Accjc gone wild
Save CCSF Coalition Complaint of August 19, 2013
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- CFT letter to Brice Harris August 19, 2013
Save CCSF Coalition Complaint of August 19, 2013.The Save CCSF Coalition sent a complaint to Kay W. Gilcher, Director of Accreditation Group U.S., a complaint on August 19, 2013. The letter began with a thank you to the Accreditation Group for not only lifting the spirits of those at CCSF but also “For the first time it seems that entire process may not be stacked against us and that not all decisions are going to be made by ACCJC insiders.” The letter noted that “At the Welcome Address for the new semester on August 13th, Special Trustee Robert Agrella told us that the review documents would be posted on the college website for all constituents to view.” “In an email sent on the morning of August 15th, Accreditation Liaison Officer Gohar Momjian informed the college community that she, along with Special Trustee Robert Agrella and Interim Chancellor Thelma Scott-Skillman, had met with the ACCJC the previous day, August 14th, one day after your DOE letter was received by the ACCJC. At that meeting, they were informed by the Accrediting Commission that the "review and appeals process is a confidential matter." As a result, Momjian stated that CCSF's top administrators would "not be publishing drafts and documents online," nor share any of these materials with the college constituencies. We believe that this action is illegal as it denies CCSF and its constituents due process.” At a Participatory Governance Council meeting on August 15, Momjian stated that she “she planned to rely primarily on the improvements made in recent months - the college's work on its Action Plans and progress toward meeting the accreditation standards. The problem here is that the ACCJC's review rules do not allow any information into the hearing that was not available at the time of the ACCJC's decision in June. So this information was very confusing to those present at this meeting.” The violations of U.S. DoE regulations cited in the letter included:
The Save CCSF Coalition letter stated that “It appears that our administrators have been intimidated by the Accrediting Commission into not using the letter from your office as part of the basis for appeal. This would explain why they demand that no one be allowed to see these materials, although all government organizations are subject to laws and regulations regarding transparency. Many of us expected (including our faculty union) that your letter would be used since it gives us such a strong basis for requiring the ACCJC to reverse its decision to terminate CCSF accreditation and provide us with the due process that has been missing. In short, the violations of the ACCJC were such that they tarnished the decision to terminate CCSF's accreditation. This decision to terminate should be withdrawn and a new properly conducted process be carried out.” “While we understand that at this point the Department of Education cannot reverse a sanction decision, we do believe that the violations cited by the Department could be used to discredit the process by which the sanction was developed.” The letter was signed by a number of faculty and community members. CFT letter to Brice Harris August 19, 2013On August 19, 2013 the California Federation of Teachers wrote a letter to Community College Chancellor Brice Harris and CCSF Special Trustee urging them to include in their grounds for review of the ACCJC decision to deny CCSF accreditation the following grounds: Insufficient Time, Continued Reliance On False Findings About CCSF's 2012 Review, ACCJC Continues To Fail To Clearly Identify Deficiencies, Invalid Show Cause Evaluation Team, and Leadership. The letter noted that CCSF was never given two years to make improvements. This conflicts with other colleges that were given more than 9 weeks to make improvements. This inconsistency is a violation of 34 CFR 602.18. The letter went on: “Moreover, ACCJC had the power to give CCSF a full two-years - until 2014 - to come into compliance. And for "good cause," it could give even more time. It should have afforded more than two years, and ACCJC's failure to do so under the circumstances is arbitrary, retaliatory, and an abuse of discretion. Many of the changes ACCJC demanded in July 2012 were known to require more than 9 weeks, and 9 months, or even two years to accomplish. For instance, ACCJC demanded a wholesale change in the governance structure, which, as noted, required collegial consultation (and which, as you know, is a virtual mirror of the governance systems demanded by AB 1725 and in place throughout California's community colleges). Then, in its decision, ACCJC asserted that the new structure has not yet had a chance to really work - to be "defined" - and said that since there wasn't enough time to be defined, it meant CCSF had failed to satisfy ACCJC's Requirements, Standards and recommendations. This is nothing but a set-up for failure, a predetermined result, predictable by the demands made by ACCJC. ACCJC should be estopped from demanding or relying on CCSF taking actions which could not be completed in a year or even two, and then sanctioning CCSF for "failing." “ “The Show Cause team report found that CCSF was out of compliance with approximately 19 elements of the four Standards, though in each case it is substantially in compliance or in full compliance. The Commission, with no discussion of the reasons or facts, increased this to 30 elements in its Action Letter and Decision. (See letter, p. 2, last paragraph.) This failure denies Federal common law due process and violates the same California law on fair procedure, as well as the Federal regulation which USDE cited on August 13.” The Show Cause Evaluation Team for CCSF had 9 members, only one of which was a faculty member. The team included ACCJC staffer John Nixon. “It included Yulian Liguoso, a member of the Community College League of California (CCLC) JPA board. Given the conflict between demanding prefunding (exposed in the April 30th complaint), his inclusion on the team was improper. Liguoso was put in charge of the very elements for which he has a conflict of interest - finances, especially GASB 34 prefunding.” In short it was an improperly formed Visiting Team. By the action letter from the ACCJC stating that: “CCSF needs "more cohesive" institution-wide effort to fully comply with accreditation requirements” the ACCJC is making “an attack on differing opinions, and resistance to the Commission's illegal activities and demands.” The ACCJC stated that “Leadership and governance deficiencies have inhibited the college's ability to move "effectively and with appropriate speed to resolve its problems." CFT believe that “This is a rejection of the role of collegial consultation and collective bargaining, both required by State law.” The CFT also noted that a statement that “Disagreements characterize the CCSF's [new] governance system” reflects a misunderstanding that “disagreements are at the core of democratic decision-making. The Legislature decreed in AB 1725 that all constituencies have an effective voice; ACCJC has no right to demand lock-step adherence to, for instance, the position of the interim Chancellor, or the ACCJC.” The CFT letter also points out that there are no facts that support claims of significant division among the faculty or that faculty feel intimidation from faculty leaders. There is also a misplaced attack by ACCJC upon free and open discussion. The CFT letter notes that “at board meetings, the audience of the People of the City and college has included individuals who have spoken eloquently, if at times angrily, about what they see as ACCJC's effort to destroy CCSF, or re-mold it in an image contrary to that intended by the People of the City. The term 'acrimony' does not appear in the Report. Acrimony means harsh or biting sharpness of words, manner or disposition. Sanctioning CCSF because its faculty, students, staff, or CCSF residents, offer biting criticism is not just a rejection of State and Federal law, it is un-American.” The letter concludes with “Chancellor Harris, we understand that Acting CCSF General Counsel and Vice Chancellor of the California Community Colleges is also conflicted here, since he served as a commissioner for two terms, during which the ACCJC engaged in similar activities (see, e.g., the April 30th Complaint). Given that, we ask that that the State Chancellor and the Special Trustee for CCSF be fully inclusive of the grounds for appeal, as requested by AFT 2121 and CFT.” 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:
|