Accjc gone wild


March 3, 2014 Save CCSF Answers ACCJC Claims to Dismiss Case



Download 2.61 Mb.
Page61/121
Date13.06.2017
Size2.61 Mb.
#20740
1   ...   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   ...   121

March 3, 2014 Save CCSF Answers ACCJC Claims to Dismiss Case

The Save CCSF Coalition responded to the ACCJC request that the court reject their lawsuit against ACCJC on March 3, 2014. The opposition to what is called a “demurrer” request was summarized by the Coalition lawyer Dan Siegel. He argued as to how each of the ACCJC claims was incorrect and faulty. The points he made included:


“1. Improper verification of the petition is no basis for demurrer;

2. Respondent's argument regarding compulsion to exercise discretion in a particular manner is unrelated to petitioners' case;

3. Petitioners have standing as directly affected persons, beneficially interested citizens, and through public interest standing;

4. Petitioners do not have access to an administrative review and therefore cannot exhaust it, and CCSFs administrative review is futile;

5. Petitioners' case is ripe because this Court has established ripeness, CCSF is facing imminent closure, and injunctive relief is insufficient;

6. This Court has held that CCSF need not be a joined party;

7. Respondent's assertion of privilege does not suffice to make its entire course of conduct unreviewable by this Court.”
In short ‘All that is required is that plaintiff state facts entitling him to some type of relief, and if a cause of action for mandamus ... has been stated, the general demurrer should have been overruled.’ ‘Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 638, 234 P.2d 981. Here, petitioners are entitled to pursue a writ of mandate where they have standing as beneficially interested parties, CCSF is under threat of closure within the year, and ACCJC's decision to terminate resulted from unlawful, arbitrary and capricious decision making. The demurrer should be denied and the writ heard on the merits.
By "improper verification" the ACCJC lawyers claimed that Wendy Kaufmyn erred when she verified the truth of her statements "under penalty of perjury” instead of swearing under oath. Coalition lawyer Siegel noted that "the California Supreme Court established more than a century ago, that a deficient verification for a petition for a writ of mandate is not a valid basis on which to sustain a demurrer."
On the second point Siegel wrote that ACCJC (the Respondent) had “garbled the law by omitting the clear, ministerial duty of an agency to proceed as required by law.” He also noted that the Coalition (the Petitioners) “contend only that ACCJC failed to proceed as required by law, and that mandamus should lie to compel it to not exceed its legal powers. Petitioners do not claim to say what ACCJC should do, only that it should conduct its decision making in a lawful manner. That is precisely what traditional mandate is designed to ensure, and Respondent's puzzling interpretation of California law and petitioners' arguments is not a valid basis for demurrer.”
On the other points, Siegel pointed out how strong the interests of the parties in the Coalition suit were and how the internal ACCJC system for appeal of their decisions was only available to Special Trustee Agrella and was clearly and inadequate appeal system. The procedure has no timeline in order to get a speedy remedy. The process afforded by ACCJC was futile for anyone that wanted justice in the case. Siegel pointed out that the Court itself had noted the extreme harm experienced by students, faculty, and community as a result of the ACCJC decision to terminate CCSF’s accreditation. Siegel noted that “by continuing to press an argument that this Court has already peremptorily dismissed, Respondent exemplifies the frivolity of its defense.”
Finally, the “Respondent’s incoherent assertion of privilege does not suffice to make its entire course of conduct unreviewable by this Court.” The ACCJC lawyers did not even state which communications it believed was privileged communications.
In conclusion, the Save CCSF’s response states that “the Court can and should evaluate ‘whether in the past the Commission has or has not...violated extant standards.’ (Order, p.13:13-14, Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. B.) Based on this Court's ability to do so, and the foregoing, petitioners Save CCSF respectfully request that the Court overturn ACCJC's illegal, arbitrary, and capricious decision to destroy the City College of San Francisco.”
On March 24, 2014 Judge Karnow granted the ACCJC motion to dismiss the Save CCSF’s lawsuit. The judge found that Save CCSF had not provided evidence that the ACCJC decision to withdraw the accreditation of CCSF was either illegal or unfair. This decision did not affect the lawsuits by the City of San Francisco or the California Federation of Teachers.
In May 2014 the Save CCSF and the ACCJC agreed that the Save CCSF coalition would drop its Petition for a Writ of Mandate in exchange for ACCJC dropping its right to recover expenses and attorney fees from the Save CCSF Coalition. This left the CFT and the San Francisco City Attorney cases as the only remaining law suits against the ACCJC.

March 2014 Letter from Congressmembers to Secretary of Education Duncan

On March 13, 2014 a number of Congressmembers wrote to United States Secretary of Eduction Duncan “inquire about the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) oversight and enforcement policies of higher education accrediting agencies.” The letter noted that “accreditors are largely self-regulated and seem to act with impunity. Specifically, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges’ (ACCJC) conduct has raised concerns regarding not only its practices, but whether sufficient oversight and accountability mechanisms are in place at the federal level to oversee accreditors.”


Noting that the private based ACCJC currently has sole authority over the community colleges in
California. The letter stated the understanding of the congressmembers is that “ACCJC has sanctioned colleges at a rate vastly higher than the other accrediting bodies.”
The letter pointed out the situation at CCSF: “ACCJC’s most recent controversy involves revoking the accreditation of City College of San Francisco (CCSF). Many faculty and educators contend that the audit was fraught with conflict of interest, bias and improper reliance on administrative, financial and governance issues, and far too little on students’ academic progress. A preliminary injunction filed by the City Attorney’s Office, accusing the ACCJC of wrongdoing, precludes final action on accreditation from being taken, but the damage to CCSF has already been done. Since ACCJC’s action, City College’s enrollment has dropped sharply, with 17.3 percent fewer students enrolled for this spring’s semester compared to last year.”
The congress members stated that they “are aware that in a letter dated August 13, 2013, ED raised concerns with conflicts of interest, the fact that no “deficiencies” about CCSF were identified in 2006, and insufficient faculty representation on accreditation teams. On January 28, 2014, ED informed ACCJC of several deficiencies and provided it 12 months to come into compliance.”
The letter went on to ask a series of questions:
“1. What does the Education Department (ED} see as its proper oversight role with regards to accreditation?

2. It is our understanding that ACCJC is the only junior college accreditor that only accredits junior colleges. What were the circumstances surrounding your decision to accredit ACCJC and why did you decide to make this exception?

3. Given the concerns raised in third party comments about the makeup of ACCJC’s site visit teams, how does ED ensure that accreditors have sufficient standards for faculty inclusion in site visit teams to constitute peer review?

4. Why do regions only have one accreditor? Have you examined the merits of certifying more than one accreditor for each region?

5. Why does ED have the opportunity to de-certify an accreditor only once every six years? If this is a statutory requirement, would it be beneficial for ED to have the opportunity to de-certify an accreditor more frequently?

6. Has ED examined the document requests from different accreditors? If so, is there a large disparity among accreditors in their requests? (I.e. Amount/type of documents requested, etc.)

7. Has ED examined the financial burden of the documentation requests made by accreditors? If so, is there a disparity among accreditors in the financial burden their document requests result in?

8. How do the fees collected among accreditors compare with one another? Are there large disparities in the amount of fees collected?

9. Is there precedence for ED to de-certify an accrediting entity, and if so, when and in what circumstances?”
The letter was signed by Member of Congress Jackie Speier and co-signed by a number of other lawmakers, including Reps. Janice Hahn, Adam Schiff, and Karen Bass from the Los Angeles area.



Download 2.61 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   ...   121



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
evaluation team
academic senate