Accjc gone wild
Inconsistent Decision Making
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Inconsistent Fiscal Standards
- Continue to Violate Conflict of Interest Requirements
Inconsistent Decision MakingThe CFT complaint lays out the ways that ACCJC violates the Department of Education=s Consistency in Decision-Making criteria in regard to their standards related to fiscal stability. These include: A 34 CFR 602.18(b) ACCJC lacks Aeffective controls against the >inconsistent application of the agency=s standards.@ 34 CFR 602.18(d) ACCJC lacks Aa reasonable basis for determining that the information the agency relies on for making accrediting decisions is accurate.@ 34 CFR 602.16(a)(v) ACCJC=s standards fail to address the quality of the education provided by California community colleges because they do not assess Afiscal ... capacity as appropriate to the specified scale of operations@ of the various colleges it accredits. 34 CFR 602.15(a)(1) and (2) ACCJC lacks an Aadequate administrative staff@ to carry out its accrediting responsibilities, and lacks Acompetent and knowledgeable individuals regarding the agency=s standards, policies and procedures.@ Inconsistent Fiscal StandardsFiscal Standards Violations include what Commission Chair Steven Kinsella revealed in his testimony in the trial of The People vs. ACCJC - that the Commission had used as a norm that a college spends 80% of its unrestricted general fund budget on compensation (wages and benefits) for employees. The ACCJC has applied this norm inconsistently. Colleges which spent more were not found to be deficient in meeting standards but CCSF was. The disparate and inconsistent application of this norm violated section 602.18(b). The application of this inaccurate Aaverage@ shows that the Commission Aadministrative staff is not adequate, and that it does not have sufficient competent and knowledgeable individuals who are qualified to serve as a reliable accreditor.@ The CFT complaint lays out a case which demonstrates inconsistent application of standards. One example considered Riverside City College (which has two ACCJC Commissioners). They had a number of items similar to those that CCSF was held to be deficient in but Riverside City College was not. These included such items as ending balances, payment of the college actuarial liability, and borrowing cash to meet immediate needs. The ACCJC did not recognize the difference between large and small districts when using the rigid 80% norm. This is a violation of 34 CFR section 602.16(a)(v). The complaint also claims that ACCJC violates the Department of Education=s requirement that an agency have written and published specification of requirements for accreditation in regard to good cause extensions of the ATwo Year Rule.@ The Department of Education was requested to answer and then stated that the ACCJC could extend time and the ACCJC invented its ARestoration Policy.@ In particular the CFT complaint lists violations: A602.18(a) the ACCJC failed to have written specifications of its AGood Cause@ for extension policy, which allows institutions to seek additional time beyond two years to come into substantial compliance with agency standards. 602.18( c) the ACCJC failed to base its decisions regarding accreditation on the agency=s published standards, by refusing to publish policies affording colleges more than two years to come into substantial compliance with Agency standards. 602.15(a)(1) and (2) ACCJC lacks an Aadequate administrative staff@ to carry out its accrediting responsibilities, and lacks Acompetent and knowledgeable individuals regarding the agency=s standards, policies and procedures.@ AACCJC has repeatedly issued good cause extensions to other colleges, but only through a secretive and selective process that has denied consideration to colleges such as San Francisco, which would have easily qualified under the criteria ACCJC identified to the Department.@ AIn the case of City College of San Francisco, for example, there is no evidence the college was allowed by ACCJC rules to apply for a good cause extension of the Atwo year rule.@ Yet in the last 5 years, ACCJC has granted good cause extensions more than 20 times.A AThe ACCJC has never published a Agood cause@ policy in its policy manuals, nor made such a policy available to the public, or the constituents of the colleges students, faculty and staff. There is no evidence that ACCJC has ever advised California community colleges of the terms of its good cause Apolicy@.@ Continue to Violate Conflict of Interest RequirementsACCJC violated the Department of Education=s criteria related to conflicts of interest. They did so as follows: A602.14(b)(3) ACCJC failed to adopt and implement guidelines to assure that each member of its decision making bodies, including its Appeals Panel, avoids conflicts of interest. 602.14 ACCJC failed to create a separate and independent Commission which avoids conflicts of interest. 602.15(a)(6) ACCJC failed to adopt and implement clear and effective controls against conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest, by commissioners, team members, Commission administrative staff, and Appeals Panel members.@ In particular, the 2014 Appeals Panel had conflicts of interest. This illustrates ACCJC=s lack of effective control against conflicts of interest. The facts of the Appeal Process for CCSF are outlined in the brief: ACity College filed an appeal of its disaccreditation on or about March 4, 2014. It was Aformally received@ by ACCJC on or about March 12, 2014. In March, ACCJC appointed a five person hearing panel. CCSF filed a Motion to disqualify at least two members of the Panel, and after briefing on April 9, 2014, the Motion was denied. The person or persons denying the motion has not been publicly disclosed by the ACCJC. The ACCJC has treated the motion, and the resulting decision, as confidential.@ The Appeals Panel Athat evaluated CCSF=s appeal was supposed to be Aindependent@ of the ACCJC, which included having no actual or apparent conflicts of interest. Despite the high stakes and intense scrutiny summarized above, ACCJC appointed an appeal panel in which every appointee had an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The appointed panel was also not free from bias. The Hearing Panel thus violated federal regulation 602.14(b)(3) and 602.15(a)(6).@ 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:
|