Academic Senate 2012‐14 Tracy Davis, President Board of Trustees Report August 13, 2013 Good evening. Today, I was sent a letter that was delivered to ACCJC President Barbara Beno, regarding the complaint made against ACCJC by several groups and individuals from City College of San Francisco. These complaints were in reference to the actions of ACCJC in sanctioning SFCC. Although it will take time to fully digest and analyze this document, the AS thinks it’s important to note that the Office of Postsecondary Education, which is part of US Department of Education, has apparently found sufficient groups to inform ACCJC that they need to abide by federal accreditation practices. It seems that, at least in the case of CCSF, ACCJC did not follow either its own policies or federal policies, and is being asked to fix these deficits. Items noted in this letter included lopsided composition of accreditation visiting teams, such as inadequate faculty representation in comparison to other constituency groups. It also appears that there was a conflict of interest in the composition of certain accreditation visiting teams, including spouses of ACCJC leaders. The D of E has strict guidelines on conflicts of interest, as well as the “appearance” of a conflict of interest; ACCJC has been told it must “demonstrate that it has clear and effective controls against conflicts of interest, and the appearance of conflicts of interest.” There was also notation in this document that ACCJC needs to further define what a ‘recommendation’ is v. a ‘deficiency’. The statewide and VVC Academic Senates will be monitoring this situation closely. If CCC’s are being evaluated by ACCJC, and we are expected to attain and maintain certain standards and demonstrate compliance, it is certainly appropriate that ACCJC model this same behavior. As I was unable to attend the last two special BoT meetings due to prior commitments, I have reviewed with interest the current situation regarding the replacement of Michael Krause on the VVC BoT. In my review of these last meetings, it appears – at least to my viewing – that BP 2110 is not being followed. I will gladly stand corrected if I missed something, but it seems that the BoT has not agreed on a process to replace Mr. Krause as outlined in the BoT’s own policy, BP 2110. After a careful examination of BP 2110, it is therefore the formal recommendation of the VVC Academic Senate that the BoT follow their own policy in its entirety. The provisions of BP 2110 call for either a provisional appointment, or a special election, which would essentially elect an interim BoT until the next regularly scheduled BoT election, which would be November 2014. It is certainly within the scope of the BoT to choose whichever option the BoT, as a whole, believes will be in the best interest of the college. This BP currently has no other options outside of election or appointment for a BoT replacement. Academic Senate 2012‐14 Tracy Davis, President Board of Trustees Report If the BoT chooses the provisional appointment, the guidelines in BP 2110 are clear: the college super/pres will solicit applications (found in both BP 2110 and AP 2110), and the BoT as a whole will determine the schedule and process, and voting on this provisional appt will take place publicly with a majority vote of the BoT. I have not seen that this process has been followed – again, if it has, I will stand corrected. I noted an announcement for a special meeting, scheduled for tomorrow night, August 14, 2013. According to the agenda for the special meeting, the BoT will be discussing an appointment. Again, I do not see that the appointment process has been the option chosen by the BoT, as per BP 2110. Before an appointment can occur, this appointment option must be the one agreed upon by majority of the BoT. I am not sure how legitimate an appointment will be without agreement that appointment is the chosen option. In other words, the PROCESS decision is the first step. Regardless of which process the BoT does choose, BP 2110 needs to be followed completely. It appears that applications have already been submitted, and a list of potential BoT appointees has been compiled. Both BP 2110 and the related AP 2110 provide clear direction as to how an appointment must take place, especially regarding the role of the Super/Pres in this process. I have seen no evidence that the super/pres has had a role in this process, therefore violating AP 2110. Therefore, it is the formal recommendation of the Academic Senate that the BoT truly follow the directions in the BP and AP. Unfortunately, this may mean that the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting may have to be changed to reflect approving the process; or, this meeting may have to be rescheduled to accommodate compliance with BP and AP 2110. Since the AS has made a formal recommendation that the BoT rely primarily on the advice of the AS (which is the AS role), I would hope that the BoT will respect the recommendation of the VVC AS, and comply with BP 2110 and AP 2110. It is also hoped that, if the current BP 2110 is not satisfactory to the BoT, that they revise it to reflect what they believe are appropriate options; this way, AP 2110 can also be revised. Thank you.