Fresno State Foundation leadership shakeup needed, experts say. ‘Report is pretty damning’
Four consultants who specialize in the governance and development of nonprofit boards said the Fresno State Foundation should look to replace its officers and board of governors or get more outside assistance in the wake of a harsh review of its operations by the California State University system.
All four experts read parts or all of a 32-page report from CSU Audit and Advisory Services and took aim at the composition of a foundation board that does not include faculty or student representation in violation of state regulations, and also cited a lack of board member turnover as the root of issues involving budget and financial practices, organizational structure, indirect cost recovery and endowment management.
The review by the CSU, which was requested by Fresno State president Saúl Jiménez-Sandoval and based on the 2024 fiscal year, found no evidence of malfeasance. But it concluded that significant weaknesses in the foundation’s governance and financial control environment left it open to financial misstatement and fraud. Jiménez-Sandoval is a board member, the only member affiliated with the university.
“Typically, for this level of change needed in terms of the governance role of the board, leadership change is needed,” said Susan Meier, a consultant who has worked with nonprofit boards for more than 30 years and is a past vice president of consulting and training at BoardSource, which is focused on board leadership, research and support.
The report? “This is not just a bad look. This isn’t like, ‘Oh, there’s a small mistake.’ That report is pretty damning,” said Dave Sternberg, founding partner of Loring Sternberg & Associates, a management and fundraising consulting firm for nonprofit organizations.
The Fresno State Foundation is a non-profit auxiliary that manages $250 million in university endowment money and $65 million in post-grant awards. It operates independently of the university.
The Foundation’s board chairman, Vinci Ricchiuti, did not return multiple calls requesting comment and information. Several board members also did not return calls from The Fresno Bee.
Jiménez-Sandoval released the CSU report publically to increase transparency in governance and structural issues that appear to have developed over time, he said.
In outlining next steps for the foundation the Fresno State president said in a written statement to campus that addressing Foundation governance and board structure was a priority. He said that in partnership with the university, the Foundation would develop an “implementation timeline” to reform the board’s structure and governance to ensure appropriate university representation. He also said board and officer term limits would be instituted and Foundation bylaws would be updated to reflect current leadership roles and reporting structures.
Foundation officers and board of governors volunteer their time to serve and are not compensated by the foundation, according to its tax documents.
But fresh eyes are absolutely essential, said Mary Kay Delvo, a strategist, governance professional and founder of INspiringSIGHT, a Minneapolis/St. Paul based strategic consulting firm.
“Turnover of board members allows for new eyes, new perspectives, new questions,” Delvo said. “Depending on the makeup of your board, you’re getting people with different experiences, professional experience, all of those things. It diversifies your board, which diversifies your thinking and your view. When you have the same people, it gets stagnant and things get overlooked. The board’s primary role is to direct and protect the organization.”
Ricchiuti and vice chair Eric Hanson, an orthopaedic surgeon who served as head team physician for Fresno State athletics, have been in those positions at the front of the foundation since 2016-17, according to the CSU report.
The CSU in its review cited limited board turnover and infrequent officer rotation among 46 areas in need of remediation action. The foundation had one member who had served for more than 30 years, four who had served for more than 20 years and 11 for more than 10 years.
The foundation’s bylaws state a board term is four years, and upon expiration the university president in consultation with the board chair and governance committee will determine whether it is in the best interests of the corporation to recommend reelection. It does not specifically state a maximum number of terms that can be served, according to the CSU report.
The bylaws also establish expectations for annual officer elections, but there was little turnover with the chair and vice chair in place much of the past decade.
Without turnover, complacency can set in, power imbalances within a board could develop and go unquestioned. Meier said boards that do not have or enforce term limits risk being seen, or can actually start behaving, like private clubs where the loyalty is to the individuals and themselves as opposed to the mission and those they are serving.
“I think one of the challenges gets to be that you begin to repeat behaviors that become the norm,” Sternberg said. “I often ask organizations, ‘Are you doing what you’re doing out of history and habit or effectiveness and efficiency?’ When you have board members or trustees who serve for a very long time, you get into history and habit behavior. This report is certainly evidence that there were behaviors that they just continued, and when it’s the same people over and over the question becomes, ‘Where is the sense of inquiry and the ability to ask is this the way we should be doing things?’ When you stay for a long time, that’s what you find.”
Board Source recommends term limits, with the most common board member term structure two three-year terms.
“I would strongly suggest that one of the things they do going forward, self assessment is a big first step, and also having somebody who they work with that has good governance experience, who can staff that board,” said Mari Aguirre Rodriguez, founder of San Antonio-based Opt In Experts. “That would be really important for them. That’s pretty typical within a state university structure. That board should have some governance support, and I think they need it for the first year at least.”
The Foundation also lacked adequate administration or staff, faculty and student representation, required by state regulations. In addition, it had not updated its articles of incorporation since 2012, missing opportunities for board members to reconnect with founding documents and mission statements, state regulations, foundation bylaws and operating procedures.
The Fresno State Foundation had slipped in critical areas including endowment management, indirect cost recovery and budget and financial practices, according to the CSU report.
Of its 22 operating and investment bank accounts, seven were reconciled only once per year during year-end close, which increased the risk of a misappropriation of funds, fraud and also delayed the foundation’s ability to detect any errors or malfeasance.
Banking and financial system access and disbursement controls also were not arranged to separate key roles and responsibilities.
The CSU reviewed 14 disbursements from scholarship and trust accounts and found that in five instances a multimillion dollar wire transfer to the university to fulfill scholarship needs or fund campus program accounts from underlying endowments were both prepared and approved by the same individual. Those transactions ranged from $2.2 million to $5.3 million.
This story was originally published February 3, 2026 at 11:30 AM.