S.F. Injunction Information

S.F. Injunction Information

The injunction request from the City of San Francisco included many of the point made by CFT. It also spoke to recent history: “The increasingly embattled ACCJC has been a leading policy advocate to dramatically reshape the mission of California's community colleges through more restrictive policies focusing on degree completion rather than vocational, remedial and non-credit offerings. The accrediting body's political agenda - shared by conservative advocacy organizations, for-profit colleges and student lender interests - represents a significant departure from the abiding "open access" mission repeatedly affirmed by the California legislature and pursued by San Francisco's Community College District since it was first established. Herrera's civil action filed on Aug. 22 alleges that the commission acted to withdraw accreditation in retaliation for City College having embraced and advocated a different vision for California's community colleges than the ACCJC itself.’”

Harris letter to Herrera of January 2, 2014

On January 2, 2014 California Community College Chancellor Brice Harris wrote a letter to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera regarding the City’s lawsuit against ACCJC. This was just prior to the decision by Judge Karnow to place a preliminary injunction against the ACCJC with regard to the removal of accreditation of City College of San Francisco. Chancellor Harris was asking for the City Attorney’s cooperation in not publicizing the Judge’s decision but rather to publicize the “progress” that CCSF was making toward satisfying ACCJC’s demands.

Chancellor Harris stated that “While neither my office nor City College is a party to these actions, we have a continuing responsibility to the community and students of San Francisco to ensure that no additional harm is dealt to the College as a result of the court's decision. One of the greatest threats to the long-term health of the college is the dramatic decline in its enrollment.” Interestingly the decline in enrollment was one of the major reasons that Judge Karnow issued his injunction. In most people’s minds the injunction would help stabilize the enrollment at CCSF. But somehow Harris appeared to consider that the injunction might actually have a negative effect on enrollment if not communicated well in the media.
Harris went on to “explain several important facts” to Herrera: “Court intervention is not necessary to keep City College open. Regardless of the path Judge Karnow takes, City College will remain open and accredited until the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) makes a final determination. Students should be encouraged to enroll at City College because their credits will count for their certificate, degree and transfer goals.” The problem is that as long as the loss of accreditation is imminent the loss of enrollment would likely continue. The action to grant the injunction will obviously guarantee a longer life for the college and thus should increase the confidence of students attending the college.
Harris goes on to make some other claims which are dubious at best: “Characterizations that the cases before the court are a ‘last-ditch’ effort to ‘save’ City College are inaccurate and will do additional damage to the college's enrollment. It also detracts from progress the City College community has achieved in the areas of reform, stability, and accountability.” The ACCJC appeal process is nothing but a kangaroo court proceeding with all “judges” in the process selected by the ACCJC itself. At the point that the process is completed, the erosion of students will likely be enormous (except for the positive effect of the injunction). There is no evidence that the injunction will in any way hinder the college from moving forward. This claim is just the sort of red herring claim that the ACCJC attempted to make, without success, before Judge Karnow.
Even though there is no required process in place to require the ACCJC to reconsider their decision based on new evidence, Chancellor Harris claims that “We are doing everything in our power to ensure a positive outcome regarding accreditation, and I have every expectation that the ACCJC will acknowledge the college's progress in the coming months. Under the leadership of our Special Trustee, Robert Agrella, City College has made important strides to secure not only its accreditation, but a stable and productive future: Dr. Arthur Q. Tyler has been hired as the new, permanent Chancellor. The school has an accomplished educational leader at its helm who has pledged to stay with CCSF for the long haul.”
It is interesting the Harris does not recognize that Agrella was in place when ACCJC decided to take away CCSF’s accreditation and Tyler was in place at Compton College when the ACCJC decided to take away Compton’s accreditation.
Harris concludes his letter with a listing of “accomplishments” in meeting ACCJC demands made to date.
Chancellor Harris was once a Commission Member of ACCJC. On July 3, 2013 Barbara Beno sent an e-mail to Harris and some of his staff stating that “Attached please find the ACCJC’s action letter on CCSF, as well as its press release on the matter. Both are posted on the ACCJC website; the press release is on the right of the home page, the action letter is in the Directory of Accredited Institutions. We have posted the ACE statement on the ACCJC website as well. CCSF has posted the action letter on its website. Thank you both for the coordinated effort. Let’s keep in touch as needed.” The e-mail concluded with “Have a nice weekend. Barb.”
In another e-mail from Beno to Harris and his staff on July 3, 2013 Beno wrote concerning what she called the “Roll-out”: “Dear Brice: Beautiful job. Thanks for your video statement, and for all the rest. We are staying late, watching the various news accounts. I think generally the news is letting people know that the college may survive, with the right leadership. I look forward to watching your efforts. Have a good weekend.”
Given a number of such cozy e-mails sent between Harris and ACCJC President Barbara Beno, it is not clear whose side Harris is actually on and what kind of deal has been made between Harris and Beno. It is clear that the “college” (now meaning Agrella as he is in full charge of the college) is not fighting for CCSF with all the ammunition available. For example, the “college” has not agreed to be a party to any of the law suits and has not been willing to challenge the ACCJC in the appeal process based on the numerous violations of federal standards that the ACCJC has been found to have committed in the evaluation of CCSF. Agrella has even been quoted in support of the process used to dis-accredit CCSF. The Chancellor has also been a party to these betrayals of the college in its advocacy efforts.
Who are the real friends of CCSF - Harris and Agrella or City Attorney Herrera, numerous state and national legislators, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the students and community served by the college, Academic Senates across the state, and the faculty and its AFT affiliated union?

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: