Accjc gone wild
Letter from AFT Local 2121 to Scott-Skillman and Agrella
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- August 16, 2013 Letter from Beno to Agrella on Confidentiality of Review Process
- August 19, 2013 Agrella Letter to the College Community
Letter from AFT Local 2121 to Scott-Skillman and AgrellaIn the days approaching the deadline for CCSF to file their review of the disaccreditation of CCSF many of the CCSF community were waiting to see what the administration was going to file. Both Special Trustee Agrella and Community College Chancellor Brice Harris had promised that the process would be transparent. On August 15, 2013 the CCSF Faculty Union (AFT Local 2121) wrote to Interim Chancellor Thelma Scott-Skillman and Special Trustee Robert Agrella regarding the lack of contact by the administration. The union noted that they were surprised that they had not been contacted since “we have already filed a lengthy complaint against the ACCJC, and have information concerning the actions of the Commission, which is relevant to the College's request for review. In particular, we received on August 13, 2013 the results of the United States Department of Education's (US DoE) review of the Complaint. The US DoE found that the 2012 review by ACCJC, which led to Show Cause status and subsequently disaccreditation was fatally flawed.” The letter from the union continued by laying out some information that it felt was relevant to the review: “In particular, we received on August 13, 2013 the results of the United States Department of Education's (US DoE) review of the Complaint. The US DoE found that the 2012 review by ACCJC, which led to Show Cause status and subsequently disaccreditation was fatally flawed.” “The evaluation team, which the ACCJC staff - headed by President Beno - appointed for City College of San Francisco in 2012 was invalidly constituted. This is because Ms. Beno's husband was placed on the team. The US DoE agreed this was a conflict of interest, which violated Federal regulations 34 CFR 602.15(a)(6). The conclusion that the Commission does not meet the Secretary's criteria means the team's evaluation was prejudiced by her husband's involvement in the assessment of CCSF and consequently the Evaluation Team Report should be considered null and void. There was no valid team evaluation for the Commission to rely on. The Commission's decision to place CCSF on Show Cause sanction is therefore itself null and void.” These violations go to the legitimacy of the evaluation team and the subsequent actions of the Commission.” “If that conflict is not enough, the team was also invalidly created because it lacked sufficient educators. There were only 3 faculty members on the team out of a total of 17 members. In appointing this team without sufficient faculty educators, ACCJC's staff, headed by Ms. Beno, did not comply with Federal law.” “And if that wasn't enough, the team and the Commission both erred in penalizing CCSF because the ACCJC had not clearly informed CCSF prior to July 2012 that it had deficiencies. This violated 34 CFR 602.15a (3). In 2012, the Commission wrongfully relied on the existence of these alleged deficiencies to issue Show Cause, and later disaccreditation. Had CCSF been promptly notified of deficiencies, if they existed, in 2006, ACCJC was duty-bound to give it two years to correct them. ACCJC did not give this two-year notice, more proof there were in fact no deficiencies. The US DoE correctly found that ACCJC failed to give proper notice or due process to CCSF.” “The ACCJC's violations, confirmed by the DoE, mandate that accreditation be fully restored, and that the sanctions of Show Cause and Disaccreditation be rescinded.” The union then requested that the request for review include the CFT complaint to the Department of Education and the follow-up letter from the Department of Education. The union also requested that CCSF’s reasons for review include the following grounds: 1. Errors or omissions in carrying out prescribed procedures on the part of the evaluation team and/or Commission which materially affected the Commission's decision, including but not limited to the following;
2. There was demonstrable bias or prejudice on the part of one or more members of the evaluation team or Commission, which materially affected the Commission's decision, including but not limited to:
The union requested that the “Trustee, College, and State share its proposed statement of reasons for review with us in a timely fashion, so we may have further input, and include the information set forth above.” The letter from Local AFT 2121 concluded with: “We hereby reserve the right to initiate appropriate legal or administrative actions, to challenge the disaccreditation of CCSF, and to add to, modify, supplement or amend the grounds for such action. Moreover, the parties hereto reserve the right to raise grounds beyond those specified above.” August 16, 2013 Letter from Beno to Agrella on Confidentiality of Review ProcessOn August 14, 2013, Barbara Beno wrote to Agrella and Scott-Skillman as follows: Subject: Appeals Process definitely confidential Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:26:46 PM Dear Bob and Thelma: Please see Section M of the Appeals Procedure Manual, which states the appeals process, even the date, location of the appeals panel meeting, is confidential. We are still checking with our attorneys on the Review Process, but I will state now that is the beginning of the legal, confidential process, a pre-appeal of sorts, and is probably best kept confidential.... Barb” On August 16, 2013 in a follow-up letter from Beno to Agrella a demand was made to keep everything secret from the public. The letter stated that (emphasis added): “I am certain that you are aware of the high level of publicity that has surrounded the Commission's decision. The public scrutiny of the Commission's decision has been extraordinary and without precedent. The ACCJC appreciates the public's interest in the outcome of this matter, and the value of transparency in the review and appeal process. At the same time, however, and as I am sure you would agree, it is also in the public's interest that the Review Committee and Commission members be able to render a decision, in so far as possible, free from any outside influences or pressures. Impartiality of the review process is paramount, and the Commission is determined that the institution be afforded such a review. For this reason, the public's interest in access to information and documents exchanged during the review process must be tempered with the need to maintain a sufficient level of confidentiality in the proceedings in order to preserve such impartiality.” Recall that the review process is done by the same group that made the ruling. This is what Beno means by “impartially.” “The ACCJC is concerned that certain actions by third party members of the public, if continued or expanded, have the potential to undermine the fairness and impartiality of the review and appeal process. Several complaints regarding the ACCJC's review of CCSF have been filed by the California Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 2121 (the "Union") with the U.S. Department of Education ("USDE"). Despite the publicity being afforded to the issues raised in the Union's complaints, the preservation of the impartiality of the review proceedings dictates that the institution's standing with the Commission not be abrogated or replaced by the undue influences of third parties that clearly lack any such standing. The Union's complaints, and the USDE's responses to the complaints, should not supersede what the institution determines to be in its best interests to raise in the review. To date the Commission has not received a single complaint from CCSF concerning the issues raised by the Union. Nor, to the Commission's knowledge, has the institution lodged such a complaint with the USDE. The institution has been and continues to be free to raise similar issues with the ACCJC.” The “USDE” mentioned is the United States Department of Education. I guess that Beno feels that the USDE is one of those plotting against her. If it is true that the “institution” has not lodged a complaint with the USDE or used the decision by the USDE that the ACCJC had committed violations of their policy, why haven’t they? Whose side is the so-called “institution” on? Do their lawyers have an obligation to present the best case possible to the review committee of the ACCJC? “The rights of CCSF under ACCJC's standards and polices, including the institution's rights under the pending review and appeal process, and also its rights under the attendant USDE regulations, cannot be adopted by or transferred to third parties. While the Union is free to submit complaints about the ACCJC, just as any other third party, the Union is not a representative or agent of the institution, and has no authority to represent the institution in its dealings with the Commission and USDE. Nor should a third party's comp1aints be treated or handled in the process of review requested by a member institution of ACCJC, in this case CCSF. The public's and USDE's responses to the Union's complaints give the appearance that these clear boundaries are not being respected.” “To ensure that the Commission's review of its decision to terminate the accreditation of CCSF is free from the undue influences of third parties, it is critical that the institution maintain the confidentiality of certain aspects of the review process. By voluntarily participating in accreditation by the ACCJC, CCSF has agreed to comply with all ACCJC Policies and Procedures, including those in respect to the upcoming review, in particular ACCJC's Policy on Public Disclosure and Confidentiality in the Accreditation Process and the confidentiality requirements set forth in the Appeals Procedures Manual.” There is no “voluntary participation” in ACCJC - it is required by the Community College Board of Governors regulations. “In accordance with these Policies and Procedures, CCSF is obligated to prevent the disclosure of any information with respect to the selection and appointment of the Commission's Review Committee members. This includes, but is not limited to, contact information, including the identity of any prospective or appointed committee member. Similarly, any Review Committee report drafts that CCSF receives for purposes of correcting errors of fact must be kept confidential. Likewise, the Commission expects the Commission members, the Commission staff, and its agents to respect the confidentiality of all aspects of the review process, which includes maintaining the confidentiality of all of the materials that the institution sends to the Commission and the materials that are sent to the institution from the Commission that pertain to the review process.” “On August 20, 2013 the institution is expected to submit its Statement of Reasons. Historically, the Statement of Reasons has not been considered a public document in any other review conducted by the Commission nor has it ever been shared by an institution or by the Commission with the public. It is a document that will establish the parameters of what the Review Committee will investigate and review and which will set the groundwork for a possible Appeal, another confidential procedure. This document may be returned to the institution for revision or clarification. The Commission is expecting that the Statement of Reasons, and any correspondence between the Commission staff and the College that pertains to the Statement of Reasons, remain confidential. The Commission expects its staff will also respect the confidentiality of all materials exchanged in connection with the Statement of Reasons.” “Given the extraordinary amount of publicity surrounding this matter, it is critical that the identity of the Review Committee members be kept confidential. This is necessary in order to prevent these individuals from being harassed or otherwise inappropriately contacted by members of the public. Therefore, pursuant to and consistent with ACCJC's policies, the Commission is requiring that the institution not disclose the identities of these persons.” “After completing the review, the Review Committee members will prepare a preliminary report (i.e., in draft form). This report will be sent to CCSF for comment by the institution on any factual errors, prior to its finalization and prior to it being sent to the Commission. For the same reasons it is essential that a draft external evaluation team report remain confidential until after the Commission renders a decision on an institution, it is similarly essential that the draft Review Committee report remain confidential until the Commission has had an opportunity to review it and render a decision on outcome of review. Until that time, however, the Commission insists that its member institutions not disclose the contents of the Review Committee report.” “As the process unfolds, there may be a need to ask or require that CCSF respect the confidentiality of other aspects of the process; however, at this stage these are the elements that appear to be critical and apparent. We also understand that CCSF is a public institution, and as such is subject to laws that govern records maintained by all public institutions. If CCSF believes, based on advice from its legal counsel, that the law requires that it act in a way that is contrary to the requirements of this letter, we would expect that the Commission would be notified prior to any such disclosure, and that CCSF use its best efforts to limit such disclosure to the extent required by law.” I and others have asked, pursuant to the California Public Records Act, for materials from CCSF and the Chancellor's Office with respect to the content of CCSF's request for review. I did receive some material including material mentioned above from the Chancellor's Office. CCSF refused the request with a letter dated September 13, 2013. The letter, after the demand by ACCJC to keep everything under wraps, stated that: "The College believes that your request concerns records that are exempt from disclosure under the Act. Specifically, they are exempt from disclosure under Government Code Section 6254(b) and (k), and the privilege contained in Evidence Code Section 1040. They are also exempt from disclosure under Government Code Section 6255. In that the public interest served by not disclosing the records clearly outweighs the public's interest served by disclosure.” “The College is committed to taking all steps possible to retain its accredited status. That includes pursing processes specified by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges for institutions that wish to retain their accreditation. This process, and the documents related to them, are confidential according to Commission Rules. The College supports those rules and wishes to comply with them. A failure by the College to adhere to Commission Rules could have a negative result on the College's efforts to retain its accreditation during its pursuit of the Commissions processes." I will not go into the argument of why "the College" is wrong in its understanding of the Records Act. I am sure that will be played out in Court by others like the San Francisco Chronicle that requested the information. But the reason for confidentiality is clear - to keep the public from knowing whether the representatives of CCSF are putting on the best defense of the college and what that defense is. August 19, 2013 Agrella Letter to the College CommunityIn an August 19, 2013 letter to the “College Community” Community College Chancellor Brice Harris’s Specially Appointed Trustee Agrella wrote a public letter that attempted to explain why he must not anger the ACCJC and at their demand must keep all of his dealings with respect to the review strictly confidential. Although “ both Chancellor Brice Harris and I publicly stated that the review letter (due Tuesday, August 20, 2013) would be placed on the college’s website” they would not be doing so. He states that “we were informed by ACCJC that all materials submitted to ACCJC are to be treated as confidential. While both Chancellor Harris and I sincerely apologize for our premature comments regarding disclosure of the review documents, our intention was never to mislead the college community.” “We cannot share the review documents because we have been clearly informed by the Commission that all parts of the appeal process, including the review, are to be treated as confidential.” I note that there is nothing in the ACCJC policies that speak to a requirement that the “all parts of the appeal process” are to be treated as confidential. This new requirement is a violation of due process and transparency. Agrella goes on to state he will not use the DOE letter in their review. He does not want the ACCJC to think that CCSF is endorsing the CFT complaint. He stated that “If we were to use these arguments they would become the college’s official position and therefore the college would join in the attack on the Commission.” The fear of the wrath of the ACCJC is apparent as the letter continues “If our review document joins the attack on the Commission, I believe that the review and appeals process will be unsuccessful. If this is the case, I also believe our timeframe for meeting the standards may be significantly shortened.” In other words, we can’t afford to mess with the “my way or the highway” attitude of the ACCJC. “Please understand that I am not trying to stand in the way of concerns about the Commission. I am dealing with the specifics of accreditation and the processes determined and articulated to us by the Commission. I believe that if the college changes direction and begins to attack the Commission, rather than working with it to correct the problems in the institution, it will jeopardize our ability to maintain accreditation.” This is a sad commentary on the actual due process rights under the ACCJC. Agrella continues to believe that they will be allowed, during the review, to show the progress made by the college since the ACCJC acted in June. In fact, this is not spelled out in the rules of the ACCJC. Finally Agrella concludes with an appeal “Although we may disagree on the strategy to be employed, the college community needs to be in total agreement to work together during these coming months to meet the accreditation standards.” Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 2.61 Mb. Share with your friends:
|