Foundation boards across CSU rotate officers, limit terms, unlike at Fresno State

A troubled Fresno State Foundation diverges from a majority of philanthropic foundations within the 22-campus California State University system at a very basic point. Its governance. Term limits for its board were eliminated in 2022, and only loosely enforced prior to that. Officer rotation has been almost non-existent for the past decade.

It is a big red flag, according to experts in the governance of philanthropic foundations and past chairpersons of foundations in the CSU, as well as a highly-critical advisory review of Fresno State Foundation governance and operations that was conducted by the CSU chancellor’s office.

That review uncovered startling governance and financial control issues at the foundation, which manages more than $315 million in endowments and post-award grants.

It was found to be relying on outdated core financial processes that no longer met the needs of an organization of its size or were based on outdated assumptions. Critical risks were identified in foundation banking practices, with several instances where the same individual was both preparing and approving multi-million dollar wire transfers and electronic payments.

Weaknesses in governance and the financial control environment, the CSU report concluded, left the foundation vulnerable to financial misstatement and fraud, hinder its ability to safeguard assets and impact its ability to support the university’s missions.

The Bee reviewed officer rotation at philanthropic foundation boards on 16 CSU campuses. Over the past 10 years only two have had one chairperson: Fresno State and Cal Poly.

The issues for the Fresno Foundation stacked up over years under static leadership, the review showed.

“Governance areas of concern included limited board and board leadership turnover, minimal university representation and outdated governing documents, all of which reduce transparency and resulted in misalignment with the university’s strategic priorities,” the report states.

One consultant said the foundation seemed stuck organizationally with a board that has been led by chairperson Vinci Ricchiuti since 2017, who has held a spot on the board for 31 years.

Vice chair Eric Hanson also has held that role for the past 10 years.

There are four board members who have served for more than 20 years, 11 additional board members for 10 or more years; both well beyond accepted term limits.

Across much of the CSU, consistent board turnover is the norm.

Cal State Dominguez Hills established its philanthropic foundation in 2015, to focus on fundraising and donor stewardship, endowments and community engagement.

It intentionally sought a diverse mix of leaders for its board of directors. Business leaders. Finance professionals. Faculty and students were represented.

Michael Kelly, the founding chair of the CSUDH Foundation, said the range of perspectives created stronger alignment between the foundation and the university. It also promoted greater transparency, because decisions benefited from multiple viewpoints rather than a narrow circle of participants.

“Effective governance requires a board to regularly revisit its mission, understand whom it serves, evaluate results honestly and continually renew its plans and leadership to meet changing needs,” said Kelly, who is now executive director of the Drucker Institute at the Claremont Graduate University, a non-partisan research center focused on the responsible leadership and effective management of organizations.

“At CSUDH, the board followed its governing documents and leadership transitions occurred according to established practices. That reinforced an important principle: the institution and its mission are larger than any individual board member or officer.”

At other CSU campuses, the CSUB Foundation at Cal State Bakersfield has since 2017 elected a new chairperson every two years. Its bylaws state officers shall serve a two-year term.

The Long Beach State Foundation has had five chairpersons over the past decade, each serving for two years. Its bylaws state the board chair shall hold office for a term of two years and may serve, if reelected, for an additional full term, or for a total of four consecutive years.

At San Francisco State, foundation bylaws state officers shall hold office for a term of one year or until their respective successors are elected and qualified. It has had five individuals serve as chair of the board since 2016, each serving for two years.

The Sonoma State Foundation has had seven chairpersons, including interim and acting chairs.

The Cal Poly Humboldt Foundation also has had seven chairpersons. The position turned over annually between 2017 and 2021, and the past two chairs were elected to a two-year term.

“I always think change is good and if you have a strong organization, that organization is not dependent on one, two or five strong personalities that may dictate what happens,” said Jenny Harris, who served as chairperson of the Cal Poly Humboldt Foundation in 2021 and again in 2022 following the COVID-19 pandemic.

“You just don’t want one personality staying there and dictating what the personality of the board is, especially when you have new members that come on. If you have a very strong personality that has been there a long time, they’re going to naturally acquiesce to that person.”

Erin Hastey, a consultant to philanthropic boards who specializes in board culture and board governance, pointed to the organizational phenomenon known as founder’s syndrome.

It relates to founders of an organization, who retain tight hold on power or control of a board and impact the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

The Fresno State Foundation was established in 1931. But Ricchiuti has 31 years on the board, and a foundation that includes an audit committee, governance committee and others clearly did not keep pace with governance or financial practices, unable or unwilling to flag glaring deficiencies.

The foundation was relying on outdated manual financial practices. Limitations within the financial system and chart of accounts restricted the ability to produce timely, reliable fund-level reporting. It had not implemented an adequate internal control structure over the reconciliation of its 22 operating and investment accounts, increasing the risk of fraud, misappropriation of funds and a delayed detection of any errors.

The CSU review also found the foundation had not updated its articles of incorporation since 2012, an action, the report states, that typically triggers a reassessment of compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies for auxiliary organizations within the CSU.

“It becomes a sacred cow, where that person has so much institutional history that no one is willing to talk about that elephant in the room,” Hastey said.

“That can really limit an organization’s ability to make some of the moves it might need to.”

Turnover, Hastey said, is simply vital to the health of a board.

“One of the things that I love to see on a board is when a new board member will come in and they’ll see something that, even though people have been in the room for years and are professionals and are respected in their industries, they just don’t see it,” she said.

“We all have blind spots, and that’s certainly the case on boards as well. That’s where turnover really plays a vital role, in helping keep the energy fresh and the ideas new.”

CSU Audit and Auxiliary Services, which conducted the review, also found foundation bylaws had not assigned responsibilities consistent with current practices and committees were not always in compliance with applicable laws and underlying committee charters.

In some instances, the board simply did not follow its own rules.

The foundation’s audit committee charter, as one example cited in the CSU review, stated that it shall be comprised of not less than four members, none of which shall be an officer of the board of governors. Yet, the CSU found that the board’s treasurer had been serving as the chair of the audit committee since 2022.

The composition of the governance committee also was not in compliance with its charter. And, foundation bylaws require the governance committee to nominate and provide a slate of board members for officer positions, yet it was unable to provide any documentation proving it had during the period reviewed.

This story was originally published June 29, 2026 at 8:31 AM.