San Mateo Chancellor Galatolo Replies

San Mateo Chancellor Galatolo Replies

Later in the day San Mateo District Chancellor Ron Galatolo wrote an e-mail to the CEOs in answer to Kinsella. He began with: “In response to Steve’s email, the benefits of accreditation and of a regional accrediting agency are not in question. The issue is ACCJC’s inconsistent application of its own standards; its punitive focus on compliance – irrespective of relevance; its imposition of numerous sanctions; its preferential treatment of its own Commissioners; and its indifference to the application of reasonable due process.”

He stated his belief that the termination of CCSF’s accreditation was an “egregious error in judgment of epic proportions” and that “CCJC has fundamentally harmed the reputation of our entire system and reinforced my belief that the ACCJC has not been objectively operating in the best interest of its member colleges for an extended period of time.” He urged the CEOs to read “the well-prepared CCSF Show Cause Evaluation Report at the following link: http://www.ccsf.edu/ACC/CCSF%20Show%20Cause%20Visit%20Team%20Report_05_20_2013.pdf”. “The report highlights the status of 14 recommendations made by the 2012 evaluation team. As you read those recommendations, I ask you to preface each one with: City College of San Francisco should be closed permanently because…”

“As an example using the first recommendation in the report, City College of San Francisco should be closed permanently because they do not have a ‘prescribed process and timeline to regularly review the mission statement and revise it as necessary.’ Or, the second recommendation, City College of San Francisco should be closed permanently because they did not ‘develop a strategy for fully implementing its existing planning process.’”

“CCSF is an imperfect institution – we all are! But do we eternally deny access to 85,000 students in San Francisco because of these largely non-academic issues or do we collectively get behind an institution that is performing (according to the State Chancellor’s Office Scorecard data) well above the statewide average in Completion, Persistence and Remedial English as well as ESL?”

Galatolo then notes that “The ACCJC is under siege by a variety of educators, public officials and educational organizations: 1) the California Joint Legislative Committee on Audits ordered a formal State audit of the ACCJC; 2) the United States Department of Education found the ACCJC to be out of compliance with Basic Eligibility Requirements; 3) the City of San Francisco and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)/California Federation of Teachers (CFT) have both filed lawsuits against the ACCJC; and 4) the California Department of Education, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the AFT have filed complaints against the ACCJC.”

He then goes over the record of the ACCJC: “Over a ten year period (2003-2013), the ACCJC sanctioned 66% of California’s community colleges undergoing accreditation. Since 2007, all 112 California community colleges were reviewed by the ACCJC – 71 of 112 colleges were sanctioned (63%). In the last three years, 35 of 51 community colleges were reviewed by the ACCJC – 69% were sanctioned. Conversely, the average sanction rate for the other accrediting agencies throughout the nation is approximately 2%. From 2003-2008, ACCJC generated 89% of all sanctions nationwide.” He also notes that the “ACJC Commissioners have ignored recommendations of the visiting teams they sent out to review institutions.”
“In March of 2013, Santa Barbara City College received a prominent national award by the Aspen Institute for “high achievement and performance in America’s community colleges” – Santa Barbara was chosen from more than 1,000 colleges nationwide. Nevertheless, the ACCJC sanctioned that very same college two months earlier, in January of 2013.”
Chancellor Galatolo goes on to mention the results of RP Group study and the findings of the United States Department of Education (USDE) that are discussed elsewhere in this paper. Galatolo goes on to note that “in response to the USDE’s letter informing the ACCJC that it did not have ‘letters of support or broad acceptance for ACCJC’s standards, policies, procedures and decisions’ from educators and educational institutions, the ACCJC President selectively petitioned CEOs, educational organizations and others asking them to send support letters in order to bolster ACCJC’s request for reauthorization. The President also asked the responders to send these letters directly to her and not straight to the USDE. The ACCJC President is soliciting these letters of support from colleges that it accredits, which could exert undue influence on those individuals and entities to respond favorably.”

Chancellor Galatolo concludes his e-mail by noting that “Lastly, this email comes from a district that has all three of its colleges fully accredited. I have no personal axe to grind, nor am I expecting any ‘awards granted by union power.’ I merely care about the long-term welfare of our exceptional system as a whole!”

Save CCSF Coalition Files November 4, 2013 Lawsuit

On November 4, 2013, a lawsuit in Superior Court was filed against the ACCJC by the Save CCSF Coalition. The Plaintiffs and Petitioners included Madeline Mueller, Wendy Kaufmyn, Leslie Simon, Vincent Tarikhu Farrar, Monica Collins, Thea Matthews, Shanell Williams, Martin Madrigal, Itzel Calvo Medina, and Arla Ertz. The Petitioners are a combination of employees and students of CCSF.

The lawsuit contends that the “Community College of San Francisco ("CCSF") is committed to its mission of providing everyone who is able to learn with open access to education. Its accrediting agency, ACCJC, contends that the sole purpose of a community college is to serve as a feeder system for four-year degrees. Because of its disapproval of CCSF's philosophy, and not because of any inherent problems with CCSF, ACCJC decided to revoke CCSF's accreditation. ACCJC imposed this harsh sanction arbitrarily, using lawless methods and ignoring the findings of its own review committees to withdraw CCSF's accreditation.”
“They bring this action seeking a writ of mandate against ACCJC to protect their interest in CCSF's continued existence. They should prevail because ACCJC's decision-making process was marred by conflicts of interest, numerous violations of applicable regulations, and sustained disregard of its own policies. ACCJC abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law, and mandamus should lie compelling it to forbear from revoking CCSF's accreditation.”
The laws suit notes that the State Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges ("the BOG") has designated the ACCJC “as the accreditor for California's community colleges, granting them sole and absolute discretion to set standards and make decisions about community college accreditation. ACCJC therefore wields the power of life and death over all California community colleges.”
The lawsuit notes that: “ACCJC has a history of strongly supporting a shift from the "open access" model of community colleges to a junior college model of maximizing the rate at which students earn associate's degrees. The Lumina Foundation, an organization with ties to for-profit colleges and the private student loan industry, has facilitated this policy through generous donations to ACCJC's parent organization, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges ("WASC"). Accordingly, the ACCJC strongly supported a suite of policy changes created by the BOG's Student Success Task Force, which would strip financial aid from students who take too long to earn a degree, students whose grades dropped below a certain threshold, and students who did not designate an approved ‘program of study.’ “
The lawsuit also addresses the fight in the legislature over open access in which CCSF and ACCJC were on opposing sides and then the ACCJC decision to place CCSF on SHOW CAUSE “repeatedly denounced CCSF's open access mission, and the accompanying report said that the ‘college has not demonstrated the will to reexamine the scope of the college's mission... there is no process to reduce the scope of programs and services provided across the service area.’”
The lawsuit notes the Department of Education letter of August 13, 2013 that the ACCJC had not complied with 34 CFR in various places including the lack of clarity regard “deficiencies” and “recommendations” as well as appearance of conflict of interest. The members of the subsequent Visiting Team “were affiliated with organizations that had publicly supported the Task Force recommendations. Nevertheless, the team concluded that CCSF had met or was on the way to meeting all of ACCJC's recommendations. The Show Cause Visiting Team's report concluded that, of the 14 recommendations made by the 2012 Evaluation Team, CCSF had fully addressed four and partially addressed the rest.” “This degree of progress would have saved any other school with Show Cause status. But ACCJC was put in a position that gave it the opportunity to punish those who criticized its politics, and it took the opportunity.”
“Without explanation, ACCJC overruled the team that had actually inspected CCSF, declaring that CCSF had in fact fully met only two of the recommendations and had partially met only one. For example, Standard I.B.2 reads, "The institution sets goals to improve its effectiveness consistent with its stated purposes. The institution articulates its goals and states the objectives derived from them in measurable terms so that the degree to which they are achieved can be determined and widely discussed. The institutional members understand these goals and work collaboratively toward their achievement."
“The Visitation Team reviewed CCSF's progress towards meeting Standard 1.B.2 in its Show Cause Evaluation Report, and found that ‘the revised program review system has strengthened the ability of the college to use both qualitative and quantitative data, as is evident from the quality of the program reviews and the use of those reviews to develop prioritized lists of resource requests. Conclusion: The college meets the standard.’ In its Termination Letter, ACCJC declared that CCSF had failed to meet Standard 1.B.2, without any explanation of its decision or evidence to support its conclusion.”
“ACCJC's Commission overruled its own 2013 evaluation team by adding eleven violations of ACCJC's non-academic standards not found in the evaluation team's report. ACCJC's rules allow this practice only when the college is first given written notice and an opportunity to respond to the new charges in writing. The rules also require that the final decision on such added charges to be postponed to the next regular Commission meeting, currently scheduled for January 2014. ACCJC failed to do so.”
The suit also noted that “CCSF has never before faced any sanction, including the lower ‘Warning’ and ‘Probation’ sanctions that ACCJC had at its disposal. ACCJC took the virtually unprecedented step of imposing the death sentence against a first offender, motivated primarily by CCSF's actions in publicly criticizing ACCJC's politics.”
The law suit spells out how “ACCJC committed multiple violations of both its own rules and of

applicable laws and regulations, it has failed its common law due process obligations with regard to both CCSF and those who are benefitted by CCSF” and that “ACCJC's various improper acts also violate California Business and Professions Code § 17200, which prohibits any ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practices.’”
“Petitioners do not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Petitioners are informed and believe that there are no available legal procedures to redress the harm they will suffer if their requested relief is denied. Petitioners are informed and believe that they do not have access to any administrative procedures to address those harms.” The only recourse open to the faculty, students, and community to the action of the ACCJC is the kangaroo court of appeal set up by the ACCJC itself discussed elsewhere in this paper.
In short, the suit’s claim is that the ACCJC has violated law “by engaging in unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent acts, including but not limited to:

Unfairly evaluating CCSF while engaged in a public political fight with it;

Unfairly appointing President Barbara Beno's husband to serve on the 2012 Evaluation Team;

Unfairly filling a voting majority of the 2012 Evaluation Team and the 2013 Show Cause Visiting Team with individuals affiliated with organizations that endorsed ACCJC's side of its political struggle with CCSF;

Unlawfully violating 34 CFR § 602.15(a)(3) by failing to ensure reasonable academic representation on the 2012 and 2013 teams;

Unlawfully violating 34 CFR § 602.15(a)(6) by failing to establish clear and effective controls against conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest, and by appointing President Beno's husband to serve on the 2012 Team;

Unlawfully violating 34 CFR § 602.18(e) by failing to inform CCSF which of its recommendations indicated noncompliance with an accreditation standard, and which presented an opportunity to improve upon standards with which CCSF already complied.

Unlawfully violating 20 USC §1099b(a)(4)(A) and 34 CFR § 602.18 by applying and enforcing accreditation standards hostile to, rather than encouraging of, the open access mission encouraged by the California legislature and embraced by CCSF.
ACCJC's practices, as set forth in this complaint, constitute unfair business practices because they offend established public policy and cause harm that greatly outweighs any benefits associated with those practices.”
The petitioners are asking for the following:

“For a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining the respondent from taking any action pursuant to its Decision pending trial.

For a declaration that respondent has violated its duty by deciding to de-accredit CSF other than in the manner required by law, and without substantial evidentiary support.

For a peremptory writ of mandate to be issued under the seal of this Court commanding respondent ACCJC to vacate and set aside its decision to de-accredit CCSF, and to re-evaluate CCSF's status in the manner required by all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

For their costs of suit.

For reasonable attorney's fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

For other equitable or legal relief that the Court considers just and proper.”

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: