Accjc gone wild


The Relief Sought Is Not Mooted By The Restoration Policy



Download 2.61 Mb.
Page95/121
Date13.06.2017
Size2.61 Mb.
#20740
1   ...   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   ...   121

3. The Relief Sought Is Not Mooted By The Restoration Policy.


4. The Closure Of City College Would Be Catastrophic”

December 2, 2014 ACCJC’s Case Summary

The ACCJC lawyers also submitted their brief on December 2, 2014. They claim that CCSF has for years “failed to meet the accreditation standards that those other colleges are held to.” Of course they don’t mention that most of the community colleges in California have been sanctioned at one time or another for “failing accreditation standards.” The brief goes on to claim that the San Francisco City Attorney arguing that “CCSF should not have to abide by the same rules” as other colleges. ACCJC believes that the City Attorney should not have called on the ACCJC to not treat them unlawfully, unfairly, and in a manner harmful to Californians.


The brief goes on to claim that the City Attorney has not limited his allegations to “practices of the ACCJC but have become very personal attacks against the ethics and professionalism of the ACCJC's President, Dr. Barbara Beno.” They claim that “nowhere in that evidence is there proof that Barbara Beno, the ACCJC, or the Commission were motivated by any animus or improper motive in dealing with CCSF. And nowhere is there proof that the composition of the ACCJC's reviewing teams or any other aspect of the ACCJC's evaluation of CCSF was improper, contrary to law, or harmed CCSF in any way.” “Moreover, there is also no evidence that CCSF was actually in compliance with the ACCJC's standards at the time the college was put on Show Cause or when the Commission voted to terminate its accreditation. Nor is there evidence that CCSF was entitled to any result other than the one it received.”
The most unbelievable statement in the brief is one that states: “Finally, not only is there no evidence that any of the allegedly unlawful or unfair acts caused harm to CCSF, but there is considerable evidence that the ACCJC has worked consistently to find ways to preserve CCSF's accreditation. That effort is best exemplified by the restoration process that the ACCJC fashioned out of whole cloth, tailored specifically to CCSF's circumstances as means for the college to preserve, without interruption, its eligibility for federal and state funds. That process has allowed CCSF to retain the benefit of being accredited despite the fact that it was indisputably out of compliance with the ACCJS's accreditation standards.” Of course they did not note that it was the law suit that caused ACCJC to develop the tainted Restoration Process.
Finally the brief turns everything on its head. It claims that “If the City Attorney received the relief he wants - the return of CCSF to accredited status by vacating all of the ACCJC's decisions since 2006 - CCSF will be ejected from the restoration process” and “instead make the college subject to a requirement of immediate compliance immediately, since accredited institutions are expected to be in compliance at all times.” “If CCSF cannot, in fact, demonstrate its compliance, then it could again face Show Cause and Termination status yet again through no fault of its own or the ACCJC.” They did not make clear why it would take less than two years to reach a final judgement and they left out the fact that under the normal system CCSF would have the right to the appeal process which the restoration policy eliminates.
The basic argument of the ACCJC is summarized as follows:
A. The City Attorney Has Failed Prove His Claim Under the UCL

1. Legal Standard


2. The ACCJC did not violate the UCL in the Composition of the ACCJC's Evaluation. Team or Show Cause Team.

a) Peter Crabtree's presence on the Evaluation Team was not "unlawful" as a violation of either 34 C.F.R. section 602.15(a)(6) or the ACCJC's own policies.


b) Peter Crabtree's presence on the Evaluation Team was not "unfair."

d) There is no evidence that the number of academics on either the Evaluation Team or Show Cause Team was "unfair."


e) The Commission that made the decisions regarding CCSF in 2012 and 2013 was not unlawfully constituted.

f) The constitution of the Commission that made the decisions regarding CCSF in 2012 and 2013 was not unfair to CCSF

3. Deciding CCSF's Accreditation while CCSF opposed the Student Success Task Force did not violate the UCL

a) No liability can be based on petitioning activity.

b) The ACCJC's evaluation of CCSF while endorsing the SSTF was not unfair

4. Dr. Beno's role at ACCJC and her involvement in the evaluation of CCSF did not violate the UCL.

a) Dr. Beno's role as the reader of the Show Cause Report was not unlawful.

b) Dr. Beno's conduct as the reader of the Show Cause Report was not unfair to CCSF


5. The ACCJC did not deprive CCSF of due process

a) The ACCJC's use of the term "recommendation" was not unlawful or unfair.

b) CCSF was afforded every opportunity required by the DOE regulations and ACCJC policies to review and comment on the deficiencies relied upon by the Commission.


6. Because the overwhelming evidence is that the Commission acted based on CCSF's circumstances and nothing else, there is no causal linkage between the acts alleged and the Commission's decision.

B. The Remedy Sought by the City Attorney Is Unmanageable and improper.




DECEMBER 10, 2014 Oral Arguments in The People vs. ACCJC

Deputy City Attorney Sara Eisenberg presented the oral argument for the People. She displayed a remarkable understanding of the issues in the case and answered the judge’s questions with precision.


The lawyers for the ACCJC, on the other hand, astonished the audience with some of their statements that spoke to ACCJC being immune from any enforcement of legality or fairness. This included assertions that ACCJC was not subject to any federal or state laws or even the opinions of the U.S. Department of Education regarding their interpretations of the federal regulations which govern regional accreditation agencies such as the ACCJC. The Commission lawyers also spoke to the restoration policy on which the Commission, in January of 2015, will consider whether the college is eligible for two-years of work with accreditation intact. The lawyers did not mention that the ACCJC could vote to end CCSF’s accreditation immediately or in two years with no provisions for appeal of their decision. They somehow argued that this path was better for CCSF than going back to square one with all rights in place.
Eisenberg presented the argument regarding ACCJC’s unfair treatment of CCSF, their unlawful actions, and that they did not give CCSF a fair review of the ACCJC decision to terminate CCSF’s accreditation. She concluded that the only fair remedy is to throw out the accreditation report and the ACCJC’s decisions and start the process anew - but this time both in a fair and legal manner.
She spoke to actual and apparent conflict of interest caused by the appointment of ACCJC President Beno’s husband to the 2012 visiting team. The conflict is actual, Eisenberg argued, due to the fact that Beno’s husband worked at neighboring Laney College in Oakland and that Laney would benefit from increased student enrollment if CCSF were to close down.
Even though the Department of Education found that the ACCJC did not have the necessary rules regarding conflict of interest that would have kept Beno’s husband (Peter Crabtree) off the team, the ACCJC team continued to argue against that interpretation. Beno herself said, in testimony, that the appointment of her husband was proper. Eisenberg countered by arguing that “The ACCJC says that there can’t be a conflict because it didn’t violate their conflict-of-interest policy.” Eisenberg added that “But the fact that they didn’t have a valid conflict-of-interest policy in place is exactly the problem.”
Another issue raised by The People was the lack of adequate academic representation on the visiting teams. This is a problem that has existed and continues to exist with most of the visiting teams that ACCJC sends to California’s community colleges. The Department of Education had stated that the teams visiting CCSF did not have enough teachers (academics) on them. Despite this, the ACCJC lawyers continued to argue that the Department of Education had it wrong with regard to the definition of “academics.”
Assistant City Attorney Eisenberg also pointed out how the Commission had not allowed CCSF a fair chance to understand and respond to the reasons that the Commission actually used when determining to remove CCSF’s accreditation. She cited, as one example, that “The ACCJC acknowledges that they relied on facts not in the published accreditation standards.” Another example is with respect to changes made at the request of Beno in the recommendations of the visiting team before it was sent to the Commission. This included new charges that came before the Commission but were not included in the team report.
A third example was the lack of precision in the demands of the ACCJC over the years. The first sanction against CCSF was the SHOW CAUSE sanction in 2012. Despite this, the Commission lawyers continued to note “recommendations” that had been made as early as 2006. Judge Karnov seemed to understand, with a nod of his head, the difference between a “deficiency” and a “failure to comply with a standard.”
There was no clear indication from the ACCJC of the necessity to address 2006 recommendations (as opposed to requirements to address them) prior to 2010 in any letter to the CCSF from the Commission. The U.S. Department of Education has also rebuked ACCJC for not making clear what is required and what is suggested for change in their letters to colleges.
The Commission members (as several testified in the case) also considered reasons to terminate accreditation which were not part of any Commission requirements. Perhaps the most notorious of these was Commission member Kinsella’s argument that CCSF should have spent only 80% of its budget on salaries and benefits (although the State average is closer to 88% and there is no such requirement in ACCJC’s standards). Others on the Commission testified that they did not understand why CCSF trustees did not appear at the Commission meeting (even though they had been told not to attend) and was a reason why they voted for termination.
Eisenberg also noted that there was no way to know how the Commission would have acted if they had been fairly and accurately presented with the facts and the law.
ACCJC attorney Kenneth Keller repeated over and over that there was no evidence that the commission had done anything wrong. He also claimed that the restoration process was invented by ACCJC to help CCSF. However, it is more likely that the U.S. Department of Education statement that they could extend the time for CCSF to satisfy the standards and the political and public outcry against ACCJC caused ACCJC to seek some shelter. Keller also ignored the effect of the CFT and others filing complaints against ACCJC that may eventually lead to ACCJC’s loss of the ability to accredit.
The Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow seemed concerned with the lack of direct participation by CCSF in the trial. The answer of course was that appointed Special Trustee Agrella was more interested in appeasing ACCJC than fighting for CCSF. In any case it was mentioned that the official college representatives had stated that it was better for them to begin again with “substantial compliance” as the standard rather than to go through the unfair restoration process which requires compliance at every level of detail.
Judge Curtis Karnow will likely make his decision in January and will allow the lawyers on both sides to respond and will then release his final decision.



Download 2.61 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   ...   121



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