Accjc gone wild
November 17, 2014 People’s Motion to Amend Complaint
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- November 21, 2014 Memo from Beno to Chief Executive Officers with respect to Team members
November 17, 2014 People’s Motion to Amend ComplaintOn November 17, 2014, Attorney Herrera motioned to amend his complaint under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) to include information brought out in trial. The People originally filed their complaint on August 22, 2013. The motion to amend explained that “The People's Complaint detailed that the Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior College ("ACCJC") engaged in unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business acts and practices in the process that led to the imposition of the Show Cause sanction and the termination of City College of San Francisco's ("City College") accreditation. The People's Complaint explained that the ACCJC's unlawful and unfair acts and practices included (but were not limited to) a series of examples. During and just prior to trial, ACCJC witnesses gave testimony concerning additional unlawful and unfair acts and practices employed by the ACCJC. Specifically, both deposition testimony taken shortly before trial and testimony solicited by the ACCJC from its own live witnesses, establish independent violations of the UCL that are not explicitly listed in the People's Complaint. The People ask this Court to conform the Complaint to proof adduced at trial to consider these additional examples as independent bases for violations of the UCL.” The new examples came when “During the presentation of its case, the ACCJC's witnesses offered testimonial evidence on issues that had not been disclosed to the People before trial. The ACCJC presented the live testimony of several Commissioners including, Marie Smith, Sharon Whitehurst-Payne, Susan Kazama, Tim Brown, and Steven Kinsella. These witnesses detailed the reasons and concerns that led them to vote to put City College on Show Cause and to subsequently terminate its accreditation. Those reasons included (1) that City College was spending too much on staff salaries and benefits and (2) that City College failed to bring a member of the Board of Trustees to address the Commission at its June 2013 meeting. Specifically, Steven Kinsella testified that he was concerned that City College spent more than 80% of its revenues on salaries and benefits, an amount that he testified was the ‘normal average.’” “Mr. Kinsella testified that City College needed to ‘come in line’ with the 80% figure, admitting that he voted to terminate City College's accreditation in part because of concerns the institution was not controlling expenses, including salaries and benefits.” “Commissioner Whitehurst-Payne also testified that she voted to put City College on Show Cause because of the institution's salary and benefits spending. Specifically, Commissioner Whitehurst-Payne testified that what ‘stood out" in her mind was that City College was spending 93 percent of its revenues on salaries and compensation.” “The ACCJC also called Commissioner Marie Smith as a live witness. Ms. Smith testified that she voted in part to place City College on Show Cause and subsequently terminate its accreditation because ‘City College was spending more money on salaries and benefits.’"“ “Commissioners Smith and Whitehurst-Payne also indicated that the Commission's decision to terminate was based, at least in part, on City College's choice not to bring a member of the institution's Board of Trustees to make a presentation to the Commission at its June 2013 meeting expressing ‘disappointment’ and ‘surprise’ over this decision.” The People then pointed out that these reasons were not a part of ACCJC standards. Kinsella’s testimony regarding the normal average spent on salaries and benefits was 80% is wrong. The actual value is 87%. “Accordingly, the People seek leave to conform their Complaint by adding the following subdivision to Paragraph 134: g. ACCJC violated 20 U.S.C. section 1099b(a)(4)(A) and 34 C.F.R. section 602.18© by basing its decision to place City College on Show Cause status and to terminate its accreditation on justifications and standards not set forth in the ACCJC's accreditation standards.” “During trial, the ACCJC's witnesses, Ms. Sandra Serrano and Dr. Barbara Beno, confirmed that the 2013 Show Cause Evaluation Team Report included substantive changes made by Dr. Beno. Prior to trial, Barbara Beno testified at her deposition on October 14, 2014 that she made edits to the 2013 Show Cause Evaluation Team Report, making changes to the substance and tone of the document. In addition, Ms. Serrano produced documents evidencing those edits and changes. “ “Accordingly, the People seek leave to conform their Complaint to the trial testimony and evidence by adding the following subdivision to Paragraph 134: h. Denying City College a peer review in violation of rights derived from federal law and the ACCJC's policies and procedures.” A couple of the “substantive changes” made included changing three team report conclusions from meet the standard to not meet the standard without going back to the visiting team for agreement and excluding positive statements such as one that said that the college had demonstrated a high level of dedication and passion and enthusiasm to address the issues and that the institution took compelling action to address previous findings. Beno suggested the changes be made and Serrano made them without consulting the rest of the Visiting Team. One item that came out in testimony was that the Visiting Team debated between a sanction of probation and warning and recommended Warning. The Commission voted to issue a SHOW CAUSE sanction. Final arguments in the People vs. ACCJC are set for December 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM. November 21, 2014 Memo from Beno to Chief Executive Officers with respect to Team membersOn November 21, 2014 Barbara Beno sent a memo to Chief Executive Officers regarding Accreditation Team Files. She asked the CEOs to review the list of persons from their institutions that were currently on the ACCJC list of possible visiting team members. She asked the CEOs to “nominate persons whom you believe would be appropriate for this activity.” Beno then went on to list the qualities of those that should be nominated. She reflected the bias of the ACCJC in describing which people the ACCJC would be interested in: “We are especially interested in adding chief executive officers, chief business officers, distance learning experts, faculty, and individuals who may be involved in program review and institutional planning, and the development and assessment of student learning outcomes.” In particular she requested that the CEOs “contact the Faculty leadership on your campus to help identify faculty that meet the Commission's expectations.” She did not include any suggestion that board of trustee members might be chosen as visiting team members and that their names should be forwarded. It should be noted that on August 11, 2014, Dr. Louise Jaffe, President of the California Community College Trustee Board (CCCT Board) wrote a letter to Barbara Beno expressing the interest of the CCCT “in working with ACCJC to increase trustee participation on visiting teams. It is our position that there should be a trustee on every visiting team.” Beno replied referring to ACCJC’s Protocol (an internal document) for selecting evaluation team members. She noted the section that reads: “Other appointed representatives: As appropriate, based on the characteristics of the institution being visited, individuals with other specific skills or experiences will be assigned to serve on teams. Specifically, these may include a governing board member, foundation director, or other relevant professional expert. Teams may also include Commissioners or Commission staff.” Beno also pointed out in her letter to Jaffe that “team members may not come with an ‘axe to grind’ or apply another perspective or set of criteria to an institutional evaluation other than that of the ACCJC and accreditation. She added that the CEOs should “Indicate for each person you recommend any special field of expertise that he/she might have. It is very helpful to know that a person is knowledgeable about areas such as basic skills, computer applications, budgeting and accounting, institutional research, personnel administration, ESL, assessment, nontraditional delivery systems, planning, staff development, distance education, and other academic and administrative specialties.” These areas parallel the reasons that ACCJC has been sanctioning colleges. Note that nothing here involves the quality of education provided or the level of shared governance. Even the areas of ESL, basic skills, and the like appear to be approached from the point of view of knowledge concerning the area rather than how to teach. Beno made clear that secrecy of the process is to be maintained: “Your recommendations will be held in strictest confidence.” 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:
|