CCSF Appeal Hearing Decision June 12, 2014

CCSF Appeal Hearing Decision June 12, 2014

On June 12, 2014 Hearing Panel chair William McGinnis issued a decision on the CCSF’s Special Trustee Agrella’s appeal to the decision by ACCJC to dis-accredit CCSF. The hearing was held on May 20-22, 2014. The panel, composed of person with connections to the ACCJC, that decided the case was appointed by the ACCJC itself and composed of the following members (with their descriptions from the ACCJC website):

Mr. McGinnis serves as an Other Representative member of the Appeals Hearing Panel. Mr. McGinnis is a Trustee with Butte-Glenn Community College District. Mr. McGinnis previously served as Assistant Vice President of Administration at CSU Chico. Mr. McGinnis served as City Administrator for the City of Marysville, City Manager for the City of Crescent City, and in the Administrative Officer for the County of Curry, Oregon. Mr. McGinnis holds a BS degree in Business from Midwestern College and an MPA degree from University of West Florida. Mr. McGinnis also in on the Board of the Campaign for College Opportunity along with Beno, Kinsella, and Nixon.

Dr. McFadden serves as a Public Representative member of the Appeals Hearing Panel. Dr. McFadden previously served as President of Marymount College. Dr. McFadden was Vice President for Academic Affairs at St. John Fisher College, and Dean, College of the Arts and Sciences at St. Joseph's University. Dr. McFadden holds a BA degree in Philosophy from Cathedral College, an MA degree in Theology from Gregorian University, and a Ph.D. degree in Theological Studies from Catholic University of America. Dr. McFadden is a former ACCJC Commissioner.

Dr. Martinez serves as an Administrative Representative member of the Appeals Hearing Panel. Dr. Martinez serves as President of Santa Ana College. Dr. Martinez has served as Vice President of Student Services/Assistant Superintendent at Cerritos College, Administrative Dean and Dean of Students at Mission College, and Director of Student Affairs at El Camino College. Dr. Martinez holds a BA in Sociology from UC Riverside, an MA in Counselor Education from CSU Los Angeles, and a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California. Dr. Martinez has served as an ACCJC Visiting Team Chair.

Mr. Richey serves as a Public Representative member of the Appeals Hearing Panel. Mr. Richey previously served as President/CEO of Industry Education Council of California, Director, Employment, Placement and Training with Pacific Bell, and as President & Vice President of Industry Education Council of California. Mr. Richey holds an AS degree in Business Management from Moorpark College, and a BS degree in Business Administration from University of Pittsburgh. Mr. Richey is a former ACCJC Commissioner and Visiting Team Chair.

Ms. Tillery serves as an Academic Representative member of the Appeals Hearing Panel. Ms. Tillery serves as Learning Disabilities Specialist at Allan Hancock College. She provides individual student instruction as well as instructional support at the college. Ms. Tillery previously served as a Part-time Instructor at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, Educational Consultant with Solutions West, Executive Assistant to Superintendent/ALO at Allan Hancock College, and Affirmative Action/Staff Diversity Officer at Allan Hancock College. Ms. Tillery holds a BA in Political Science from Connecticut College, and an MA in Special Education from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Ms. Tilley is a former ACCJC Commissioner.

The Decision

The decision by the panel was not expected to be a positive one for CCSF due to the kangaroo court nature of the proceedings and the basically non-defense of CCSF by the Special Trustee appointed legal team. In fact much of the evidence against CCSF was given by Special Trustee Agrella in his statements regarding the state of CCSF when he took over - ‘dysfunctional, troubled, and substantially out of compliance.” As expected, the decision turned out to be negative except for one unanticipated wrinkle.

“Following the 2012 evaluation, the Commission determined that CCSF was well outside of acceptable boundaries for compliance, and that the institution appeared to be locked in downward spiral which was likely to continue given the inability of those responsible for the institution to implement the major changes which were necessary. Those conclusions weren't disputed in any significant way by the witnesses for CCSF at the hearing. To the contrary, the CCSF witnesses conceded that the institution was out of compliance at that point in multiple areas.”
Basically, the so-called CCSF representatives did not present a real argument. For example the decisions concluded: “As was the case with several of the grounds of error asserted by CCSF in this appeal, it spent no time demonstrating the legal or factual underpinnings for this contention. While the reports from the various Commission teams were included in the hearing record, CCSF offered no testimony or compilations to identify these alleged discrepancies so the Hearing Panel could understand their nature, number, or significance. Nor did CCSF provide any explanation about the considerations which led the Commission to reach conclusions at variance from some opinions of members of these visiting teams, including through questions along these lines to Commission witnesses.”
The panel found, on the basis of the little actual evidence or argument in favor of CCSF’s case presented by the team “representing” CCSF, that the appeal “is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.” The wrinkle in the decision was that “CCSF was not in substantial compliance with accreditation standards and eligibility requirements as of June 7, 2013, however, from the reasons discussed above, there is ‘good cause’ for a consideration of CCSF’s achievements through January 10, 2014 and up to and including the end of the evidentiary hearing sessions on appeal (May 21, 2014) and, since the evaluation of the additional facts and circumstances during the time period best rest within the expertise of the Commission, the Hearing Panel directs a remand to the Commission under the terms and conditions described below.”
The panel gave the Commission the task to find the current state of compliance of CCSF using any procedures they desired. CCSF and its representatives are given “no entitlement to participate in the evaluation process” except at the Commission’s discretion. During the examination by the Commission, CCSF will retain accreditation status. No timeline for this work by the Commission was given.

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: