Accjc gone wild
Preliminary Considerations
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Basic Contentions
Preliminary ConsiderationsIn a section of the decision entitled “Preliminary Considerations” the panel set out some general principles that it would use in making its decision. These principles made it virtually impossible for CCSF to win its case, even if it had wanted to. Among these guidelines were the following: First, it is recognized that accrediting agencies are to be afforded considerable deference with respect to the method and manner in which they implement their monitoring and enforcement responsibilities. There is probably no area of the law where deference is as necessary as it is when a court reviews the decision of an accreditation association. It is also recognized that accrediting agencies must have flexibility to apply their standards to constituent institutions, and that a rigid or uniform application is not expected. To the contrary, since accrediting procedures are guidelines, efforts to impose rigid or uniform application of accreditation standards would essentially strip accrediting agencies of the discretion necessary to assess the unique circumstance presented by different schools. As a result, legal challenges based on claims of disparate treatment towards different institutions are typically rejected. Finally with respect to general principles applicable to the accreditation function, in the review of accreditation decisions, the courts have applied legal principles derived from cases which involve administrative action that mere variations from customary internal procedures will not typically be deemed inherent violations of the rights of constituent institutions. The Panel also stated, based on the lack of presentation on the issues by the CCSF “representatives” that “Presumably CCSF expected the Hearing Panel to work its own way through the lengthy reports to identify and isolate alleged discrepancies, and then speculate about why the judgment of the Commission was different in some respects. It is well recognized, however, that it is not the responsibility of an appeal body to search through a lengthy record to try to find facts which might support an appellant’s broad contention of error.” Basic ContentionsCCSF’s defense team stated the following were their basic “contentions” but most were not accompanied by evidence or testimony. The lack of evidence and follow-up resulted in rulings that not enough evidence had been presented to substantiate their claims. Lack of Prior Notice to CCSF of Non-Compliance with Accreditation Standards Prior to Imposition of "Show Cause" Status in 2012 [The Hearing Panel concludes: that the Commission's decision in 2012 to impose "show cause" status on CCSF was fully justified, it was consistent with the Commission's regulatory obligations, and it was a reasonable exercise of discretion. With respect to this ground for appeal, CCSF failed to sustain its burden of proof.] Alleged Abuse of Discretion in Imposing Harsher Sanctions in 2012 and 2013 Than Were Recommended by the Visiting Team [The Hearing Panel concludes: that CCSF failed to sustain its burden of proof with respect to this contention on appeal.] Alleged Abuse of Discretion in Allowing CCSF Less Than One Year to Rectify Deficiencies [decision consolidated with other decisions] Alleged Incorrect or Unwarranted Finding by the Commission Regarding Eligibility Requirement 21 (to do with substantive change error by ACCJC) [The Hearing Panel concludes: that CCSF failed to sustain its burden of proof with respect to this contention on appeal] Alleged Error With Respect to Determinations by the Commission Regarding CCSF's Failure to Comply with Certain Financial Standards [The Hearing Panel concludes: that with respect to this claim of error, CCSF failed to meet its burden of proof.] Alleged Abuse of Discretion and Violation of "Traditional" Principles Regarding Conflicts of interest Regarding Members of Accreditation Review Team (Crabtree) and "Show Cause" Review Team (Nixon) [All of the principles and conclusions stated above with respect to Mr. Crabtree apply to Dr. Nixon, and perhaps even more so. Stated differently, there's no credible support for a claim that his participation was even questionable, much less improper. The Hearing Panel concludes: that as to both Mr. Crabtree and Dr. Nixon, CSF's claims of error with respect to their selection and participation are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.] This despite the U.S Department of Education’s contrary finding. Alleged Inadequate Number of Academicians On the 2012 and 2013 Visiting Teams [The Hearing Panel concludes: that CCSF's claim of error in Section I.G of its Amended Notice of Appeal fails for a lack of a preponderance of evidence.] Again despite the contrary conclusion by the U.S. Department of Education. Alleged Unfairness and Due Process Deprivations in the Appeal Process [In this regard, counsel for CCSF explained these claims of error had been included in the Amended Notice of Appeal simply to preserve the right of CCSF to challenge them in a different forum, and both sides expressly agreed that those matters should not be presented for resolution by the Hearing Panel. The Chair of the Hearing Panel acceded to this agreement of counsel and, as a result, no issues of fact or law related to those contentions were presented at the hearing, and they are not part of the findings or conclusions of the Hearing Panel.] CCSF's Claim Regarding "Substantial Compliance" [More than 90% of CCSF's Amended Notice of Appeal, and a comparable percentage of the evidence presented at the hearing, was devoted to its contentions in Section III of the Amended Notice of Appeal that: 1) it "is now" in substantial compliance with the standards and eligibility requirements; that 2) it was unfairly denied sufficient time which the Commission was allowed to provide within its discretion to bring itself into compliance; and that 3) it should be afforded additional time to achieve compliance. CCSF claimed that these matters constituted material error, fundamentally unfairness, a denial of due process, and weren't based on substantial evidence.] 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:
|