We, the CSU employees (faculty and staff) of Cal State East Bay, San Francisco State University, and Sonoma State University, are calling for accountability, transparency, and an independent investigation into the San Francisco Bay Region Network's leadership, governance, and transformation under VP Network Transformation Karen Moranski. As the executive who has overseen significant aspects of SFBRN’s design and implementation, Karen Moranski’s decisions and leadership should be independently reviewed in light of SFBRN employee reports of increased workloads, loss of experienced staff, declining services, operational disruptions, and declining confidence in the transformation. We are therefore asking for an independent review of her decisions, leadership, authority, and continued role within SFBRN.

Why Employees Have Lost Confidence

1. Staffing reductions are being treated as transformation and efficiency.

Employees report increasingly performing work across multiple campuses while critical positions remain vacant. As experienced employees retire or resign, employees report that their responsibilities are being absorbed by remaining staff. According to employees who attended SFBRN town halls, Karen Moranski has stated that several vacant positions will not be back filled and has described not replacing departing employees as part of SFBRN’s efficiency strategy. This raises a fundamental question for the CSU Trustees and Chancellor Mildred Garcia, are these savings the result of genuine operational improvements, or do they result in significant part from workforce reductions, and increased workloads for remaining employees?

We ask the CSU Trustees and Chancellor Mildred Garcia to independently determine the extent to which SFBRN’s reported savings depend upon leaving positions vacant, eliminating positions, or restricting hiring. If these practices are a significant component of SFBRN’s efficiency model, the VP Network Transformation should be held accountable for the resulting increased workloads, decline in campus services, and operational consequences.

2. Employees are being required to absorb substantially expanded responsibilities across three campuses without compensation, while management compensation has increased.

Employees report that Karen Moranski has stated in town halls that union employees should not expect raises because taking on additional work is part of SFBRN’s effort to achieve efficiencies, emphasizing that employees are still working no more than 40 hours per week. At the same time, employees report observing or being informed of raises involving Karen Moranski, and several MPPs associated with their roles in SFBRN. These circumstances raise concerns about whether the burdens and financial benefits associated with SFBRN’s claimed efficiencies are being distributed equitably between management and union employees.

The CSU Trustees and Chancellor Mildred Garcia should conduct an independent audit of management compensation changes associated with the creation and implementation of SFBRN. The audit should examine how compensation decisions were made, who received increases, whether compensation practices were applied equitably across management and union employees, and whether the VP Network Transformation’s relationships and influence at Sonoma State played any role in those decisions. Union employees should not be expected to generate organizational savings by absorbing substantially expanded responsibilities without compensation while management receives increased compensation.

3. Approximately $10 million has reportedly been committed by Chancellor Mildred Garcia to SFBRN, yet campuses have not seen sufficient measurable evidence demonstrating that this investment is producing efficiencies.

Employees understand that approximately $10 million has been committed to SFBRN and that a significant portion of this funding has been directed to Deloitte for transformation services. Employees in departments transitioned into SFBRN report receiving low-value, generic deliverables from Deloitte, including position descriptions that employees believe were produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence. Employees report that these deliverables have not demonstrated any meaningful improvements across the three campuses. At the same time, employees report increasing workloads and vacancies, while campuses have experienced operational problems and declining services following departmental transitions into SFBRN.

The CSU Trustees and chancellor Mildred Garcia should require Karen Moranski and Jeff Wilson to provide transparent, independently verifiable evidence supporting SFBRN’s claimed savings and operational improvements, rather than relying solely on Deloitte assessments or presentations. That evidence should clearly distinguish genuine operational efficiencies from savings resulting from employee attrition, position eliminations, or hiring restrictions. The CSU community and taxpayers deserve measurable evidence showing whether the approximately $10 million investment is producing the efficiencies and service improvements that were used to justify it.

4. The restructuring of SFBRN’s original leadership structure and expansion of administrative overhead must be independently investigated.

SFBRN was originally structured around a single Network Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer, with Jeff Wilson appointed to lead the Network. As part of the consolidation, the CFO positions at Cal State East Bay and Sonoma State University were eliminated with the stated expectation that consolidating financial and leadership functions would reduce duplication and generate approximately $650,000 in annual savings. Since then, questions have been raised regarding the Vice President for Network Transformation’s role in Jeff Wilson’s removal and the subsequent restructuring of SFBRN. Multiple highly compensated administrative positions have been created, retained, or re-titled, including a Network COO position with compensation exceeding $300,000 and the re-establishment of CFO positions at Sonoma State and Cal State East Bay. At Sonoma State, the former AVP of Human Resources position was reportedly re-titled Executive HR Advisor, with only one employee reporting to the position while retaining AVP-level compensation, a great arrangement associated with VP Network Transformation's relationships with Sonoma State administrators. Similar Executive HR Advisor positions are reportedly being created at San Francisco State and Cal State East Bay. Karen Moranski has also created a Senior Director of Learning & Professional Development position within her "Office of Mis-Transformation", with compensation exceeding $170,000, despite existing campus-level learning and professional development functions.

The CSU Board of Trustees and Chancellor Mildred Garcia should therefore conduct an independent investigation into whether the restructuring achieved its stated objective of reducing administrative duplication and generating savings. The investigation should examine the circumstances surrounding Jeff Wilson’s removal, whether VP Network Transformation's relationships influenced appointments, organizational decisions, or compensation, and the net financial impact of the restructuring. This should include comparing the approximately projected annual savings with actual savings after accounting for newly created, retained, or re-titled positions and determining whether administrative costs increased while front-line union positions remained unfilled.

5. The Deloitte engagement and whether SFBRN’s transformation has achieved its stated objectives must be independently investigated.

Karen Moranski served as the primary liaison between Deloitte and departments transitioned into SFBRN and was closely involved in the transformation work Deloitte was hired to support. Employees have questioned the value of Deloitte’s deliverables, including organizational structures and position descriptions that employees characterize as low-value, generic, and produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence. Employees also report that Deloitte consultants openly acknowledged using AI in their work. Given the millions of dollars reportedly spent on the engagement, the central question is whether Deloitte’s work provided value reasonably commensurate with its cost and contributed to the operational improvements SFBRN was intended to achieve.

The CSU Trustees and Chancellor Mildred Garcia should independently review Deloitte’s contracts, statements of work, billing rates, consultant qualifications, AI deliverables, and measurable results. The review should determine whether consultants assigned to HR, Finance, IT, Procurement, and other specialized functions possessed the qualifications and relevant hands-on experience appropriate for advising on a major CSU organizational transformation. It should also examine the VP Network Transformation’s oversight and management of the Deloitte engagement, including her role in determining its direction and implementation.

6. SFBRN has been promoted as a success while employees and campuses report persistent operational problems.

Employees report repeatedly hearing Karen Moranski and the "Office of Mis-Transformation" describe SFBRN a successful transformation, while employees within SFBRN report continuing vacancies, increased workloads, and loss of experienced employees. Faculty and staff across the three campuses have reported declining service levels and significant operational problems. For example, HR teams across the three campuses have been merged, yet employees report that business processes remain unconsolidated. Faculty and staff report that HR response times for routine matters such as hiring, raises, re-classifications, and other HR requests can take months, with several employees and departments reporting that they receive no response. Employees have also reported significant usability problems with CHRS and continuing difficulties with P2P that have disrupted campus operations. These reports raise serious questions about whether SFBRN is delivering the transformation and efficiencies represented as objectives of the initiative.

When employees and campuses raise concerns about staffing, workload, declining services, and operational problems, those concerns should be addressed by VP Network Transformation with specific facts, measurable outcomes, and meaningful solutions, rather than misleading newsletters, and general statements regarding efficiency, campus viability, or AI-generated Network Mindset messaging that SFBRN employees openly scoff at. Employees and campuses deserve direct answers regarding operational disruptions, and decline in campus services, and what measurable improvements, if any, have resulted from the transformation. As the executive responsible for directing substantial portions of the transformation, the VP Network Transformation should be held accountable for the failures and operational consequences affecting the campuses.

7. Jeff Wilson’s leadership and oversight of the SFBRN transformation should also be independently reviewed.

Jeff Wilson was appointed as SFBRN’s Network Chief Executive and Financial Officer and was responsible for providing leadership, direction, and accountability for the newly consolidated Network. SFBRN employees report experiencing limited visibility and engagement from Jeff Wilson, while Karen Moranski became a central figure in directing, communicating, and implementing significant aspects of the transformation.

The CSU Trustees and Chancellor Mildred Garcia should therefore independently determine what authority Jeff Wilson retained, what responsibilities were assigned or delegated to Karen Moranski, and what oversight Jeff Wilson put in place. The review should also examine why Jeff Wilson was permitted to return to his previously held, highly compensated SFSU CFO position despite what employees describe as lack of leadership, direction, visibility, and limited engagement in his SFBRN role. Delegating or permitting substantial responsibility to another executive does not eliminate accountability.

8. Prior leadership history and qualifications should have been considered before placing an administrator at the center of SFBRN.

On April 3, 2025, the Sonoma State Academic Senate approved a resolution calling for a referendum of no confidence concerning Chancellor Mildred García, Sonoma State Interim President Emily Cutrer, and Provost Karen Moranski. The subsequent faculty referendum resulted in votes of no confidence concerning all three administrators. These were formal actions taken through Sonoma State’s academic governance process and raised significant concerns among participating faculty regarding the leadership of the named administrators before Karen Moranski was placed at the center of a major three-campus transformation. The Presidents of Cal State East Bay, San Francisco State University, and Sonoma State University should explain what consideration, if any, was given to the concerns expressed through Sonoma State’s academic governance process before Karen Moranski was appointed Vice President of Regional Transformation.

The CSU Trustees and Chancellor Mildred Garcia should independently review who evaluated Karen Moranski’s qualifications and suitability for the VP of Network Transformation role, particularly in light of the vote of no confidence concerning her. They should also examine what qualifications and experience were considered and what criteria were used to select a former academic affairs provost, with no expertise in HR, Finance, IT, or Procurement, to lead the consolidation of these highly complex administrative functions across three universities.

What We Demand

We call upon the Governor of California, CSU Trustees, Chancellor, CFA, and CSUEU to:

1. Conduct a vote of no confidence regarding VP Network Transformation, Karen Moranski’s leadership of SFBRN through the applicable governance and labor processes.
2. We also call for an independent review of CEO/CFO Jeff Wilson’s leadership responsibilities, authority, and oversight of SFBRN. 
3. We further call for an independent financial and operational audit of SFBRN, including the approximately $10 million investment, claimed savings and efficiencies, staffing reductions, MPP compensation changes, newly created or re-titled positions, and resulting net financial impact.
4. We call for an independent investigation of the Deloitte engagement, including contracts, expenditures, invoices, consultant qualifications, AI-assisted deliverables, oversight, and measurable value provided to the three campuses.
5. We ask that confidential employee interviews be conducted without Karen Moranski so employees can independently report concerns regarding staffing, workload, compensation, and operational disruptions.
6. We also ask that recruitment for the COO and other executive positions within SFBRN be suspended until the independent review is completed, unless the CSU provides a documented reason for proceeding.
7. Finally, we ask that the findings and recommendations of the independent investigations and audits be publicly released so that employees, the campuses, and taxpayers can evaluate whether SFBRN has achieved its stated objectives.

We ask the CSU Trustees and the CA State Auditor Whistleblower Program to conduct an independent and transparent investigation of the concerns raised in this petition, evaluate SFBRN based on objective and verifiable outcomes, and ensure that claims regarding efficiency, transformation, staffing, compensation, organizational structure, and service improvements are supported by independently verifiable evidence, while providing faculty, staff and taxpayers a meaningful opportunity to have their concerns heard and investigated.