photo credit: Michelle Marques
Sonoma State UniversityA Sonoma County Superior Court judge has issued a ruling against Sonoma State University and the California State University system, finding university leaders acted unlawfully in their decision to cut academic programs.

Superior Court Judge Kenneth English issued a Temporary Restraining Order, halting any further action on the program cuts by Interim SSU President Emily Cutrer and CSU Chancellor Mildred García. The ruling states that they failed to follow proper procedures and their own regulations in making the decision.

The ruling does not address the potential elimination of the athletics department.

Tim Wandling is the chair of the English Department at SSU. He spoke to KRCB Tuesday and shared his reaction:

“It was amazing to hear that, and I was pleasantly surprised," said Wandling. "I really know that in this struggle, we are in it with the athletes together. I’m really surprised that the athletes didn’t get relief and I’m hoping that they do on May 1st. But we are very excited that the court systems recognize what we’ve been saying all along, that the processes here have not been followed and we want to see them followed."

Wandling is also one of the founders of FUSE, which is Forever United for Sonoma Excellence, a group of faculty and students who have proposed an alternate plan to address budget shortfalls at SSU.

“It’s been a bad week for management because of the four legislators who were here, plus Mike Thompson, so four local politicians plus our Congressman – all telling them that their ‘Bridge to the Future’ plan was inadequate, and did not address the concerns that were raised at the previous hearing. Plus the faculty is right now taking a vote of no confidence in all three of our Provost, President, and the Chancellor. I expect that that will pass," Wandling said. "If none of those things are giving management pause to actually try to do something a little bit better, then I don’t know what will.”

Wandling says faculty are voting on their own representatives Thursday and will present their choices to SSU leadership, but it is not clear if their representatives will be accepted.

The ruling comes after months of protests from students, faculty, and community members. They accused the university and CSU leadership of a lack of transparency and legal authority. Attorneys representing student-athletes argued that the cuts were based on flawed financial figures and that students were misled about the future of their programs.

David Seidel is a partner at the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, representing seven student athletes at SSU. He says this is the kind of ruling he was hoping for.

“We've been saying since day one that they didn't follow the regulations and the policies. And a big part of our claim is just, you know, they have to follow the law. And the judge today found it likely that they didn't follow the law. They didn't follow the regulations and the policies," Seidel said.

The ruling did not include a Temporary Restraining Order to block the elimination of the athletics program, but Seidel says at the next hearing he thinks they will be able to show cause as to why the program should be saved.

“We also think we're correct in our claims that State and the leadership knew they were going to cut athletics before the January 22nd decision and continue to recruit athletes to come to Sonoma State for the specific purpose of playing a sport, knowing that as soon as they got here, they were going to kill athletics," said Seidel.

A group called Save Seawolves Athletics is calling for the resignations of both Interim President Cutrer and Chancellor García. They allege a “moral and institutional failure” and are demanding the California State Legislature and CSU Board of Trustees intervene and halt the implementation of these decisions.

The next court hearing is set for May 1st, where further arguments by SSU and Seidel representing student athletes will be presented.

KRCB reached out to leadership at SSU, and they provided this statement: 

"SSU maintains that the university followed its established policies regarding academic discontinuation, including communicating with and considering feedback from all programs impacted by the proposed reductions. Yesterday's ruling set a later date when the court will more fully review the parties’ positions, including evidence from the university that SSU is complying with its academic discontinuation policy. We respect the court’s process and remain committed to full cooperation."

(Edit note: KRCB has added comment from SSU after this article was initially published.)