about the particulars of her retaliation against Lisa Vollendorf––she has lost even more trust in her ability to lead. President Sakaki does not seem to be suited for this position. If she continues on here, the problems the university is experiencing: low enrollment, lack of budgetary oversight or vision, and trust in leadership will only exacerbate. This particular scandal is not a news story that will go away any time soon if President Sakaki is allowed to stay on.

In addition, this not the first scandal to be covered extensively by the press (please see Santa Rosa Press Democrat extensive coverage of a BIPOC student commencement speaker President Sakaki claimed to have no prior knowledge of, when she did, in fact, read, vet, and approve the student's poem prior to commencement). Rather than protecting the student speaker from hate speech and harassment by two parents in San Diego, which lead to further, multiple cases of hate speech arising out of Sonoma County directed at our student, President Sakaki chose to apologize to the two parents, who then released this apology to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. Faculty created a petition in protest of President Sakaki's actions. Currently, this latest scandal is a distraction to teaching and to the much needed work of restoring the university's enrollment and to addressing the university's budget crisis. It is particularly disturbing that President Sakaki chose to made a video speech that focused on her desire to keep her job, played at the last meeting of the Academic Senate she declined to attend. This video's content was about President Sakaki's biography, her family, her apparently restored commitment to Title IX, and her apology to the university, faculty, and students. She ignored the problem that we are experiencing most acutely: unprecedented low enrollment and a financial budgetary crisis of $15-17 million. - Faculty

A Poem of Support: Remembering Where Here Is

Here is SSU
Here is a classroom, here is a butterfly garden, the tender melody of some distant songbird
Here is a morning workout at the Rec, a nourishing meal in the Caf, a friendly hello
Here is a gentle spring breeze, a glimpse of sunlight glittering through the trees
Here is a place of acceptance, a place for understanding, a place for redemption
Here is an opportunity, a place of learning, of self-discovery and a place for healing    

Remembering where here is each and every day is what makes us Seawolves

Somewhere over the last few weeks we have lost our sense of here
This is part of life- when the here becomes too painful it makes us want to run and hide

So we judge, we blame, we condemn
Yet condemnation will only beget more condemnation
It is only when we let go and surrender our judgements
That we can find and make peace in the here and now
Surrender like the flowing creek- which does not stop to judge
Nor does a stream or the river or the infinite Sea
It simply just is- head held high it carries on
And so too should a Seawolf

We have recently been unable to re-discover our here
Our modern egos will not allow us to just be
So we beat our war drums and seek to condemn one another
We ask for justice
Yet what we are truly asking for is a scapegoat
What we are truly asking- is for a woman to pay for a man’s sins

Its more than that? So, it must be the money then…Since when has the thought of a few misunderstood dollars made us so quick to outrage?
Since when have we become so swift to cast down our judgements?
Lose confidence in a person if we must
But first look them in the eye, sit down and listen to them or try to walk even just a day in their shoes

Judy Sakaki took a chance on all of us- have we become too forgetful to now take a chance on her?
We call for restoration yet our method is hasty condemnation
Perhaps we should look instead to restore our compassion
We must first restore our faith and belief in one another
Our belief in here
Here at SSU
 

-Anonymous Seawolf

This statement addresses three myths about the referendum on President Sakaki’s leadership to clarify why faculty are advocating for a vote of no confidence.

Myth 1: A No Confidence Vote Doesn’t Matter
A no confidence vote by the faculty will not lead to the president’s immediate resignation or dismissal, but it can still be powerful. After the faculty voted no confidence for President Ruben Armiñana in 2007, he remained at SSU, but he did pivot from a singular focus on fundraising for the Green Music Center to more support for Academic Affairs, faculty, and students. Even though a vote of no confidence is non-binding for President Sakaki and the Board of Trustees, it sends a clear message from faculty that the leadership and system need to change.

Myth 2: A No Confidence Vote Is a Vote of Support for the Former Provost
Due to the fractious relationship between President Sakaki and Dr. Lisa Vollendorf, some view criticism of the President as an implicit endorsement of the former provost. This is not the case. Many of us who support the vote of no confidence are highly critical of Dr. Vollendorf. Any president would have struggled to deal with the former provost, but President Sakaki’s mishandling of Dr. Vollendorf’s departure led to a $600,000 settlement ($250,000 of which will be paid by SSU funds). This vote is not for Team Judy or Team Lisa. The faculty are all on the same team—Team SSU.

Myth 3: A No Confidence Vote Is Just a Backlash to the Recent Scandal
The lack of transparency of Title IX enforcement involving the president’s spouse and a costly settlement with the former provost are only the latest examples of President Sakaki’s ineffective leadership at SSU. The President has taken credit for the successes on her watch (meeting fundraising targets and improving graduation rates) but deflected responsibility for the failures (declining enrollments, continuous budget crises, low morale, increased grievances, faculty departures, and administrator turnover). The failures far outweigh the successes, and the buck stops at the president’s desk. - Steve Estes

I vote no confidence - faculty

At a time when Sonoma State University needs more POSITIVE PUBLICITY we are once again in the public eye with, you guessed it, MORE NEGATIVE PUBLICITY.

A quick google search will show many results with our campus and negative things that do not help enrollment which is the core of the college business model. From deaths on campus, scandals, misconduct, and more than a few search results with our current presidents name and negative publicity. From a speech that occurred after her first year... when enrollment was at a record high.... Press Democrat article

After this incident campus peers signed a similar petition objecting to her apology. Vote of no confidence? When your campus peers and students see this and enrollment has dropped every year since, this should be an indication to prioritize a change. Hows enrollment this year? Is it the pandemic or leadership? Now more recently this scandal which has many students and campus peers in an uproar about the way it was handled financially as well as the presidents own responses to the publicity....

Here is the 17 min "apology" video.

Was that an apology or even ownership of these shortcomings? I heard a lot of promotion and request for sympathy for her and her personal upbringing and her own accomplishments. Is this a job interview? Getting to know your president? What about her lack of knowledge of any wrongdoings until 1 year later. If you are unaware of something like this for a year, then what exactly are you doing day in and day out? Obviously not talking to your staff, or peers. This is her campus so there should have been more said in terms of accountability or ownership of these occurrences in her campus. The leadership is not leading.

As the Sonoma State Star reported that during commencement speech last year the president claimed SSU has a budget crisis but then around the same time the CSU system gives her a 10% raise for this year and it is accumulative for the following 2 articles SSU STAR , Transparent California 

Does this seem like good leadership? Claiming SSU is facing a deficit while getting 30% pay increase over 3 years? No wonder why she is fighting to keep this job and not just walking now. This is a smack to the face to the laborers of this campus who have to keep our composure and keep cool while leadership is financially praising themselves yet suffocating us all the way to the bottom. Did you know.... We currently have 8 landscapers when we previously had 22. Our budget isn't low because we don't have money, it's low because of the management of money. Currently our workers in the facilities dept have not gotten a raise in 3 years. The CSU system is offering the skilled trades (carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians, locksmiths, etc...) a 2% raise ONLY for the last 3 years claiming budget short falls, pandemic, etc. Meanwhile even facilities management staff are receiving raises while all these laborers / workers are keeping this campus running and are getting nothing for it. We at the bottom are facing cost of living increases, record high inflation and gas prices, etc... All the while our homes rent or mortgage is not paid for by the university like some . The students living on campus see the poor landscaping, and see the poor upkeep of this campus due to the under appreciated and under staffed facilities team. The president of a university has a primary role of being held accountable for all this and still have time and effort to promote our campus in a good light. What is the current reputation of our campus. After googling Sonoma State University and seeing all the publicity during our current presidents tenure, How would you feel about sending your kids to Sonoma State if you had other options?

Does our president fill all these qualifications?

Does our president instill confidence in her performance? Do you feel that the public responses to these instances are commendable or just sufficient? Do you feel that the campus leadership is ensuring correct funding & management of those funds to keep this ship sailing, not just floating? - Staff

I am against "no confidence vote" because it is not well-thought but rather rushed to punish President Sakaki. Rushed to punish? (For example, there has been no consultation at the School of Business and Economics on this issue)

• Several self-motivated SBE faculty rushed to initiate a “no confidence” vote. I believe they do not represent the majority opinion at SBE.

• Most of the faculty at SBE has no idea why the SBE’s name is used for personal political quests. Low Enrollment at SSU (President Sakaki is not responsible!) Reasons for low enrollment at SSU:

1. Wild fires and smoke (causing significant drop from Southern California student applications)

2. Covid-19 and pandemic (causing financial and psychological constraints on students)

3. Why there is low enrollment at SBE as a part of SSU. It is because of the mismanagement in hiring and having an outdated curriculum at SBE (self-criticism and no hard feelings!)

• Full time and lecturer hiring are allocated to areas with the lowest enrollment such as wine business and economics.

• Irrelevant curriculum at some programs resulted in chronically low enrollment. More specific reasons for low enrollment at the SBE (unforced errors and self-criticism)

a. Some courses in the economics curriculum are imitative of business courses (For example, a course called “Seminar in Quantitative Marketing” or “Seminar International Finance” does not help enrollment because similar courses are already offered in the business department.)

b. Not towards our student needs (a course about “Economics of European Integration” or “Seminar in Program Evaluation.” These two courses are more appropriate for large schools like Berkeley or Stanford because there is sufficient volume of enrollment). Suggestion for improvement in the economics curriculum: Why not offer “Health Care Economics” course? Rush to punish! Critical thinking at SSU?

• Tabloid journalism is a popular style of largely sensationalist journalism… (Wikipedia) • Reporting of Los Angeles Times is more appropriate for “The Sun” or “Daily Mirror” tabloid newspapers.

• The news was presented more like “soap opera” content like “sex and vengeance.” - Faculty

While President Sakaki has indeed done some great things for our University, they are overshadowed by the improper handling of this very important situation. The safety of our students, faculty, and staff is of utmost importance. 1) The fact that SSU Employees were harassed and the situation, it seems, was not dealt with properly at that time means the University has failed those people. This is unacceptable and unfair to those who were affected. If it had happened once, it could happen again to others. 2) The fact that the harassment was done by a University volunteer, with no apparent consequences administered at that time and with continued access to the University afterwards, means a high level of favoritism was at play. This is completely unacceptable. How is this person allowed to continue to be involved with students, faculty, and staff when a situation like this has happened? 3)  Perhaps the CSU may not have officially notified President Sakaki at that time during the investigation as she said, however, how could one believe she was completely unaware of what was happening during that time when the issue involved her spouse? 4) The official statements released by the university made an unclear and incorrect statement that the lawsuit payout was paid for by insurance, when in fact, the deductible was paid for by University funds, including student tuition. We are already facing a dire situation with low enrollments. It seemed deliberate to be misleading with the wording so as to not to draw attention. This is not acceptable.

These mass media statements are only coming out now to save face and not to mediate the issue. Too many of these cons are stacked up against President Sakaki. This vote is one of no confidence in her leadership. - Faculty

Pro no confidence - Faculty

While I do not have a vote in this referendum, I feel some obligation to offer my perspective as a Past Chair of the Faculty, since my three years of service as Vice-Chair and Chair coincided with the former Provost’s entire tenure at SSU, and hence I experienced recent campus leadership from a somewhat unique perspective. And were I to have a direct voice in the referendum, I would not support a no-confidence vote—both because I believe too much current ire aimed at the president is misdirected, and because I believe a no-confidence outcome could harm the campus more than it helps.

First, just to make this clear: there is no question that the CSU has a huge problem to solve regarding Title IX complaints and disputes—but that is not Judy Sakaki’s fault. I personally am deeply troubled by the prospect of asking any woman, particularly a woman of color, to abandon her career based on allegations about a man’s behavior—that would be going backwards, historically, as I find it hard to imagine that a white male president would be expected to do the same.  

Second, from my specific Chair experience: the former Provost and current President had, from the very beginning, a marked difference in approach to leadership—top-down with an aggressive timeline vs. team-based or even “leading from behind”—which did not combine well. While I cannot state that one is “better” than the other, I can attest that the list of complaints from across campus (faculty, students, and staff) about the former Provost’s leadership—policy decisions, personnel actions, and overall demeanor and behavior, particularly in governance meetings—is very, very long. I am willing to share details of that list with anyone who asks, and it contains ample reasons for concluding that the former Provost was not a good long-term fit with Sonoma State—and I do not believe that anyone being honest about that poor fit is necessarily motivated by retaliation. 

That clash of different leadership styles led to something of an impasse in terms of a clear vision for campus, for three years. My main disappointment over the period since the former Provost’s departure has been the absence of a new approach emerging from some combination of the President’s Office and faculty leadership—but I do not think two years of unclear leadership, particularly through a global pandemic in which most faculty, students, and staff barely had the bandwidth to maintain the most basic of university functions, merits the calls from some corners for the President to resign. I hope that administration and faculty can still work together, once this current controversy has settled, well enough to develop that vision and plans to implement, which the university so richly deserves.

As I said, I have no vote in this debate—and I have no illusions that this statement will suddenly change minds. I only hope that everyone involved gives some careful thought to what next steps might best serve the campus as a whole to rebuild trust and move forward. To my pragmatic eye, a vote of no confidence might give some short-term satisfaction to those who want it, but I do not see what problems it helps to solve—such an outcome would likely only add more chaos and tension at a time when everyone desperately needs less of both.

Dr. Laura Alice Watt, Professor Emerita, Dept. of Geography, Environment, and Planning, Chair of the Faculty, 2018-2020

I was asked by Susan Kashack to write a profile about Sakaki for the SSU official magazine, Insight I believe is or was the name. I interviewed Sakaki and wrote a profile and sent it to her. She didn't like it. I rewrote the piece and sent it to her and she still didn't like it. Then, she wrote the profile of herself and it was published in the magazine with my byline, though I didn't write the piece. That seemed odd and unprofessional. I also thought Sakaki was rather narcissistic. She told me that she was the perfect person for the position of president at SSU, that she was made for the job and the job was made for her. -Jonah Raskin

Vote no confidence. Students, parents, faculty and staff can all see through the PR stunts. Nobody will believe that she was unaware of what was going on when there were claims of sexual harassment at private parties in her living room. She suddenly decided to separate from her husband due to his email? More like that's what her lawyer advised her to say to the newspapers. She has been aware of his conduct since the former provost reported the claims. Why did Sakaki not separate from him then if she was truly upset. Why is her husband filling in for her at meetings she should be attending? We have a budget issue here at SSU and cannot afford to keep staff members; yet, she had to have a private bathroom built for her when there is a fully functioning restroom just outside her office. If you want enrollment to increase, she has to go. I know as a parent, that if my child was considering SSU and I read about Sakaki, it would be a hard no for us.- Staff

I do NOT support the vote of no confidence.

I agree that there are/have been legitimate concerns about the President’s leadership (and visibility the last two years at least, though, COVID), but I think it’s important to distinguish that from the latest—and in particular, her husband’s behavior. I don’t hold her accountable or responsible for HIS behavior (nor should anyone, though I see that’s a big ask these days). Precisely nowhere would we see a white male leader held to account for his wife’s behaviors. As the President of the campus she does need to be held accountable for how she can repair trust—if that can be done at this point. So many have conflated issues and assumed truths that are not yet in evidence. Harms were done to some women on her campus (speaking to the sexual harassment issue), and to that, restorative work is possible and should be pursued. And discussion on what is affirmative consent and what constitutes sexual harassment is always a good thing and much needed (thruout the campus) 

And to that point: some students chalked “Out with Judy, Kick her Booty” last week–in an effort to express their opinions. When this was shared on a SSU FB faculty-page, it was met with more cheers and support–rather than the condemnation it should have. It illustrated that the campus surely does need more education about sexual harassment (and how race and gender intersect within that). To explain, as Dr. Lena McQaude and myself did on Facebook, this phrase literally is encouraging sexualized violence against an Asian American woman (not to mention, during a time of rising violence against Asian American women). The fact that so many did not immediately understand this, is reflective of the problem. So sexual harassment was enacted as a response to…sexual harassment? Race and gender are, as we say, intersectional. So the term "booty" is in fact, a sexual (not neutral) term deployed primarily against women of color (Latina and black in particular). The fact that it was used against an Asian American woman does not make it any less racist (just a misplaced convoluted use). It is not an appropriate term to be used against any woman in a workplace (the university). Hence, contributing to a hostile work environment. So for those who have legitimate concerns about sexual harassment on the SSU campus, I 100% agree. But President Judy Sakaki did not create those problems and will not, alone, solve them. The way folks responded not only to this chalking, but the conflation of his behavior with hers, and the lack of understanding of the pitfalls of the Title 9 system all point to a larger systemic problem that needs to be addressed. And a vote of no confidence in President Sakaki will do NOTHING to address those issues.

On the retaliation issue:

We do not and cannot know the merits of the retaliation charge leveled by the former Provost against the President. The only thing we seem to know, even partially, is that the two had an agreement to not talk negatively about each other on separation from CSU. It seems that the former Provost had reason to believe that the President did in fact say something negative about her in late 2021. And only then did the former Provost sue…but NOT for breach of the original agreement, but instead claiming the President was retaliating against her for reporting sexual harassment of two other employees, 3 years prior. Another plausible way to understand this is that the former Provost is disgruntled and getting back against President Sakaki for breaking the original agreement  (thereby, presumably, harming the former Provost's career aspirations and income).This provides pause for believing the merits of the retaliation charge (though not for believing that sexual harassment occurred) - Charlene Tung

Pro - faculty

If I could vote, I would vote no confidence. My position is focused more about the fact that we need a leadership TEAM that is not distracted and able to commit to navigating the University through the myriad of challenges that are demanding attention. We need a leadership TEAM that can listen to all areas of the campus, listen to what demands attention, provide the tending and care and provide wise, reasonable and sound decision-making.- Staff

My primary concern is the well-being of SSU. I want a school with healthy enrollment and a level of trust that the safety of all of its members is a priority. Should racism have been involved in SSU’s falling enrollment or the allegations of retaliation or the departure of many administrators and faculty, that would be most unfortunate and should be addressed. However, it is not clear to me that racism has been a factor in these circumstances. As an Asian-American woman at SSU myself, I do not believe experience of racism or discrimination excuses an individual’s actions or eliminates review. We should not hold Dr. Sakaki to a higher standard or a lower one. The question is very simply do we have confidence in the president's leadership? - Letha Ch'ien

Many faculty members have expressed concern about SSU’s declining enrollment; I fully agree that this is a serious problem. However, while some would place the blame for this solely on Dr. Sakaki, I feel that is wishful thinking and that a greater understanding of our current enrollment situation can be found by looking at SSU’s image/identity history.

Sonoma State was established in the 1960s, a time of widespread student unrest. Known locally as “Granola U”, Sonoma State became a destination for students who were looking for an alternative to more traditional institutions of higher education. Sonoma State quickly rose to this challenge; for example, one of the first Women’s Studies programs in California was established here in the early-1970s.

When I arrived in 2001 to teach Computer Science, SSU was a proud member of COPLAC with internationally acclaimed programs – especially in Liberal Studies and Psychology – and work was well underway to establish equally well respected programs in Science, Technology, and other areas. My Computer Science students were a diverse group; many were non-traditional students and over half were women!

In the last years of the Arminana administration, a concerted and successful campaign was launched to make SSU a destination residential campus. Our enrollment grew as the campus was marketed as a safe and beautiful place to which Southern California parents should send their children. Interestingly, as the Computer Science Department grew along with the rest of the university, my classes were quickly filled with traditional students; more than 90% of whom were young (mostly white) men.

In October 2017, images and stories of students, staff, faculty, and administration running to save their lives and property from the Tubbs and Nuns wildfires changed all of this. No longer could SSU be viewed simply as a safe place. Subsequent years brought smoke from the Camp Fire, Russian River floods, the Kincaide Fire, the Pandemic, the Walbridge Fire, the Glass Fire, and more Pandemic.

In order to regain the enrollment numbers we experience in the 2010s, we need to change our identity. The establishment of SSU as a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in 2021 was a wonderful start to this process. While a change in administration would likely bring some changes to SSU, real change needs to come from all of us. And yes, based on what I observed before all of the chaos we have experienced began, I believe that Dr. Sakaki has the vision that will bring this change if we all work together. Tia Watts

Pro - Staff

Pro - Faculty

Any employee at any level, and specially at the executive level, must build a culture of trust and integrity. Leaders build trust not only by their words, but by their actions and behaviors. I believe that our leadership is not taking responsibility for decisions made at that level. We cannot get distracted by victimization or blaming responses, we need a strong leader that shows up, communicates with transparency, admits errors, and presents a concrete action plan to remediate and improve. We are all human and it's understandable that we make mistakes. When we take responsibility of our actions and admit that we can do better, then people will decide if they can trust again. So far, I haven't seen that, at least, it has not been shared with the staff. - Staff

President Sakaki has lost the trust of the students to be a capable and efficient leader. I am for the vote of no confidence. - Student

A vote of no confidence in this referendum is a hasty, public act that unfairly reflects badly on President Sakaki.  While I share some of the concerns that are stated in the resolution asking for a referendum, and even though I believe that President Sakaki should take steps to address these concerns, I believe that the faculty should bring these issues to President Sakaki in a more constructive way that invites dialogue about the issues and is focused on finding solutions.  I liken a positive vote of no confidence to a negative rating on the Rate My Professor platform, which invites students to post their criticisms of an instructor in a public forum.  I think it’s safe to assume that the vast majority of faculty members prefer (even if they don’t like) the SETE system, which can give students an opportunity to offer their feedback while also giving the instructor space to address concerns that are raised without a precipitous public judgement.  The only certain outcome of a vote of no confidence is a negative judgement – a bad rating – that will be the focus of further melodramatic press.  

In addition, I am not aware that the concerns that are raised in the resolution asking for a referendum were previously brought to the President in a formal way by the faculty for discussion and action. I am sure that President Sakaki is cognizant of these issues, but I do not know whether she previously had the information she needed to realize the patterns that have developed and the extent of the frustration felt by the SSU faculty, staff, and students.  While the vote of no confidence process has certainly been an effective way to bring these concerns forward, this process has mostly centered on identifying concerns without sufficient opportunities for a constructive conversation with the administration about effective ways to address them.  Further, I am disappointed that the first opportunity that I personally have had to formally engage in a discussion is within the context of a vote of no confidence.

I do not know that President Sakaki is unable and unwilling to address the concerns raised in the resolution, I do not know whether the faculty collectively agrees or disagrees with those concerns, and I do not know that we have spent a sufficient amount of time seeking collaborative action.  Without this knowledge, I am not equipped to support a vote of no confidence.

The only just outcome I see is to avoid a public, negative judgement until President Sakaki has had more opportunities to engage in constructive dialogue with the campus. - Faculty

The purpose of this statement is to articulate our rationale for supporting the passage of the Vote of No Confidence resolution. As Dr. Sakaki pointed out in her recorded message to the Academic Senate on 28 April 2022, “the concept of responsibility and the spirit of fairness would also dictate a review of the entirety of what my team and I have accomplished in the past 5+ years.” This statement will focus on how Sonoma State has fared over the duration of Dr. Sakaki’s presidency, oriented around the themes of lack of leadership; performative commitment to both diversity, equity, and inclusion, and to shared governance; and lack of transparency.

Dr. Sakaki’s failure to lead Sonoma State over the past 5+ years is illustrated by:

Our campus’s dire enrollment crisis:

• Enrollment has declined by almost 25% from Fall 2016 to Fall 2021. While the regional wildfires have certainly contributed, Chico State (whose region also experienced a catastrophic wildfire in 2018) has only seen its enrollment drop by 12.2% during the same period. While the COVID-19 pandemic is also to blame, Sonoma State’s enrollment decline exceeds average rates both nationally and within the CSU.
• Yield rates for students admitted to Sonoma State have been nearly cut in half, from 14.36% in 2016-17 (the first full year of Dr. Sakaki’s presidency) to 7.7% in 2020-21. Clearly, prospective students are not being recruited effectively, and are failing to be shown what makes Sonoma State the special institution that the faculty know it to be: a public university that educates the next generation of nurses, teachers, civil servants, and entrepreneurs while also educating them in the liberal arts, the civic foundation of the nation itself.

Our campus’s enormous budget deficit

• Sonoma State is facing a structural (i.e., permanent) deficit of $15.5-17 million for the 2022-23 fiscal year. The implications of this massive shortfall will be felt by our university for years to come, creating a crater from which we must attempt to climb with fewer and fewer resources. Note that allocations to the CSU by the State Legislature and the federal government under COVID relief packages have been at record highs, and continue to exceed past expenditures.  The CSU system has received record state support in the last three years.
• During Dr. Sakaki’s tenure, the President’s Office has expanded from 2 to 20 employees, and its budget has increased almost seven-fold since the previous presidential administration. According to SSU budget documents, in 2015-2016, the Office of the President had an overall budget of $519,000.  The current year’s “Overall Budget Plan, 2021-2022 for the Office of the President,” exceeds $3.5 million dollars and reflects growth in this office to 19.9 Full-Time Employees, while student headcount has plummeted.

Dr. Sakaki’s failure to attend key shared and faculty governance meetings and student-oriented events. While it is understandable that the President may not attend every event on campus, her absence from some key events is conspicuous. In AY 2021-22 alone, Dr. Sakaki was notably absent from:

• Several meetings of the Executive Committee, Academic Senate, and Sonoma State Enterprises. Notably, Dr. Sakaki did not attend the Executive Committee meeting during Chancellor Castro’s visit to Sonoma State in September 2021. Instead, she sent her husband, Mr. Patrick McCallum, who is not an employee of the University, in her place.
• December 2021 Toast of the Town for graduating seniors
• Two Campus Budget Forums where the President missed the opportunity to address questions from the campus community and speak of any strategy she may be working on to address the crisis
  ​

Frequent turnover of administrators. The following positions have had multiple people cycle through during the past 5+ years:

• Provost, VP of Administration and Finance, VP of Student Affairs, VP for Advancement, AVP of Strategic Communications, AVP for Human Resources/University Personnel, President’s Chief of Staff (a new position developed under Dr. Sakaki), Director of Athletics, Title IX Coordinator/Director of OPHD, Director of the HUB. Notably, many of the administrators who departed are women and/or BIPOC.
• Turnover and hiring processes for the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (formerly known as the Title IX Office) are particularly problematic. Five people have held the position of Director on an interim or permanent basis since Dr. Sakaki’s arrival. One director (Kidder) was appointed to the role by the President in Fall 2017. The next permanent director (Clegg) was hired after a public search; her departure was never announced publicly, and her successor (current director Vivas) was named after a non-public search. This demonstrates a tremendous lack of transparency and generates concerns about the handling of Title IX complaints on our campus.

Dr. Sakaki’s performative commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and to shared governance, and the lack of transparency that has characterized her administration, are evidenced in:

• Significant administrative reorganization that occurred without meaningful consultation.
• The Center for Community Engagement was moved out of Academic Affairs and into the President’s Office in Summer 2020. While Dr. Sakaki claimed at the 9 December 2021 Senate meeting that faculty were consulted about this move, faculty were only asked to voice our thoughts and concerns about the outcome of the move, not whether it should happen: an example of performative consultation by the President’s Office. When the CCE Director was placed on leave in Fall 2021, neither the CCE staff nor Faculty Fellows were contacted by anyone in the President’s Office to address next steps until the Faculty Fellows reached out to the President’s Chief of Staff to try to understand the next steps. The Academic Senate was told by the Faculty Chair, and faculty not directly associated with the CCE only found out through word of mouth, again demonstrating a lack of transparency on the part of the President’s Office. The President did agree to move the CCE back to Academic Affairs in December 2021, but only after an outcry by faculty.
• The Office of Faculty Affairs (formerly in Academic Affairs) was dissolved and moved into a shared services model with the Human Resources department (in Administration and Finance). This decision, which originated from the President’s Cabinet, was announced in early May 2021 as finalized, although advice would reportedly be sought about its implementation. The Faculty Forum on this issue was held after the Spring 2021 semester had ended, thereby preventing many faculty members from participating. This is another example of lack of transparency in decision making and performativity in shared governance.
  ​

Cultural taxation on BIPOC faculty and staff

• Dr. Sakaki claims the attainment of Hispanic Serving Institution status as one of the crowning achievements of her administration. But the application for HSI funding eligibility was written by faculty members (who were not compensated for their time) at the request of her Chief of Staff. Sonoma State’s HSI efforts are largely funded by external grants obtained by faculty members and Deans (e.g., PUERTA project, NSF I-USE HSI grant). Much of the funding brought in via the HSI grants currently leaves campus through the hiring of external firms in areas such as program evaluation. The President’s Office commissioned an HSI Task Force in Fall 2020 to make recommendations for meaningful implementation of HSI status. The Task Force identified six core goals with recommendations; so far, none of them have been heeded, even those that would be low- or no-cost. Dr. Sakaki’s citation of HSI status as an achievement of her administration, while failing to provide resources that meaningfully engage Sonoma State’s HSI status and support Latinx students, once again demonstrates her performative approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion.  
• Sonoma State is extremely fortunate to have several vibrant cultural affinity organizations that bring together faculty, staff, and students (e.g., APIAFSA, BFSA, Allianza for Equity, QFaSA, etc.). However, they have been tasked with organizing and running cultural heritage month celebrations, and cultural commencement ceremonies, with minimal financial or logistical support from the President’s Office or the HUB. This consumes a large amount of time and energy outside of the staff and faculty members’ functional positions and is completely uncompensated. This lack of material investment in DEI initiatives, while claiming the accomplishments as her own, again illustrates Dr. Sakaki’s performative commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
  ​

Lack of support for faculty and staff

• Dr. Sakaki’s administration has acknowledged the lack of affordable housing for faculty in Sonoma County. However, its purchase of the Marina Crossing apartments reflected a dismal understanding of faculty needs, given the apartments’ location and price point. The fact that the University began leasing them to non-University affiliated members of the public was only revealed by the news media in January 2022. Nor was the sale of the University-owned townhomes that had welcomed faculty to Sonoma State for years announced publicly. Moving stipends are no longer offered to newly hired tenure-track faculty – one of the few perquisites that had made it possible for faculty to relocate to Sonoma County. And while Dr. Sakaki has trumpeted the refurbishment of currently vacant dorm rooms to serve as transitional housing for faculty, she failed to mention that dorm rooms have already been used in this capacity by newly arrived administrators throughout her tenure – only in Fall 2022 will this courtesy be extended to faculty. Transparency has been missing in all of these capacities.
• The departure of multiple tenure-track faculty and staff members in AY 2021-22. At least ten staff members and eight tenure-track faculty (of whom many are women and/or BIPOC) have resigned this academic year alone. While they doubtless have a variety of reasons for leaving, some have reported that the demoralization and hostile climate fostered by the current Presidential administration have played a role - again demonstrating Dr. Sakaki’s performative relationship with diversity, equity, and inclusion and her failure to engage with the highly talented and knowledgeable faculty and staff who are devoted to the University’s mission.

Dr. Sakaki’s pledges to improve and change her administration’s practices ring hollow after nearly 6 years of mismanagement. How many more chances are we willing to give her while Sonoma State is driven to the brink of a crisis from which it may not be able to recover? If you care about the future of the institution to which we have devoted our careers and our hearts, please join us in voting YES on the Vote of No Confidence resolution.

Alexis T. Boutin
Professor of Anthropology

Benjamin Smith
Associate Professor of Human Development

Missy C. Garvin
Associate Professor of Psychology

Steve Estes
Professor and Chair of History

Catherine Fonseca
Outreach & Inclusion Librarian

David McCuan
Professor and Chair of Political Science

Lynn Cominsky
Professor of Physics and Astronomy

Napoleon C. Reyes
Associate Professor and Chair of Criminology and Criminal Justice Studies

Amy Kittelstrom
Professor of History

Daniel Melero Malpica
Professor of Chicano and Latino Studies

Jennifer N. Mahdavi
Professor of Special Education

Florence Bouvet
Professor of Economics

Talena Sanders
Associate Professor of Communication and Media Studies

John Urbanski
Professor of Management

Statement: From the Rationale for the Referendum: “President Sakaki’s lack of active leadership at the university has led to a period of declining enrollments, budget crises, and a precipitous drop in the morale of students, staff, and faculty.”

Comment. A November 2021 Edsource article (https://edsource.org/2021/california-state-university-adopts-new-approach-to-entice-students-back) reads,  "...across the CSU system in which 17 of the 23 campuses saw declines. Every region of the state saw decreases like those in the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley, but especially on the North Coast. The largest was at Humboldt State…Sonoma State had the second-largest decline in students this year at about 8% down from last year. The campus (along with Humboldt State and San Francisco State) had seen enrollment erode for years before the pandemic. Those declines are due to a few things like the pandemic and wildfires that have impacted the North Bay Are region in recent years.”  In other words, SSU has the 2nd largest decline--and the article cited above, addresses a number of possible reasons for this (none of them which have to do with President Sakaki personally, or any President specifically)

Statement “Morale among faculty and staff has declined dramatically as evidenced by record participation in the early exit program and high rates of attrition among tenure line faculty.”

Comment: Is it also not as equally plausible that from Fall 2019-present that the decrease in morale and Early Exit program participation has to do with online learning and COVID—not the President? The high attrition (any numbers?)... I can think of a number of women of color faculty who left, but their issues were with the lack of support from the academic side (Dean, Provost, Department), not the President. 

Statement. “She has abrogated responsibility for shared governance, leaving much of the work of running the university to the provost, cabinet officers and the faculty.” 

Comment: It was my understanding that this situation was due to the former- Provost taking over during and immediately-post fires and then, not letting go of that. This was, to my knowledge, part of the issue between the two. Former Chair of the Academic Senate has information about this. It seems there was a disagreement between the two as to who had purview over what aspects of the campus. And the upshot was that the Provost determined she had total control and responsibility for the faculty side. I also understood that the President did NOT appreciate this division of duty. 

Statement. “An increasing number of faculty grievances during President Sakaki’s tenure have resulted from a lack of clear policy guidance for deans and other administrators.”

Comment: To what are you referring to here? I don't necessarily disagree, but I cannot agree because there is no evidence to back this up. I'm being asked to assume that there was indeed an "increasing number of faculty grievances" (of whatever nature, I do not know), and that further, these resulted from a "lack of clear policy guidance for deans and other administrators" (which is yet another causal link that has not been made). 

Statement. “The university did not transparently address allegations of sexual harassment against President Sakaki’s husband…”

Comment: The "University" (as in SSU) did not address the allegations, because SSU TItle 9 was NOT part of this. The allegations were reported ABOVE and OUTSIDE SSU (with good reason, following protocol) to the CSU Systemwide office. So if you want to say that CSU Systemwide Title 9 did not transparently address the allegations, that would be more accurate and, to my mind, that would be the place to accurately target  in terms of the process breaking down.  And to be clear, Title 9 offices are NOT transparent, by design. And unfortunately, survivors or those bringing forth the claims are largely shut out of the process (and any sense of control) once the claims are put forth. 

Statement. “After the allegations surfaced, the president’s husband continued to participate in campus events in ways that made staff and faculty uncomfortable. “

Comment:  According to the President's remarks at the Senate meeting two weeks ago: she was not made aware of the allegations until well after the fact. Not until after CSU systemwide Title 9 completed their on-campus interviews sometime in 2019 presumably. At that time (wish we had the dates), she and her husband were notified. All reports (PD, LA Times, McCallum and Sakaki--are in alignment with the statement that the behaviors (of inappropriate comments, standing too close, brushing hair aside) stopped and there were no further reports made. She was notified that the allegations did not rise to the level of sexual harassment–which she presumably believed. It’s not clear that she was ever made aware that staff were requesting NOT to work at events with him and why. How was she to know that if no one told her? In addition, timeline wise, by March 2020-present, it seems likely that in-person fundraising events were curtailed almost entirely. So while harms were incurred back in 2017 or 2018  (and they SHOULD be addressed), no harms were incurred in the last two years to our knowledge (yet).  In any case, we don’t have a clear enough timeline of events, reporting, and what she knew and when. 

Statement. “The CSU’s $600,000 settlement with the former provost in the retaliation case cost the university system financially (potentially in the form of higher insurance premiums) at a time when the faculty and administrators are being asked to slash academic budgets.” 

Comment: This settlement utilized monies already set aside for legal matters. The settlement amount, to my knowledge, is quite standard. Much like a plea bargain, it is expedient and done with a cost-benefit analysis. It does NOT connect to guilt or innocence. As Sakaki said two weeks ago, "that decision was made at the CSU systemwide level and...was in the best interests of the CSU, not necessarily SSU" (or her). - Faculty

I am "pro" because of the state of the University and paying the $$$ instead of fighting it out against the former provost, unless there is more behind the story. Sorry, she need to step down...- Staff

After being a local for over 30 years, a child of an alumni, and someone who use to use the campus for sports. I can tell you that in the last 7 years I have worked here, we do not support our local community. We don't even try. If we are lacking student employees so we have to shut down venues, hire locals! We are lacking student numbers, give discounts to locals, so at least we can do is fill our seats. Before I worked here, SSU was where we went to events, taking classes for fun and a cool place to hang out but now it is just the college down the street. - Staff

This is a Pro No-Confidence statement.

I believe that Dr. Sakaki must step down and allow Sonoma State to begin a new chapter. As we all know, enrollment remains as one of the most fundamental challenges facing our institution. As someone who works in that area for the campus, it has become clear to me that one of our primary obstacles in overcoming this challenge is Dr. Sakaki herself.

I do not know and won't speculate as to the reasons why she has made the decisions that she has, but I can speak to the effects. She has prevented a focused effort by Strategic Communications to support the campus's efforts to establish a Strategic Enrollment Management model. This has lead to incredible inefficiency and difficulty in conducting the work that must be done to modernize and professionalize our recruitment and conversion communications. Dr. Sakaki's decisions have also been a direct cause for significant turnover in Strategic Communications, positions that have not been filled and whose lost has further hamstrung our ability to revitalize our recruitment efforts. I know this from conversations with those that have left.

Additionally, Dr. Sakaki's own personal issues continue to complicate our attempts to create a compelling narrative for why a student should attend this university. Even before this latest round of scandals, Dr. Sakaki has too often been a challenge that we have to surmount, rather than a resource that we can rely on. One example that comes to mind is Dr. Sakaki's insistence on talking about her traumatic experiences in 2017 (with which I deeply sympathize, as someone directly affected by the fires as well) with prospective students and their parents. Despite requests to her staff that she avoid that topic, it has remained a consistent issue. While that in itself is an understandable and relatively minor foible, it illustrates the deeper issue: that it often feels impossible to give Dr. Sakaki feedback or work with the Office of the President in a collaborative way.

More broadly, there has been no visible leadership from Dr. Sakaki on creating a vision for why Sonoma State is a place that students should want to be. In fact, as mentioned above, Dr. Sakaki has been a net negative towards these efforts, taking away resources that are desperately needed for strategic enrollment management efforts and refocusing them on her own projects. Staff in our office don't feel that there is any way to prevent or push back on that happening. The President's Office often feels like our primary competitor for resources, rather than a key ally in our efforts to recruit students. To be clear, there may well be valid reasons for much of that that I am unaware of. I have limited knowledge of the inner workings of the top of the university. All I can do is make a determination based on the information I have and the results that I perceive. From that perspective, it seems clear to me that in order for the university to fully realize its potential, new leadership is necessary. I bear no personal malice towards Dr. Sakaki and I do sympathize with how difficult this period must be for her. However, I want Sonoma State to succeed, so I feel that I must make this statement in the hope that it helps us do so. - Staff

Con - I wonder if anyone else has brought this possible scenario up. Imagine if Dr. Sakaki were a white man and that her husband (the alleged perpetrator) was a woman of color how the press and the campus would have dealt with this issue. I just think it is important for us to consider this question. I believe that a white male Dr. Sakaki would not be as damned as the real Dr. Sakaki is currently. And I believe that his woman of color wife (as alleged perpetrator) would be the scapegoat in this situation.  I would just like others to consider this. Thank you. - Karen Werder

Con - Faculty I support the continued leadership of President Sakaki. She is not perfect but she has definitely done many great things for SSU. I advocate for the “cleansing” of SSU through a bottom-up approach at each and every school, starting from the level of Deans and up, without delay. A vote of no confidence against President Sakaki is a wrong solution for prevailing SSU problems. No one single person can be held responsible for the prevailing SSU problems. All prevailing problems could very well be the result of many people failing-in-concert, knowingly or unknowingly acting against the best interests of the taxpayers, students & faculty, etc. The prevailing problems of SSU will not go away with the vote of no confidence or with the departure of President Sakaki. Moving forward, please require that, in litigations, if the administration and/or any administrators are found guilty of violations, the administration and/or the administrators shall reimburse all taxpayers’ money spent on litigation back to CSU or the government.

No Confidence - Staff

Pro no confidence - Staff

President Sakaki's connection to and facilitation of sexual harassment on the SSU campus as committed by and upon people of the highest status has created an environment in which the protection of lesser status students, staff, and faculty is more than dubious. More plainly, I do not feel safe here. The president's assumption of responsibility has been lackluster. As junior faculty, the entirety of these happenings, along with the suspiciously timed potential merger of the Schools of Social Science and Arts & Humanities, hardly encourage me to want to remain at SSU for the long-term of my career.- Faculty

This is a pro statement. The main reasons are due to a lack of leadership that has taken place over the past couple of years. Included with that is a lack of attention with the staff members on the campus in any meaningful way. We tend to be afterthoughts. Although this is not about what happened with the settlement decision, other than the lack of transparency with it, the way President Sakaki has handled it the past couple of weeks has been poor and doesn't create a sense of trust. Although I do think there have been some great things President Sakaki has done for this campus, the continued lack of leadership has led this campus on a negative spiral which needs to stop. - Staff

Pro - There are many reasons to have no confidence in the President leadership from a staff perspective.

Here are just a few:

1 - Internal communication to University employees has been poor for many years. We keep raising it as an issue, and nothing seems to be done. Our needs do not seem to be a priority for this administration. Why was there no statement from President Sakaki when Chancellor Castro resigned? Why do communications from the President's office come out so infrequently? When important things happen in the CSU and SSU community, we are often left wondering what the administration is thinking, in the absence of timely statements.

2 - Turnover at SSU has been hugely disruptive to our culture and operations. Administrators, staff and faculty have been leaving at a brisk pace in the past few years, due to low salaries and low morale. Did many of these former employees feel pushed out, or that they were victims of retaliation? I have not seen any efforts from the President's office to address this problem. With every staff, faculty and administrator who leaves SSU, institutional knowledge, talent and energy walks out the door, making the University weaker. To pretend that this isn't a big problem for the University is a big mistake.

3 - There have been many requests over the years for an ombuds office on this campus, and the President still refuses to authorize the creation of this important office. Many issues around low morale on campus could be improved by the addition of an ombudsperson, creating a constructive way to communicate systemic problems and find solutions.

4 - During the taped statement played at the last Senate meeting, it felt disingenuous for the President to take credit for the work of faculty and staff, with many of the initiatives she touted having been in the works for years before she became president. Even though President Sakaki said in her taped statement that she had 'apologized unreservedly,' the only apology I recall hearing is that she was sorry for all of the negative media coverage. - Staff

PRO VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE: Data pulled from the Cal State Tableau:

SSU Enrollment Numbers:

9408 (Fall 2015)
9323 (Fall 2016)
9223 (Fall 2017)
9201 (Fall 2018)
8649 (Fall 2019)
7807 (Fall 2020)
7182 (Fall 2021) -Enrollment data since Fall 2015.

As indicated by this data, if the fires were the cause of the enrollment drop, there would be more than a 22 student decline from Fall 2017 to Fall 2018. The bigger indicator here is that there was a significant drop in Fall 2019.  North Bay Students Served: 2779 (Fall 2015) 2599 (Fall 2021) -Though Judy has touted that she has done more to recruit those in our service area, we've actually decreased the number of North Bay students served since Fall 2015. This is problematic. Hispanic Students Enrolled: 2596 (Fall 2015) 2622 (Fall 2021) -Ruben started HSI initiatives in Fall 2015; the final status was confirmed under Judy. This was not Judy's initiative. We have HSI status now and have only increased in serving 26 Hispanic students. This is abysmal. - Faculty

pro - Student

Yes, I agree with the no-confidence resolution. I have lost all confidence that President Sakaki can successfully lead our university. This scandal has been met with excuses and deflections rather than concern for victims' well-being or acknowledgment of responsibility. The university is now drawn into arguments and damage control since President Sakaki is refusing to step down; faculty and staff across campus are expending valuable time on this embarrassing and poorly handled issue, rather than attending to the exceedingly urgent budget crisis. President Sakaki's understanding of the role of leadership seems to be sorely lacking, a situation which unfortunately long predates this particular scandal. We needed leadership, engagement, and thoughtful, hands-on solutions during the fires, during discussions with donors, during the Covid shutdown, and during the ongoing budget and enrollment crisis. Sadly, we are not well-served with President Sakaki at the helm. - Faculty