Accjc gone wild
December 2, 2014 People’s Case Summary
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A. The ACCJC Engaged In Unlawful Acts And Should Be Found Liable Under The Unlawful" Prong Of The UCL
- B. The ACCJC Engaged In Unfair Acts And Should Be Found Liable Under The "Unfair" Prong Of The UCL.
- C. The ACCJCs Accreditation Activities Are Business Practices Within The Meaning Of Section 17200.
- II. THE COURT CAN AND SHOULD VACATE THE ACCJCS TAINTED DECISIONS
December 2, 2014 People’s Case SummaryThe People in the case of the People vs. ACCJC submitted their brief on December 2, 2014 in preparation for the December 9, final arguments hearing. The brief begins with the following introduction: “The deposition testimony, live testimony and documentary exhibits presented in this case establish that the ACCJC's evaluation of City College was plagued by one problem after another. Indeed, every door the People opened in their attempt to shed light on the ACCJC's opaque procedures and secretive deliberations revealed new violations of law. The evidence proving these numerous violations is summarized below. Now that a fuller picture has emerged, there can be no doubt that the ACCJC did not give City College the fair evaluation required by law and promised to it by the ACCJC. All the People seek in this case is that fair shake for City College. In the absence of that relief, City College could wind up shuttered and hundreds of thousands of current and prospective City College students could be denied their only realistic higher educational opportunity, thousands of City College employees could lose their jobs and the People of the State of California could be deprived of this immensely valuable and successful institution based on an unfair and unlawful process used by an agency trusted by the government and the public to evaluate California's public educational institutions. This is precisely the type of injustice that the Court should use its broad powers under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") to prevent.” The basic argument of the People is summarized as follow: “1. THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT THE ACCJC VIOLATED THE UCL A. The ACCJC Engaged In Unlawful Acts And Should Be Found Liable Under The Unlawful" Prong Of The UCL1. Actual Injury Not Required To Impose Liability Under "Unlawful" Prong. 2. The Evidence Shows That The ACCJC Engaged In Several Unlawful Acts. a. Lack Of Adequate Controls Against Conflicts Of Interest And The Appearance Of Conflicts In Violation Of 602.15(a)(6). i. Lack of Controls With Respect To Team Members. ii. Lack of Adequate Controls With Respect To Commissioners b. Failure To Include Sufficient Academics On Evaluation Teams In Violation Of 602.15(a)(3). i. "Academics" Must Have An Instructional Role ii. Insufficient "Academics" On The 2012 Evaluation Team. c. Failure To Provide Due Process In Violation Of 20 U.S.C. 1099b And 34 C.F.R. Sections 602.18(e) & 602.25(d). i. The ACCJC Failed To Provide City College With Written Notice Of All Deficiencies And A Reasonable Opportunity To Respond Before Voting To Terminate ii. The ACCJC's Counter-Arguments Concerning Notice Are Legally Irrelevant And Factually Inaccurate d. Failure To Provide Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard In Violation Of Common Law Fair Procedure. e. Basing Accreditation Decisions On Factors Other Than Stated Accreditation Standards In Violation Of Section 602.18(c).
. The Evidence Establishes The ACCJC Engaged In Numerous Unfair Acts a. The ACCJC Acted Unfairly By Denying City College Peer Review. b. Each Of The ACCJC's Unlawful Acts Are Also Unfair i. The ACCJC Acted Unfairly By Failing To Include Sufficient Academics On Evaluation Teams. ii. The ACCJC Acted Unfairly By Basing Its Decisions On. Factors Outside Of The Accreditation Standards. c. The ACCJC Acted Unfairly By Including Mr. Crabtree On The 2012 Evaluation Team d. The ACCJC Acted Unfairly By Evaluating City College For Reaffirmation of Accreditation While Embroiled In A Public Political Fight Over The Role Of Community Colleges C. The ACCJC's Accreditation Activities Are Business Practices Within The Meaning Of Section 17200.D. The ACCJC's Attempts To Shield Itself From. Judicial Review And Immunize Its Conduct From Liability Continue To Fail.1. The ACCJC's Challenged Activities Are Not Within Any "Safe Harbor." 2. The Regulations The People Rely On Can Be Borrowed Under The UCL. 3. The Doctrine of Quasi-Judicial immunity is Not Applicable 4. Noerr-Pennington Does Not Immunize The ACCJC From Liability 5. The Parker Doctrine Is Entirely Inapplicable To This Case. 6. The People's UCL Claim Is Not Preempted By Federal Law. 7. The Merit Of The ACCJC's Decisions Is Irrelevant To Liability.
B. The Court Should Order The Relief The People Seek. 1. The People Need Not Prove That The Outcome Would Have Been Different But For The ACCJC's Violations. 2. The Court Need Not (And Indeed Should Not) Examine The Merits Of The ACCJC’s Decisions. a. City College is Highly Successful At Educating Studentsb. The ACCJC Exaggerates The Issues At City College.i. City College Was Not At A Financial "Breaking Point" (1) City College's Unrestricted Net Assets Consisted Entirely of its Long Term OPEB Liability (2) Deficit Spending and "Reserves." (3) Reduce Spending or Get More Funds ii. City College's SLO Compliance Was In Line With The State Average. c. The Fact That City College Was Not In Full Compliance With All Accreditation Standards Does Not Justify The ACCJC's Decisions. i. 100% Compliance With Standards is Not Required. ii. Other Schools Were Given Significantly More Time To Address issues identified By The ACCJC. d. The Enormous Progress Made By City College Undermines A Claim That The Termination Decision Was Correct Or Warranted.
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:
|