ACCJC
GONE
WILD
By Martin Hittelman
March 9, 2014
Prepared by Martin Hittelman
Martin Hittelman is a retired community college faculty member. He is a Professor Emeritus of
Mathematics at Los Angeles Valley College and President Emeritus of the California Federation of
Teachers. He is a former member of the California Community Colleges State Academic Senate
Executive Committee, former President of the CFT Community College Council, and a former Vice
President of the California Federation of Labor.
Updated versions of ACCJC Gone Wild and other documents can be found at
www.accreditationwatch.com.
Martin Hittelman can be reached at martyhitt@gmail.com
Note: In many sections of this paper, items have been bolded in order to add emphasis.
Page 2
Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................7
ACCJC Violations......................................................................................................................................7
Major Reasons for ACCJC Sanctions ......................................................................................................11
ACCJC and WASC ......................................................................................................................................15
Violations of the Code of Federal Regulations ........................................................................................15
WASC ......................................................................................................................................................16
New Appeal Process Controlled by the ACCJC ......................................................................................17
Quality Assurance, Continuous Improvement, or Compliance ...............................................................18
Application Process for Accreditation Agencies to Receive Reaccreditation .............................................19
Staff Analysis of an Accrediting Agency's Application ..........................................................................20
Hearing Before the Advisory Committee ................................................................................................20
“National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) ..................................21
College Ability to Plan, Prepare Reports, Review .......................................................................................24
Sanctions Criteria .........................................................................................................................................25
ACCJC’s Extreme Number of Sanctions .....................................................................................................26
U.S. Department of Education Pressure ...................................................................................................27
Sanctions at January 2012 meeting ..........................................................................................................27
June 8-10, 2011 Sanctions .......................................................................................................................28
January 10-12, 2012 Sanctions ................................................................................................................29
June 6-8, 2012 Sanctions .........................................................................................................................30
January 9-11, 2013 Sanctions ..................................................................................................................30
Actions on California Community Colleges from June 2011 – January 2013 ........................................31
June 5-7, 2013 Actions.............................................................................................................................33
Trends in Deficiencies Leading to Sanction January 2009 to January 2013 ...........................................35
Accreditation Agency Sanctions 2013 .....................................................................................................36
ACCJC Actions of January 8-10, 2014 ....................................................................................................37
ACCJC SANCTIONS OF JANUARY 2014 – A NEW DIRECTION? ..................................................37
Out of Touch With California Educational Environment ............................................................................39
Public Disclosure and Retaliation ................................................................................................................39
California Community Colleges Task Force................................................................................................40
Recommendations to ACCJC from Task Force .......................................................................................40
ACCJC Response to Concerns of Chancellor Scott and the Task Force .................................................41
The RP Group Findings of February 2011 ...................................................................................................42
Attacks on Board of Trustee Members ........................................................................................................45
City College of San Francisco - PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2012), ACCREDITATION REMOVED
(2013) ...........................................................................................................................................................48
Resolution of the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges. ......................................51
CFT Complaint Filed on April 30, 2013 ..............................................................................................52
ACCJC Response to CFT Complaint...................................................................................................52
May 30, 2013 Accrediting Commission Perfunctory Response to CFT Complaint/Comment ...........54
Letter to Chronicle of Higher Education by Commissioner Frank Gornick ........................................56
CFT Statement on CCSF Loss of Accreditation ..................................................................................57
Statewide Community College Chancellor Brice Harris July 3, 2013 Statement on Appointment of
Special Trustee .....................................................................................................................................58
Page 3
Parallel to Compton College ................................................................................................................60
July 8, 2013 CFT Remarks to the Board of Governors .......................................................................60
CFT Complaint to Department of Education July 26, 2013 .......................................................................62
ACCJC Information to the Field - July 2013 – An Unlikely Story .....................................................63
Accreditation Group finds ACCJC out of compliance – August 13, 2013 ..................................................68
ACCJC Press Release of August 13, 2013 ..........................................................................................70
Letter from AFT Local 2121 to Scott-Skillman and Agrella .......................................................................71
August 16, 2013 Letter from Beno to Agrella on Confidendiality of Review Process .......................73
August 19, 2013 Agrella Letter to the College Community ................................................................76
Save CCSF Coalition Complaint of August 19, 2013. ................................................................................76
CFT letter to Brice Harris August 19, 2013 .................................................................................................78
CFT CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 ...........................................................79
Save CCSF Rally - November 7, 2013 .........................................................................................................82
California Joint Legislative Audit Committee – Action on August 21, 2013 ..............................................85
Call for State Audit ..............................................................................................................................85
Backgound for Call ..............................................................................................................................86
2013-123 AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES - Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges - Community College Costs and Nonstate-Approved Policies ..................................88
San Francisco City Attorney files Law Suit August 22, 2013 ....................................................................89
ACCJC Press Release of August 23, 2013 on SF Attorney Suit .................................................................90
Trustee of Coast Community College District Support of Complaint August 20, 2013 .............................90
Letter from State Superintendent of Public Instruction to ACCJC, September 17, 2013 ............................92
ACCJC Press Release on Superintendent Tom Torlakson's Letter..............................................................93
September 5, 2013 Letter from Academic Senate to Department of Education ..........................................94
September 10, 2013 Complaint by the League of United Latin American Citizens....................................95
Complaint of September 25, 2013 by the San Mateo County Community College District .......................96
October 7, 2013 Letter from San Mateo Chancellor Galatolo .....................................................................97
October 8, 2013 Letter from Beno to Dr. Bonnie Dowd Requesting Help ..................................................99
Oct. 24, 2013 Chancellor’s with Opposing Views .....................................................................................100
ACCJC Commissioner Kinsella Writes .................................................................................................100
San Mateo Chancellor Galatolo Replies ................................................................................................100
Save CCSF Coalition Files November 4, 2013 Lawsuit ............................................................................102
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Addresses ACCJC Issues ....................................105
Visiting Team Reports and Privacy ...........................................................................................................108
Commission Composition ..........................................................................................................................110
CFT and S.F. City Attorney File for Preliminary Injunction – Nov. 24, 2013 ..........................................114
CFT Memorandum of Points .................................................................................................................114
S.F. Injunction Information ....................................................................................................................116
Harris letter to Herrera of January 2, 2014 ............................................................................................117
Superior Court Judge Karnow Issues Preliminary Injunction January 2, 2014 .....................................118
ACCJC January 13, 2014 Misleading Press Release .............................................................................120
Department of Education Staff Report on ACCJC – November 2013 ......................................................124
January 28, 2014 Letter to Beno from Department of Education ..........................................................132
Sections Violated by ACCJC as noted in letter and [remarks by Dept. of Education staff] ..................134
Page 4
January 2014 Meeting of the ACCJC ........................................................................................................138
Lack of Transparency - CFT Letter of January 9, 2014 .........................................................................142
Report on ACCJC Meeting of January 10, 2013 ...................................................................................143
Some of the Changes ..............................................................................................................................144
New Policy On Complaints Against ACCJC .....................................................................................144
Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions ..................................................................................145
Policy on the Right and Responsibilities of the Commission and Member Institutions ....................145
Policy on Access to Commission Meetings .......................................................................................145
Review of CCSF Removal of Accreditation Decision ...........................................................................146
Letter from Saginor to Agrella ...........................................................................................................146
March 3, 2014 Save CCSF Answers ACCJC Claims to Dismiss Case .................................................148
January 2014 ACCJC Meeting - Has Anything Really Changed? ........................................................149
Cabrillo College - Reaffirm Accreditation .........................................................................................150
San Mateo Community College – Reaffirm Accreditation ................................................................151
Victor Valley College - Remove Probation, Reaffirm Accreditation ................................................154
Solano College – Remove Warning and Reaffirm Accreditation ......................................................155
Woodland Community College - Continue on Warning....................................................................156
College of the Sequoias – SHOW CAUSE to WARNING ...............................................................157
Cuyamaca College - Reaffirm Accreditation .....................................................................................158
Grossmont College - Reaffirm Accreditation ....................................................................................160
Cuesta College - Removed from Warning, Reaffirmed Accreditation ..............................................160
Honolulu Community College – Removed from Warning, Accreditation Reaffirmed .....................161
El Camino College - Removed from Warning ...................................................................................161
January 2014 Revised Standards ............................................................................................................161
Sanctions on Colleges – A Picture of Inconsistent Conclusions ...............................................................164
Compton College - DENIAL OF ACCREDITATION (2005) ..............................................................164
College of the Sequoias – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2013) .........................................................168
Diablo Valley College – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2009), REMOVE SHOW CAUSE AND
PLACED ON PROBATION (2010), REAFFIRMED ACCREDITATION (2011) .............................170
Cuesta College – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2012), PLACED ON WARNING (2013) ..............173
College of the Redwoods - SHOW CAUSE (2012), REMOVE SHOW CAUSE IMPOSE
PROBATION .........................................................................................................................................174
Solano Community College – PLACED ON WARNING (2012), PLACED ON PROBATION (2013)
................................................................................................................................................................177
Bakersfield College – REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2013) ...........................................................178
Merced College – REMOVE WARNING AND REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2013) .................179
West Hills College District - ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2011) ..........................................180
Los Angeles Mission College – WARNING (2013) .............................................................................184
Los Angeles Pierce College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013) .........................................186
San Diego Mesa College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2011) .............................................187
Fullerton College – REMOVE WARNING AND MOVE TO ACCREDITATION (2012).................188
Page 5
College of Marin – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013) ..........................................................188
Shasta College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012) ..........................................................................189
Los Angeles Southwest College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012), REMOVED FROM
PROBATION AND PLACED ON WATCH (2013) ............................................................................190
Los Angeles Valley College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013) ........................................................192
Copper Mountain College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)............................................194
Woodland Community College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013) ...................................................194
Yuba College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013) ...............................................................................197
Barstow Community College – CONTINUED ON WARNING (2013) ...............................................199
Victor Valley College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012)...............................................................200
Gavilan College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013) ...........................................................201
Ventura County Community Colleges PLACED ON PROBATION (2012), ACCREDITATION
REAFFIRMED (2013) ...........................................................................................................................202
Peralta Community College District Colleges – PLACED ON WARNING (2012), WARNING
REMOVED AND REAFFIRMED ACCREDITION (2013) ................................................................203
Coast Community College District – PLACED ON WARNING (2013) ..............................................203
Imperial Valley College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013) ...............................................................205
College of Marin – REMOVED FROM WARNING (2013) ................................................................206
Fresno City College – REMOVED FROM WARNING (2013) ...........................................................206
Antelope Valley College – Midterm Report (2013) ..............................................................................206
El Camino College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013) .......................................................................208
Hartnell College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2013) .......................................................................209
West Los Angeles College – PLACED ON WARNING (2012) , ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED
(2013) .....................................................................................................................................................213
Los Angeles Harbor College – REMOVE PROBATION AND REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION
(2013) .....................................................................................................................................................215
Modesto Junior College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012) ...........................................................216
Interference with Collective Bargaining ....................................................................................................216
Hittelman Letter of November 21, 2001 ................................................................................................216
October 13, 2008 Hittelman Letter to ACCJC .......................................................................................217
December 2008 ACCJC Reply Filled with Errors .................................................................................220
CCA/CTA Correspondence ...................................................................................................................222
CTA Letter .............................................................................................................................................223
CFT letter of January 8, 2013 Concerning Failure to Obey Timelines ......................................................223
Hittelman Complaint/Comment of April 30, 2013 ....................................................................................224
ACCJC Response of May 31, 2013 .......................................................................................................225
June 26, 2013 Hittelman Response ........................................................................................................226
June 28, 2013 Response from ACCJC ...................................................................................................227
July 25, 2013 ACCJC Reply to Hittelman Complaint and Hittelman analysis .....................................228
October 1, 2013 Hittelman Request for Information .................................................................................255
Behavior of the ACCJC .............................................................................................................................258
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................259
ACCJC Appeals Procedure Manual ...........................................................................................................261
34 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) – Relevant Sections ......................................................................266
Index ...........................................................................................................................................................273
Page 6
Introduction
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) is the accreditation agency
for the Community Colleges of California. It currently works as a part of the Western Association of
Schools and Colleges (WASC).
Barbara Beno, a former college president whose contract was not renewed by the college district in which
she had served, has been the President of the ACCJC since August of 2001. The president of the
Commission is a staff position. During her term as President the ACCJC has changed from being a
collegial accrediting agency that helps its colleges to satisfy accreditation standards by offering training
and assistance to both visiting teams and college constituencies to one that issues sanctions with a
vengeance. The Commission operates in secret and applies its standards in an arbitrary and
inconsistent manner. It disregards the public policies of California. In addition questions regarding
conflict of interest on the part of Commission members and staff have been raised on numerous
occassions. Due to the secretative processes of the ACCJC, it is difficult to substantiate how Commission
members might be voting even when a conflict of interest arises. In fact, there is not even a public record
of how the nineteen individual commissioners vote on the sanctions of the colleges.
ACCJC Violations
Never the less, on August 13, 2013 the ACCJC received a letter from the U.S. Department of Education
stating the finding that the ACCJC was out of compliance with the Education Secretary’s Criteria for
Recognition in their handling of the removal of accreditation from City College of San Francisco in June
of 2013. This is just one indication of the pattern of abuse that has occurred over the years. This letter is
described in detail under the City College of San Francisco section of this paper.
The letter of August 13, 2013 informed Barbara Beno that "the Accreditation Group has found that some
aspects of the agency's accreditation review process do not meet the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition
(CFR). Specifically, the Accreditation Group has determined that the ACCJC is out of compliance with
34 C.F.R. §§602.15(a)(3), 602.15 (a)(6), 602.18(e), and 602.20(a) of the Secretary's Criteria for
Recognition."
The Accreditation Group limited its review to an evaluation of what happened at City College of San
Francisco but I have documented the above violations at a number of other community colleges in
California in this paper (ACCJC Gone Wild). In addition to the violations cited by the Accreditation
Group, I have also documented here violations related to the following sections of 34 CFR:
602.13 Acceptance of the agency by others.
602.15 Administrative and fiscal responsibilities
602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards.
602.17 Application of standards in reaching an accrediting decision
602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making.
602.19 Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and programs.
602.20 Enforcement of standards.
Page 7
602.21 Review of standards.
602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have.
602.25 Due process
In January of 2014, the Department of Education determined that ACCJC had violated the following
sections of the Criteria for Recognition:
§602.12(b)
§602.13
§602.15(a)(3)
§602.16(a)(1)(i)
§602.16(a)(1)(ii)
§602.16(a)(1)(iii)
§602.17(a)
§602.17(f)
§602.18(e)
§602.19(b)
§602.20(a)
§602.20(b)
§602.21(c)
§602.25(a-e)
§602.26
The letter further stated that ACCJC would lose its ability to accredit colleges if it did not meet these
requirements by January of 2015.
President Beno and the Commission members, have, since Beno took over, conducted a reign of terror in
which any sign of disloyalty to the ACCJC or difference with any of their policies is met with threats of
more severe sanctions. In some cases, actual sanctions have been levied against colleges where criticisms
of the Commission itself have occurred. As one CEO told me, it is “Beno’s way or the highway.” As a
result, most college administrators and faculty are afraid to speak out against the excesses of the ACCJC.
Even visiting team members have been unwilling to step forward and expose abuses for fear of hurting
the chances of their home institutions. In June of 2013 the ACCJC stepped up its muzzling of both
visiting team members and Commission members by passing an additional series of policy changes that
require non-disclosure of Commission proceedings.
The ACCJC has directed colleges to implement “transparent decision making, honest dialogue and
widespread dissemination of internal college documents.” The ACCJC itself does not live up to that
standard.
The goal of accreditation, according to the United States Department of Education, "is to ensure that
education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality." In the Special
Edition of the February 2001 ACCJC News it is pointed out that “In achieving and maintaining its
accreditation a higher education institution assures the public that the institution meets standards of
quality, that the education earned there is of value to the students who earn it, and that employers,
trade or professional-related agencies and other colleges and universities can accept a student’s
credentials as legitimate.”
Contrary to its own claims, the ACCJC does not value colleges for their quality of instruction, but
instead the ACCJC issues sanctions that are based on the successful performance of excessive
documentation and data gathering, reviews of policy and procedures, and adherence to education practices
that are not based on scientific studies.
According to the ACCJC, accredited institutions are required to meet or exceed a set of rigorous standards
including:
 Institutional Mission and Effectiveness (Standard I);
 Student Learning Programs and Services (Standard II);
 Resources (Standard III); and
 Leadership and Governance (Standard IV).
Page 8
Article 1, Section 2 of the ACCJC Bylaws makes clear that the intent of the Commission is to require that
colleges have “clearly defined objectives appropriate to higher education; has established conditions
under which their achievement can reasonably be expected; appears in fact to be accomplishing them
substantially; it is so organized, staffed, and supported that it can be expected to continue to do so; and
demonstrates that it meets ACCJC’s Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards.” In short, the
role of the ACCJC, as seen by the ACCJC, is to force colleges to spend enormous quantities of time
demonstrating that they are properly (in the eyes of the Commission) organized and have established
the required conditions. The ACCJC rarely looks at the quality of education offered or the results
of the students of the college under review. The emphasis on process leaves less time for colleges
facing an accreditation decision to spend on efforts to actually offer quality programs of instruction.
Some of the demands of ACCJC, such as Measurable Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), are not
recognized as model standard practices by the majority of college educators. This is a violation of 34 CFR
602.13. This fact is illustrated by faculty resistance to the imposition of the measurable student learning
outcome methodology. Despite the opposition to the busy work required under SLOs, faculty members
are forced to perform them under the threat of sanction. Even so, a large number of sanctions are based on
the failure of a college to fully implement SLOs. This just illustrates the lack of general acceptance of this
standard.
SLO’s are written to describe what specific knowledge and skills a student should have and be able to
demonstrate at the conclusion of a course, program, and/or degree. SLO’s are to be used to provide data
collection to measure student academic success. The implementation of SLOs requires considerable work
and effort. In addition to the normal tests given by instructors to determine how well a student is doing in
a class and what grade should the student earn, SLO’s are used to determine whether the specific
“outcomes” have been achieved. The data from the SLO’s is then supposed to be used to determine
whether the classes are succesful in terms of student success .There has, to this point, been no objective
study of the use of SLOs in improving instruction.
The problem with SLO’s in the eyes of many instructors is that they do not lead to better teaching and
learning and are a very big waste of time. Instead they tend to lead to a standardized curriculum that
does not address the full needs of the students. Such important elements as motivation, critical thinking,
interest, creativity, and the ability to learn on one’s own are difficult if not impossible to measure with
SLO’s – and as a result become less important in the minds of those who would rate educational quality
based on SLOs. In short, many faculty members resist doing SLOs not just because of the work involved,
but also that they do not provide insights into how to improve instruction.
34 CFR 602.13 require that an accrediting agency “must be able to demonstrate that its standards,
policies, and accreditation decisions are widely accepted in the United States by educators and
educational institutions, licensing bodies (if appropriate), practioners, and employers of graduates for
accredited institutions/programs.” The ACCJC is out of compliance with this fundamental
requirement. Their approach to governance, planning, coordination, SLOs, fiscal responsibility,
and research is not widely accepted either in the California community colleges or across the
nation. This accounts for much of the high level of sanctions inflicted on the colleges by the ACCJC.
I have found no evidence that suggests that the ACCJC has attempted to demonstrate that its standards,
policies and decisions are widely accepted. To the contrary, opposition by the Academic Senate, faculty
Page 9
unions, the California Community College Consultation Council, and the RP Group underlines the
general opposition to their policies and practices. The lack of wide acceptance was included in the
concerns of the Department of Education in their evaluation of ACCJC.
The ACCJC discourages any consideration of how the college meets state and federal requirements.
This disinterest in California and federal law and practice is emphasized in the ACCJC Team
Evaluator Manual. On page 23 of the August 2012 Manual it advises that “Recommendations
should not be based on the standards of governmental agencies, the legislature, or organizations.”
The actual quality of the education offered is not a consideration. In addition, the ACCJC has attempted
to micro-manage colleges by using accreditation as the tool to force colleges to change their budgeting
and governing patterns to fit the ACCJC’s vision of how a college should operate. In the case of Northern
Marianas College (Saipan North Marianas Islands), the Commission has even attempted to force change
in their trustee composition.
Some of the arguments used by the Commission to support ACCJC sanctions against City College of San
Francisco and several other colleges question the very mission of the community colleges in California.
A goal of ACCJC’s interpretation of its standards seems to be to reduce open access to a wide variety of
programs and students in the name of reduced resources. In short, the Commission is attempting to
change the very mission of community colleges through ACCJC’s ability to sanction. This action is
clearly in conflict with Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.17(a)(1).
From 2003 to 2008 the six United States regional accrediting bodies issued a total of 126 sanctions to
community colleges in the United States. 112 of these were issued by the ACCJC under Beno’s direction.
ACCJC has continued to be out of step with the other accrediting agencies. From June 2011 to June 2012
the ACCJC issued forty-eight of the seventy-five sanctions (64%) issued nationwide. The community
colleges in California represent about 19% of the community colleges accredited nationally. In short, the
19% of the colleges nationwide that are under ACCJC generated 64% of the national sanctions.
In 2013 the ACCJC continued its assault on California’s community colleges when it sanctioned 10 out of
23 (43.4%) colleges before it in January of 2013 and 10 out of 21 (47.6%) colleges in June of 2013.
Their action included putting College of Sequoias on SHOW CAUSE (the college must prove that it
should not have its accreditation removed) and removed the accreditation from City College of San
Francisco effective July 2014. This large number of sanctions is an indication that their policies and the
way they apply them are out of step with what is happening in the internationally recognized outstanding
community colleges of California.
Dan Walters, on February 16, 2014, wrote in the Fresno Bee that “For several years, those who run
California's 100-plus community colleges have complained that the commission that makes all-important
accreditation evaluations has been excessively aggressive, even nit-picking. There have even been off-therecord complaints that evaluators for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges,
an offshoot of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, were settling personal scores from their
own days as community college faculty and administrators. The complaints arose as the commission
issued highly critical reports on district after district, and as local college officials, worried about the
immense financial consequences of losing accreditation but also dealing with cutbacks in state support,
scrambled to respond.”
Page 10
Clearly, the ACCJC has become a rogue agency.
According to the ACCJC, its accreditation process provides assurance to the public that the accredited
member colleges meet their Standards and that "the education earned at the institutions is of value to the
student who earned it; and employers, trade or profession-related licensing agencies, and other colleges
and universities can accept a student's credential as legitimate." Contrary to this claim, the emphasis of
ACCJC has not been on the value of the education to the student or to the colleges and universities that
would accept the credits earned. Rather it has been on compliance with the ACCJC standards (the
majority of which do not directly address the quality of education that students receive).
The California Community Colleges Student Success Scorecard tracked students for six years through
2011-12. Many of the colleges which ranked highest on the scorecard in the various categories have
recently been given sanctions by the ACCJC. Other colleges with low ranking have not. One typical
example is City College of San Francisco which was had its accreditation revoked in June of 2013. CCSF
ranked fourth among the colleges in the state in the percentage of students who were underprepared for
college but still achieved 30 units of transfer work over the six years tracked. It also ranked high in
other categories. CCSF is a great college for students and the ACCJC is set on closing it. It is clear, from
looking at the scores at the various colleges, that the ACCJC has not successfully developed a
methodology for considering academic quality and success. The scores on the California Community
College Student Success Scorecard can be found on the California Community College website.
In fact, when the colleges of Special Trustee Agrella and Temporary Chancellor Scott-Skillman (who
were brought in the make CCSF right), CCSF scores higher in many categories.
Folsom Lake
Santa Rosa
College (ScottCollege
Skillman)
(Agrella)
CCSF
Full Time Equiv. Students
5,400
9,700
32,600
Persistence
68.6%
62.3%
75.2%
Completion
45.6%
53.1%
55.6%
Career Tech Ed
49.9%
54.5%
49.5%
30 units
70.3%
69.8%
72.5%
Remedial (Math/English/ESL) 23/35/7
15/27/12
18/43/52
% FT Faculty
69.4%
58.2%
71.4%
Major Reasons for ACCJC Sanctions
According to their own published report, the following are the reasons given for the ACCJC sanctions of
January 2012:
 Six colleges did not have adequate procedures and did not appropriately implement program
review of instructional programs and services.
Page 11




Twenty colleges failed to meet requirements regarding the use of assessment results in integrated
planning.
Twenty colleges were sanctioned for deficiencies in governing board roles and responsibilities;
seven of these were colleges in multi-college districts where the key deficiencies were in district
governing board operations.
Fourteen colleges lacked appropriate and sustainable financial management.
Thirty colleges had miscellaneous other deficiencies, primarily related to staffing (6), library and
technology resources (4), and evaluations (4).
None of the above areas of concern should be used as a reason for denying accreditation and effectively
closing down a college as was done in the cases of Compton and the Community College of San
Francisco.
In addition, the ACCJC policies and letters to colleges are vague as to what is actually required of a
college and what is merely a recommendation being suggested to improve the college. This vagueness
was cited as one of the ACCJC violations in the August 13, 2013 letter from the Accrediation Group of
the U.S. Department of Education. The level of vagueness on the part of ACCJC has been duplicated
around the state of California.
Most recently, the ACCJC has entered a stage of micro-managing of district-level operations through
sanctions on the colleges of multi-college districts. This includes attempting to dictate to college
governing boards how they should operate and how district chancellors should operate in relation to local
college presidents. It has even gotten to the point where Beno is calling college presidents and district
chancellors on the telephone and demanding changes be made immediately or harsh sanctions will follow.
A record of these direct conversations are not publically available in contradiction to the requirements of
34 CFR 602.15(b)(2).
Carl Friedlander (President of the Community College Council (CCC), writing in the March 2013 issue of
the CFT’s Community College Council Perspective, called for the ACCJC to “stop using the threat (or
fact) of accreditation sanctions to undermine California's system of locally elected board of trustees.
Providing training to trustees about accreditation and their role in it is a good thing. However, it is an
affront to democracy to tell trustees that they put at risk the accreditation of the colleges they were
elected to represent if they speak out on issues they care about or communicate with a wide range of
individuals, constituencies and interest groups rather than relying almost exclusively on the perspective
of their district's chancellor/ superintendent.”
“These kinds of behaviors by ACCJC leadership compound the problem of the federal pressures and make
many faculty feel that accreditation in California today has almost nothing to do with "peer and
professional review" and is instead about ACCJC spearheading an aggressive (and, many believe,
misguided) "reform" agenda. Spearheading a "reform" campaign is not the business of an accrediting
commission.”
The ACCJC operation is cloaked in secrecy with all involved required to sign a pledge that they will not
reveal the inner workings of the college visiting teams or how the ACCJC itself operates in determining
what level of sanctions to impose. The minutes of their meetings are not made public. After the visiting
team issues its report, all actions of the ACCJC are done out of the public view. The votes on sanctions by
the Commission are never disclosed. Even the meetings of the ACCJC are held in places and at times
Page 12
difficult for the public to find out about or attend and comment. The time for public input is agendized
for the third day of their meetings - after the decisions on sanctions have been made. The ACCJC
limits public discussion at their three day meetings to a total of 15 minutes and only allows 20 members
of the public into their meetings. The lack of public access to ACCJC information is stunning.The
Commission has paid little attention to its own timelines for posting the agendas for their meetings or
for posting the resulting actions of the Commission, including even where their meetings will be held. In
June of 2013, important policy proposals were not made available until the time of consideration and
attendance by the public was strictly curtailed. As a result of this behavior on the part of the ACCJC, due
process rights of colleges are barely available. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.25.
It is now becoming commonplace for the ACCJC to impose sanctions that are much harsher than those
suggested by the visiting teams. The latest such incidents occurred at the January 9-11, 2013 meeting
when the Commission placed Northern Marianas College and College of the Sequoias on SHOW CAUSE
in contradiction to what the visiting teams had suggested. One wonders what has happened to the
recognition of the work of “peers” in the accreditation process. It also puts into question either a lack of
training of visiting team members or a vagueness in the requirements for different levels of sanction.
Either of these cases would be a violation of 34 CFR Section 602.
In short, the ACCJC has become, in words taken from a report by the National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) on accreditation agencies, “unnessarily intrusive,
prescriptive, and granular in ways that may not advance system goals nor match institutional priorities,
and is costly in resources such as time, funds, and opportunity.”
Carl Friedlander in his Perspective column of March 2013 addressed the role of ACCJC as follows:
“ACCJC's singular focus should be ensuring that standards are met. Yet President Beno, along with other
ACCJC staff, serves on the Advisory Board for the Campaign for College Opportunity (CCO). The work
of CCO is controversial within the system. There should be a firewall between ACCJC staff and the
boards of community college advocacy organizations. It is similarly inappropriate for ACCJC to take
positions on legislation affecting the community colleges, as the Commission has recently done. Returning
to Lumina its $450,000 grant for "exploring use of the Degree Qualifications Profile and Tuning at
community colleges in California" would be another way ACCJC could clarify that the Commission is
about ensuring standards, not spearheading a reshaping of community college education.”
This document has been prepared by reading the non-secret portions of visiting team reports, publications
of the ACCJC, sanction letters to colleges, and confidential discussions with persons on the college
campuses and on visiting teams with direct knowledge concerning the behaviors of the ACCJC and its
President Barbara Beno. It also includes exchanges of correspondence between President Beno on behalf
of the ACCJC and interested parties such as the California Federation of Teachers and the Community
College Association of the California Teachers Association. The study by the RP Group was also
important to the discovery of abuse.
In going through the Visiting Team Reports and the Commission letters to the colleges it becomes clear
that the judgments are not made on a consistent basis. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.18. The
inconsistency is a result of vaguely stated requirements for the different levels of sanctions, the often
inadequate training of Visiting Team members, the lack of adequate faculty membership on Visiting
Teams, and bias on the part of the Commission itself. These issues are pointed out in the sections that
follow regarding the individual colleges under review.
Page 13
This document is intended to expose how the ACCJC actually operates.
It is sad that the ACCJC has added to college woes. The colleges have enough to worry about
without also being required to exist under the yoke of the ACCJC and its micro-managing
sanctions. Beno claims that the accreditation by the ACCJC is voluntary. This is not true for
California’s community colleges. The colleges are by California law required to join the ACCJC.
The fact that membership is not voluntary is a violation of federal requirements.
Something must be done concerning the ACCJC and its abusive posturing - and sooner rather than
later.
Marty Hittelman
Retired Community College Faculty member
Page 14
Higher Education Accreditation
The goal of accreditation, according to the United States Department of Education, “is to ensure that
education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality.”
Accrediting agencies in the United States are private educational associations of regional or national
scope. “The U.S. Department of Education does not accredit educational institutions and/or programs.
However, the Secretary of Education is required by law to publish a list of nationally recognized
accrediting agencies that the Secretary of Education determines to be reliable authorities as to the quality
of education or training provided by the institutions of higher education programs they accredit.”
Applications for recognition as an accreditation agency requires that an application with the U.S.
Department of Education, a review by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and
Integrity, and a final decision made by the Secretary of Education. The Accrediting Agency Evaluation
Unit located within the Office of Postsecondary Education within the Department of Education deals with
reviews of accreditation agencies and acts as a liaison with these agencies. It provides support to the
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.
ACCJC and WASC
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) is the accreditation
agency for the community colleges of California. It currently works under the Western Association of
Schools and Colleges (WASC). Each of the three Commissions of WASC is reviewed periodically for
renewal of recognition by the US Department of Education (USDOE). WASC itself is currently required
to come into compliance with national standards within 12 months of their 2012 request for continued
recognition.
The ACCJC’s status as a federally approved accrediting agency was renewed by the Secretary of
Education in December of 2007 for a five year term. Their next review came up in the Fall of 2013. The
decision of the Department of Education is expected in early 2014.
As I point out in this report, the ACCJC should not be authorized to continue as they are now
functioning. The Department of Education has taken a first step in that direction by issuing a letter
in August of 2013 requiring the ACCJC to make changes in the way that they operate or be
removed from the list of accreditation agencies.
Violations of the Code of Federal Regulations
This paper describes the many abuses of the ACCJC including their violations of the Code of Federal
Regulations (34 CFR)). In particular, the ACCJC has been in violation of 34 CFR 602 by not having
adequate staff , resources, and time to realistically consider the number of institutions that they review at
each meeting; the lack of adequate training of visiting team members; the lack of controlling conflicts of
interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest; the lack of maintainance of complete and accurate
records including the destruction of important documents; the lack of an effective method of consideration
by the Commission members; attempting to change the missions of the colleges; the lack of consistency
in enforcing standards and determining levels of sanction; the lack of clear standards as illustrated by the
Page 15
variance in sanctions recommended by visiting teams and the eventual sanction levied by the
Commission; the lack of clarity to colleges as to the reasons for a sanction being given and what
improvements are required; failure to involve all of the college’s relevant constituencies (including the
collective bargaining agents) in the campus interviews; failure to take into account comments and
complaints before making sanction decisions; failure to respond in a timely and complete manner to third
party comments and complaints against the ACCJC; a lack of unbiased judgments regarding complaints
against the ACCJC; a lack of due process in their proceedings; a failure to provide reasonable time for
colleges to make necessary adjustments; a failure to properly balance the number of faculty and
administrators on visiting teams; and timely filing of its decisions. Each of these violations of federal
requirements is documented in this paper and are reasons to deny the continued use of ACCJC as an
accreditation agency.
WASC
The WASC Corporate Board oversees the work of three Commissions. It is comprised of nine members,
three from each Commission, including the chairs from each. The WASC Board meets annually to certify
the accrediting actions of the three Commissions, receive audits, and take action on business as
necessary. According to a July 25, 2013 letter from the ACCJC to me regarding my complaint: “Prior to
July 1, 2013, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges was a corporate body that included three
independent accrediting agencies: the ACSCU, the ACCJC, and the ACS, each involved with different
types of educational institutions within the Western Region. It was determined during a review
commissioned by the WASC board, that it would be more appropriate for each of the accrediting agencies
to separately incorporate and to locate the organizational descriptions within each organization's bylaws.
This was needed to legally clarify the intended WASC entity role as one of affiliation for the three
accreditors. Each of the three accreditors has undertaken the recommended changes.” I am still not sure
why a legal clarification was necessary.
As examples of changes proposed at its a January 2013 were a first reading of policy change proposals
regarding Representation of Accredited Status, Commission Actions on Institutions, Review of
Commission Actions, Public Disclosure and Confidentiality in the Accreditation Process, and
Commission Good Practice in Relations with Member Institutions were considered. The reasons for these
changes included the need to “delete dated references to Commission interactions with the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)” or “the changes more accurately reflect pertinent
interactions, if any, with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)”
The Commission also considered for second reading and then adopted the institutional policies on the
review of accreditation standards and on their student and public complaints against institutions. “The
revised Policy on Relations with Governmental Agencies provides a description of the consultation
undertaken when conflicts between state and local laws and Accreditation Standards are identified.”
The reason given for these changes involved the claim that “The Western Association of Schools
and Colleges (WASC) Bylaws are being amended to align language with current expectations for
nonprofit organizations in California. Each of the three independent accrediting agencies within
WASC is separately formalizing its incorporated status and amending Bylaws as necessary. ACCJC
Bylaws revisions will take full effect upon final passage of the WASC Bylaws. ACCJC Member
Page 16
institutions will be notified when the adoption of WASC Bylaws is completed.” These changes now
seem to be in effect.
New Appeal Process Controlled by the ACCJC
A new appeal process was unveiled at the January 10-11, 2013 meeting. Since there was no advance
notice on the ACCJC website until just days before the meeting, it was impossible for members of the
public and others to testify against the changes. The same pattern of no advance notice of the content of
proposed changes was repeated at the June 7-9 meeting and again at January 2014 meeting.
The process for appeal is basically one that is completely controlled by the ACCJC itself and its staff.
Only an institution can appeal and only an “adverse action” (the removal of accreditation) decision. If the
staff and the ACCJC agree, a review team is appointed. “If the Commission Chairperson concurs with
the judgment of Commission staff that the statement of reasons is deficient, a notice of return and the
statement of reasons will be returned to the institution and no review committee will be appointed.” And
that is it. If the staff and ACCJC agree, then an actual hearing of the case is scheduled. Despite what the
review committee determines, the ACCJC makes the decision on the review.
Previously if the Commission acts to reaffirm the adverse action, the institution could appeal the decision
to the Western Association of Schools. The appeal of the action on the review (which can be found in
Article IX of the ACCJC Bylaw) now goes to a five to seven member hearing panel appointed by the
Executive Committee of the ACCJC (which is comprised of the Chair, the Vice Chair, and the Chair of
the Budget and Personnel Committee).
The grounds for appeal of a decision to terminate accreditation are limited to errors or omissions relative
to procedures by the evaluation team and/or the Commission, demonstrable bias or prejudice on the part
of one or more members of the evaluation team or Commission, evidence before the Commission was
materially in error, or the action by the Commission was not supported by substantial evidence. The
hearing panel has the power to affirm, amend, reverse, or remand the action being appealed.
Later in this document one can find the ACCJC Manual for the appeal process – a document the ACCJC
refused to give me but I was later able to get the document from another source.
It should be noted that there is no federal mandate that only the “adverse action” of removal of
accreditation can be brought to appeal. The New England Accreditation Agency, for example, allows for
probation to be appealed.
The proposed changes to a number of proposed policies including the deletion of the role of WASC can
be found on the ACCJC website as part of the report of actions taken at the January 2013 meeting.
One basic problem with the ACCJC processes is that colleges and their constituents have no ability to
address proposed sanctions before they are voted on by the Commissioners (or after if the sanction is less
than disaccreditation). The sanction recommendations of the visiting team are kept secret. As a result
college CEOs who might wish to speak at the ACCJC meeting with regard to a particular college have no
idea what might be recommended. Faculty and students have no chance to address the findings of the
Visiting Team which is used to inform the Commission decision. In addition, public comment time comes
Page 17
after the decision on the level of sanction is already made. The Commissioners themselves have little
time to review the college reports, the reports of the visiting teams, and the sanction recommended
by the visiting team before they are required to vote. Based on the number of pages in college reports
and visiting team reports, and the number of colleges being reviewed at any one meeting, it is a good
estimate that something over 10,000 pages must be discussed over a day or two. In addition the
Commission must read over and approve a dozen or more policy changes. This hardly adds up to any
version of either a fair due process or a responsible hearing on the issues.
Quality Assurance, Continuous Improvement, or Compliance
The accreditation process is supposed to provide assurance to the public that the accredited member
colleges meet their standards and that “the education earned at the institutions is of value to the student
who earned it; and employers, trade or profession-related licensing agencies, and other colleges and
universities can accept a student’s credential as legitimate.” Contrary to this claim, the emphasis of
ACCJC has not been on the value of the education to the student or to the colleges and universities that
would accept the credits earned. It has been on the management and administration aspects of the
college.
To many it seems wrong that a private organization can sanction, and even close, a college for
reasons other than for the welfare of the students served. In fact, the issue of the proper role of
accreditation agencies is currently under discussion in Washington. In April of 2012, the National
Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) released a report making
accreditation policy recommendations for the Higher Education Act Reauthorization. The discussion
noted that accreditation is meant to assist “individuals in making informed post-secondary educational
choices, in consumer protection, and in the continuing improvement of education and the institutions that
provide it.” “However, there are both commonalities and divergences among notions of ‘quality
assurance,’ ‘continuous improvement,’ and ‘compliance’.” “And there is tension among notions of
gate-keeping for student aid eligibility, mechanisms of public accountability, and notions of accreditation
as a broader quality improvement and and assurance process.”
The NACIQI came down on the side of continuing the current system of accreditation using
independent private agencies like the ACCJC. The basic argument was: “With accreditation being a
system of self-regulation, the involvement of member institutions in the process of establishing the
standards and then applying them in volunteer peer review, accreditors also promote understanding of the
expectations and buy-in for the standards and policies.” This is not the way it works in ACCJC
accreditations. Member institutions are reluctant to enter the debate for fear of losing accreditation
and there is little actual buy-in for the standards and policies of the ACCJC.
The ACCJC sees their requirements as, in the words of the NACIQI, “essential to allow accreditors to
evaluate institutional or program quality.” More often, again in the words of the NACIQI, the ACCJC
oversight is “unnessarily intrusive, prescriptive, and granular in ways that may not advance system
goals nor match institutional priorities, and is costly in resources such as time, funds, and
opportunity.”
Page 18
Application Process for Accreditation Agencies to Receive
Reaccreditation
The Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit
The Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit has been established within the Department of Education to
deal with accreditation matters. Located in the Office of Postsecondary Education, the Unit carries out the
following major functions with respect to accreditation:
1.
Conduct a continuous review of standards, policies, procedures, and issues in the area of the
Department of Education's interests and responsibilities relative to accreditation;
2.
Administer the process whereby accrediting agencies and State approval agencies secure initial
and renewed recognition by the Secretary of Education;
3.
Serving as the Department's liaison with accrediting agencies and State approval agencies;
4.
Providing consultative services to institutions, associations, state agencies, other federal agencies,
and Congress regarding accreditation;
5.
Interpreting and disseminating policy relative to accreditation issues in the case of all appropriate
programs administered by the Department of Education;
6.
Conducting and stimulating appropriate research; and
7.
Providing support for the Secretary's National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and
Integrity.
An agency's application for renewal of recognition consists of a narrative statement, organized on a
criterion-by-criterion basis, showing how the agency complies with the Criteria for Recognition. For
many recognition requirements, the narrative statement need only consist of a brief narrative
demonstrating how that agency complies with a particular requirement. This statement must, however, be
accompanied by clearly referenced supporting documentation demonstrating that the agency meets the
requirement. For example, §602.15(a)(6) of the regulations requires an agency to have clear and effective
controls against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest by the agency's board
members, commissioners, evaluation team members, consultants, administrative staff, and other agency
representatives. The agency's narrative statement addressing this issue might simply be a statement that
the agency's policies against conflicts of interest may be found in a particular policy document. The
agency would have to submit a copy of that document and identify the pages on which the relevant
policies were located. The agency might also choose to include a copy of the minutes of a meeting at
which an agency representative abstained from voting because of a conflict of interest to demonstrate
that it adheres to its written policies.
If an agency's application for recognition does not make specific reference to the following documents
and does not include them as supporting documentation for one or more of the recognition requirements,
the agency must include them as additional supporting documentation:
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Accreditation standards and procedures
Policies and procedures
Most recent externally audited financial statement
Published lists of accredited schools or programs
Self-study guidelines
Page 19
13.
Guidance and training materials for visiting team members
14.
Sample completed self-study reports
15.
Sample site visit reports
16.
Sample institution responses to site visit reports
17.
Sample minutes of decision meetings
18.
A list of all complaints received by the agency against an accredited program during the sixmonth period immediately preceding the agency's submission of its application for recognition, together
with a summary of the issues involved in each complaint, the agency's disposition of that complaint, and
the current status of the complaint, if it is not resolved by the time the agency submits its application
19.
The agency's constitution and by-laws.
Application for Continued Recognition
Agencies that have been granted recognition by the Secretary are officially notified of the expiration date
of their recognition period in a letter each time recognition is granted or renewed. They should plan to
submit their application for renewal of recognition approximately six months in advance of the spring
or fall meeting of the NACIQI that precedes that expiration date. The Accrediting Agency Evaluation
Unit usually notifies agencies a year in advance of the NACIQI meeting at which their renewal
application is to be considered and informs them of the date by which their application is due. The notice
also requests a schedule of each agency's site visits and decision meetings for the upcoming year in order
to plan staff observation of at least some of those activities, as required by §602.32(b)(1) of the
regulations.
Staff Analysis of an Accrediting Agency's Application
The application review process conducted by the Department includes analysis of the application and
observation of some of the agency's site visit and decision-making activities by Accrediting Agency
Evaluation Unit staff. Staff members may also visit agency administrative offices to conduct interviews
of agency staff and to review the agency's facilities, records and administrative operations. They may
also conduct interviews or surveys of other persons, organizations, or institutions concerning the
applicant agency's approval process in order to obtain further information relating to the agency's
compliance with the Criteria and Procedures for Recognition. Department staff then prepares a
written analysis of the agency's application for recognition, which includes a recommendation on
recognition.
Hearing Before the Advisory Committee
When staff completes its evaluation of an agency's application for recognition, the agency's application is
placed on the meeting agenda of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and
Integrity; (NACIQI). In preparation for the meeting, the committee is provided with the accrediting
agency's application and supporting documentation; the final staff analysis of the application; the staff's
recommendation on recognition; all information relied upon by staff in developing the analysis; at the
agency's request, any response by the agency to the draft staff analysis; and any written third-party
comments the Department received about the agency and agency response.
Page 20
The NACIQI meets at least twice a year to review applications for recognition submitted by accrediting
agencies. The usual times for the Committee meetings are spring (May-June) and fall (NovemberDecember). Although each member of the Committee receives every staff analysis of an application for
recognition and all the other materials mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Executive Director of
the NACIQI usually assigns two or more individuals to serve as principal readers for each
application.
An agency that applies for recognition is invited to make an oral presentation before the Committee. The
Committee also hears oral presentations from third parties who request to be heard. Department
staff are available throughout NACIQI meetings to respond to questions.
The NACIQI conducts its business in public, and a transcript of the proceedings is made. After each
meeting, the Committee's and Department staff's recommendations concerning recognition are forwarded
to the Senior Department Official, who makes the final determination regarding recognition. Any
agency that disagrees with the decision of the Senior Department Official may appeal to the Secretary.
Agencies may be granted initial recognition or renewal of recognition for a period of up to five years.
The hearing on the accreditation of ACCJC by the NACIQI will be held on December 12-13, 2013. The
final staff report from the Department of Education will be available no later than 7 days prior to
December 12, 2013. It will be posted in the public document section of https://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/.
I have included the list of current members of the NACIQI that will judge ACCJC. You can make up your
own mind as to whether this group will give ACCJC an objective or biased evaluation.
“National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI)
List of Members (includes Nomination Source)
Arthur J. Rothkopf, J.D. Vice-Chair (House Republicans)
Arthur J. Rothkopf is the President Emeritus of Lafayette College. Previously, he served as the senior
vice-president and counselor to the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the deputy secretary
of the U.S. Department of Transportation. He earned his B.A. from Lafayette College and his law degree
from Harvard Law School..
William Armstrong (Senate Republicans)
William Armstrong is the president of Colorado Christian University. Previously, he served as a United
States Representative (1973-1979) and Senator (1979-1991) from Colorado. While serving in the United
States Senate, he was the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee Mr. Armstrong attended Tulane
University and the University of Minnesota and served in the United States National Guard from 1957 to
1963.
Jill Derby, Ph.D. (Senate Democrats)
Jill Derby is a cultural anthropologist by background and training. Dr. Derby served as an adjunct
faculty member in two Nevada colleges. She also served 18 years on the Nevada Board of Regents - the
governing board of the Nevada System of Higher Education - filling three terms as board chair. She
currently is a governance consultant for the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Page 21
Colleges for over 10 years focusing on board self-evaluation, basic board responsibilities and best
practices, and presidential assessment and transition.
George T. French, Jr., Ph.D. (House Democrats)
George T. French, Jr. is the President of Miles College in Fairfield, AL. He formerly served as the
Director of Development at Miles College and is a Christian Methodist Episcopal minister. Dr. French
is a graduate of the University of Louisville with a law degree from Miles College..
Arthur E. Keiser, J.D. (House Republicans)
Arthur E. Keiser is the Chancellor of the Keiser Collegiate System which includes Keiser University,
Keiser Career College, and Southeastern Institute. Dr. Keiser was appointed by the Governor of Florida
to the State Board of Independent Colleges and Universities and the State Board of Independent
Postsecondary, Vocational, Technical, Trade and Business Schools. He earned his doctorate degree in
Higher Education Administration at the Union Institute and University in Cincinnati Ohio.
William 'Brit' E. Kirwan, Ph.D. (House Democrats)
William ‘Brit’ E. Kirwan has been the Chancellor of the University System of Maryland since 2002.
Previously, he was the President of Ohio State University for four years, President of University of
Maryland, College Park for 10 years, and a faculty member at the University of Maryland for 24 years.
He received his bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of Kentucky and his master’s and
doctorate degrees in mathematics from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Anne D. Neal, J.D. (Senate Republicans)
Anne D. Neal is the co-founder of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni and has been the
President since 2003. Ms. Neal is currently a director of the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, the U.S.
Capitol Historical Society, and Casey Trees. Ms. Neal earned an A.B. in American history and literature
from Harvard College and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.
Richard F. O’Donnell (Senate Republicans)
Richard F. O’Donnell is the Founder & CEO of College Portfolio and is currently the Chief Revenue
Officer for The Fullbridge Program. From 1998 to 2006, he served in the Colorado Governor’s Cabinet
as Executive Director of the Department of Regulatory Agencies and as Executive Director of the
Department of Higher Education. Mr. O’Donnell is a graduate of Colorado College with a B.A. in
History/Political Science.
William Pepicello, Ph.D. (House Republicans)
William Pepicello is the Provost and President of the University of Phoenix. He earned his bachelor’s
degree in Classics from Gannon University, and his master’s and doctorate degrees in Linguistics from
Brown University. In 2002 Bill was the founding dean of the School of Advanced Studies, which houses
the University of Phoenix’s doctoral program.
Susan D. Phillips, Ph.D. (Education Department)
Susan D. Phillips is the Provost and Vice-President of Academic Affairs at the State University of New
York at Albany. Her past positions are the Director of Doctoral Training for Counseling Psychology,
Chair of the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, and Dean of the School of
Education. She holds degrees from Stanford University (BA, Human Biology), Teachers College (MA,
Psychology), and Columbia University (MPhil and PhD, Counseling Psychology).
Page 22
Cameron C Staples, J.D. (Senate Democrats)
Cameron C. Staples is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the New England Association of
Schools & Colleges, Inc. He is a former Representative of the 96th District of Hamden and New Haven.
He earned his Bachelor’s degree from Wesleyan University, his Master’s degree in Government
Administration from the University of Pennsylvania, and a J.D. from The University of Connecticut
School of Law.
Larry N. Vanderhoef, Ph.D. (Senate Democrats)
Larry N. Vanderhoef is a Chancellor Emeritus of the University of California, Davis. During his
leadership, he significantly increased the extramural awards and private gifts to the campus, expanded
clinical and office space by six million square feet, transformed the county hospital to a sound regional
medical center, and increased student enrollment into the university. His education consists of B.S. and
M.S. degrees in biology from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and a Ph.D. in plant biochemistry
from Purdue University.
Carolyn Williams, Ph.D. (House Democrats)
Dr. Carolyn Williams, President Emeritus, retired as the fourth President of the Bronx Community
College of the City University of New York in June 2010 and formerly served as the President of Los
Angeles Southwest College. She has designed programs that encourage community college students to
continue their postsecondary education. She earned her Bachelor’s in Sociology, her Master’s in Urban
Planning, and her Ph.D. in Higher Education from Wayne State University, Detroit Michigan.
Frank H. Wu, J.D. (Education Department)
Frank H. Wu is Chancellor and Dean of University of California Hastings College of Law. He was a
member of the faculty at Howard University, the nation’s leading historically black college/university, for
a decade. He currently is a Trustee of Deep Springs College, and he was previously a Trustee of
Gallaudet University, the only university in the world dedicated to deaf and hard of hearing persons. Dr.
Wu received his Bachelor’s from Johns Hopkins University and his J. D. from the University of Michigan.
Federico Zaragoza, Ph.D. (Education Department)
Dr. Frederica Zaragoza has been the Vice-Chancellor of Economic and Workforce Development at
Alamo Colleges since 2004. He helped establish the Alamo University Center which allows Alamo
College graduates to earn Bachelors and Masters Degrees from five regional universities. Dr. Zaragoza
has a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology, a Master’s Degree in Vocational Education, an Education
Specialist degree in Industrial and Technical Education, and a Ph.D. in Urban Education and
Administrative Leadership from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.”
“Membership Overview
The NACIQI is composed of 18 members with six-year membership terms (except for the terms of the
Committee’s initial members).
Qualifications
Per the HEOA, individuals are appointed as NACIQI members –
On the basis of the individuals’ experience, integrity, impartiality, and good judgment;
Page 23
From among individuals who are representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and
training beyond secondary education, representing all sectors and types of institutions of higher
education (as defined in section 201 of the HEA), as well as a student representative; and
On the basis of the individuals’ technical qualifications, professional standing, and demonstrated
knowledge in the fields of accreditation and administration in higher education.
Membership Composition
Members are appointed equally by the Secretary, House of Representatives, and the Senate as follows:
Secretary - six appointees with three-year initial terms, including the student member;
House of Representatives – six appointees by the Speaker of the House with four-year initial terms;
three of whom shall be recommended by the majority leader of the House and three of whom shall be
recommended by the minority leader of the House; and
Senate – six appointees by the President pro tempore with six-year initial terms; three of whom shall be
recommended by the majority leader of the Senate and three of whom shall be recommended by the
minority leader of the Senate.
A vacancy on the Committee is filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made not later
than 90 days after the date the vacancy occurs. The HEOA requires the Secretary to publish a Federal
Register notice to solicit nominations for any of his/her vacancies. Also, the members of the Committee
now select the Committee Chairperson (and Vice-Chair). The Committee decided at the Spring 2011 that
the Chair and Vice-Chair would serve a three year-term.”
College Ability to Plan, Prepare Reports, Review
The Mt. San Antonio College accreditation of January 13, 2011 is just one of many examples of a
college receiving accreditation from the ACCJC based on its ability to plan (educationally and fiscally),
prepare reports and do reviews. In a letter to then President/CEO of Mt. San Antonio College John Nixon
(now a member of the ACCJC staff), Barbara Beno, President of the ACCJC, wrote “The College is
commended for the high quality of educational programs guaranteed through the various academic
approval and control committees and processes; and the successful linking of program review,
planning, and budgeting inclusive of student services and instruction through the College's
Planning for Institutional Effectiveness process. In addition, the college is commended for its overall
financial stability achieved through sound fiscal management in difficult times; the use of data to
demonstrate success with retention and success of at risk students; and its innovative programs that
provide orientation to college success and provide students with the requisite library and learning support
to enable them to be successful.” But even though accredited, Mt. SAC still was told in Beno’s letter that
“The Commission expects that institutions meet standards that require the identification and assessment of
student learning outcomes, and the use of assessment data to plan and implement improvements to
educational quality, by fall 2012.” It is not clear how a college can get a full accreditation while failing to
meet some standards. In fact, it is misleading to tell a college that it is fully accredited and then demand
that it make changes. According to 34 CFR 602.20(a) “If the agency’s review of an institution or program
under any standard indicates that the institution or program is not in compliance with the standard, the
agency must immediately initiate adverse action against the institution or program; or “ bring itself into
compliance within two years. It appears that in this case the college was only given one year to comply.
Page 24
The ACCJC has, as in the case of CCSF, given full accreditation and then later held the college
accountable for suggested, but not required, changes.
The ACCJC sanctions are based on the ACCJC’s interpretation of their Standards. Based on the actions of
the ACCJC, there is no clear path from one level of sanction to another. It is not clear how the ACCJC
decides what level of sanctions is required. In addition, the actual sanctions have had little to do with
the quality of instruction received by students who attend. Instead of concentrating on the value of the
college to students and the value of the credits earned, the ACCJC has taken a path that requires colleges
to expend an incredible quantity of time and resources to satisfy the ACCJC that they are performing the
excessive documenting, planning, and reviews of policy required by the Commission.
Some colleges under attack have been virtually forced to hire a temporary “Special Trustee” to “provide
advise and counsel, and make recommendations on all matters relating to the operation of the district” in
order to convince the ACCJC that they are serious about the threat of disaccreditation. The agreement
with the Special Trustee most often contains language that the recommendations made by the Special
Trustee will normally be accepted by the District and approved by the Governing Board. So much for the
shared governance processes required by state legislation and State Board of Governors regulations.
The colleges in California are already underfunded and the ACCJC is helping to drain these limited
resources. In addition, the ACCJC is attempting to micro-manage the fiscal and governance processes of
the colleges it accredits through fear and intimidation. Instead of helping the community colleges in
California to be successful in offering quality instruction, the ACCJC’s current micro-managing mode has
made hard times in the community colleges even harder.
The ACCJC has become a rogue accrediting body. The sanctions by the ACCJC over the years have
easily exceeded the total sanctions by all other accreditation bodies combined. The reasons for the
sanctions have little if anything to do with assuring colleges and universities that their degrees and units
represent quality. Over the last year they have continued their pattern of micro-managing district
operations without regard to the quality of education received by students. The have established an
adversarial relationship between the ACCJC and the colleges they are to accredited.
Sanctions Criteria
The criteria for the level of sanctions imposed by the ACCJC include the following:
“Issue Warning: Sanction when ACCJC finds that an institution has pursued a course deviating from the
Commission’s Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission policies.”
How much “deviation” is allowed is not spelled out. Some deviation is obviously allowed given the
number of colleges that receive no sanction but still are told to clean up some of their act in order to be in
compliance with standards. This is clearly evident by going through the college sanctions listed later in
this paper.
Page 25
“Impose Probation: Sanction when ACCJC finds that an institution deviates significantly from the
Commission’s Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission policies or fails to
respond to conditions imposed upon it by the Commission, including a warning.”
“Order Show Cause: Sanction when the ACCJC finds an institution to be in substantial noncompliance with its Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission policies, or when
the institution has not responded to the conditions imposed by the Commission. “
“Terminate Accreditation: If, in the judgment of the Commission, an institution has not satisfactorily
explained or corrected matters of which it has been given notice, or has taken an action that has placed it
significantly out of compliance with the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and
Commission policies, its accreditation may be terminated. “
The requirement to “satisfactorily explain” is particularly hard to swallow as a reason to shut down
a college.
What is the measure of when a college has “deviated,” deviated “Significantly” or is in “substantial
non-compliance”? Without more definition, how can ACCJC decisions be anything but arbitrary? Any
arbitrary decisions or decisions that are not consistent with other decisions is a violation of 34 CFR
602.18.
The ACCJC definitions of sanctions differ from those of other accreditating agencies. For example, at the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education, “The Commission acts to Warn an institution that its
accreditation may be in jeopardy when the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission
standards and a follow-up report, called a monitoring report, is required to demonstrate that the institution
has made appropriate improvements to bring itself into compliance. Warning indicates that the
Commission believes that, although the institution is out of compliance, the institution has the capacity to
make appropriate improvements within a reasonable period of time and the institution has the capacity to
sustain itself in the long term.” The ACCJC does not consider the ability of the college to continue to
operate while making corrections.
Middle States “places an institution on Probation when, in the Commission’s judgment, the institution is
not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and that the non- compliance is sufficiently
serious, extensive, or acute that it raises concern about one or more of the following:
1. the adequacy of the education provided by the institution;
2. the institution’s capacity to make appropriate improvements in a timely fashion; or
3. the institution’s capacity to sustain itself in the long term.”
ACCJC’s Extreme Number of Sanctions
From 2003 to 2008 the six regional bodies had the following sanction actions and the number of
accreditations that they performed for community colleges:
Middle States
New England
North Central
Number
95
64
243
Warnings
6
0
0
Probation
0
0
1
Page 26
Show Cause
0
0
0
Termination
0
0
0
Total
6
0
1
Northwest
Southern
Western (ACCJC)
56
298
174
0
6
75
0
1
20
0
0
12
0
0
5
0
7
112
From June 2011 to June 2012, the ACCJC continued to be an agency gone wild.
Warnings
Probation
10
0
0
5
0
0
0
2
Show
Cause
0
0
0
0
24
20
3
Middle States
New England
North Central
Northwest
Western
(ACCJC)
Termination
Total
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
7
1
48
U.S. Department of Education Pressure
Carl Friedlander in his 2013 column in the March 2013 issue of the Perspective noted that “ACCJC
argues that its ever-stricter and more directive standards and policies are the unavoidable result of
pressures and mandates from the U.S. Department of Education: pressures and mandates that escalated
dramatically under Bush/Spellings and have barely abated under Obama/Duncan. Washington D.C. is,
indeed, part of the problem. As Judith Eaton, the respected President of the Council for Higher
Education Accreditation (CHEA) describes it, ‘Federal law and rules now constrain the peer and
professional review process of accreditation, taking us down a path of accreditation as compliance
intervention—in stark contrast to its traditional collegial role.’”
“Why is accreditation turmoil concentrated in the California community colleges? I believe it's
because the ACCJC leadership, more than the leadership of any other regional commission, has
inappropriately embraced a particular "education reform" agenda. This Commission's zealotry is
roiling the system and poisoning faculty attitudes about accreditation itself.”
ACCJC Sanctions
Sanctions at January 2012 meeting
Twenty eight colleges were on sanction as of January 2012. In February 2012, the ACCJC summarized
the types of “deficiencies” that “caused” the Commission to impose a sanction of Warning, Probation
or Show Cause.
The vast majority of reasons dealt with the adequacy of procedures, reviews of programs, services,
and operations as well as whether the college adequately used assessment tools such as student
learning outcomes in the evaluation of faculty. Sanctions were rarely, if ever, based on the actual
quality and adequacy of instruction received by students. The focus of the Commission has been,
instead, on the gathering of data.
Page 27
Reasons, according to the ACCJC, given for the sanctions as of January 2012 were:
 Six colleges did not have adequate procedures and did not appropriately implement program
review of instructional programs and services.
 Twenty colleges failed to meet requirements regarding the use of assessment results in
integrated planning.
 Twenty colleges were sanctioned for deficiencies in governing board roles and
responsibilities; seven of these were colleges in multi-college districts where the key
deficiencies were in district governing board operations.
 Fourteen colleges lacked appropriate and sustainable financial management.
 Thirty colleges had miscellaneous other deficiencies, primarily related to staffing (6), library
and technology resources (4), and evaluations (4).
 Nineteen colleges were considered to have three or more areas of deficiency. Fifteen of the
colleges on sanction were instructed to work on the same “issues” as they were directed to in
their last Comprehensive Report and subsequent Follow-Up Reports.
Reasons why Colleges were on Sanctions as of January 2012 (28). Each has one or more “Areas of
Deficiencies”
Program Review
Planning using Assessment Results
Board Roles and Responsibilities
Internal Governance Issues
Financial Management or Stability
Miscellaneous Other Categories
6
20
20
5
4
30
Included under the Miscellaneous Other Conditions were: 6 for Staffing, 4 for Library and Technology
Resources, 4 for Evaluations, and 16 others.
June 8-10, 2011 Sanctions
At its meeting of June 8-10, 2011, the ACCJC took the following institutional actions:
REAFFIRMED ACCREDITATION
College of the Desert
West Hills College Coalinga
West Hills College Lemoore
Glendale Community College
Los Angeles Trade-Technical College
Palomar College
Southwestern College
PLACED ON WARNING
Cypress College
Fullerton College
Merced College
San Joaquin Delta College
Page 28
College of the Siskiyous
Berkeley City College
College of Alameda
Laney College
Merritt College
PLACED ON PROBATION
Victor Valley College
MiraCosta College
January 10-12, 2012 Sanctions
REAFFIRMED ACCREDITATION
De Anza College
Foothill College
Irvine Valley College
Lake Tahoe Community College
Mt. San Jacinto College
Saddleback College
Taft College
PLACED ON WARNING
College of Marin
Columbia College
Fresno City College
Reedley College
Solano Community College
Evergreen Valley College
San Diego Miramar College
PLACED ON PROBATION
Modesto Junior College
Moorpark College
Oxnard College
Palo Verde College
Shasta College
Ventura College
San Jose City College
PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE
College of the Redwoods
Cuesta College
Page 29
June 6-8, 2012 Sanctions
REAFFIRMED ACCREDITATION
Feather River College
College of the Siskiyous
Cypress College
Fullerton College
San Joaquin Delta College
MiraCosta College
PLACED ON WARNING
Barstow College
Berkeley City College
Laney College
Merritt College
Merced College
PLACED ON PROBATION
Los Angeles Harbor College
Los Angeles Southwest College
Victor Valley College
Moorpark College
Oxnard College
Palo Verde College
Ventura College
PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE
City College of San Francisco
January 9-11, 2013 Sanctions
REAFFIRMED ACCREDITATION
Bakersfield College
Cerro Coso Community College
Porterville College
Evergreen Valley College
Fresno City College
Reedley College
San Diego Miramar College
College of Marin
Moorpark College
Palo Verde College
Oxnard College
San Jose City College
Shasta College
Page 30
PLACED ON WARNING
Woodland Community College
El Camino College
Columbia College
Solano Community College
Cuesta College (off of SHOW CAUSE)
PLACED ON PROBATION
Yuba College
Modesto Junior College
Victor Valley College
College of the Redwoods (off of SHOW CAUSE)
PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE
College of Sequoias
Actions on California Community Colleges from June 2011 – January 2013
ACCJC
California Community Colleges
Bakersfield College
Barstow College
Berkeley College
Actions
Actions
June 2011 Jan. 2012
Actions
Actions
June 2012 Jan. 2013
RA
W
W
W
Cerro Coso College
RA
City College of SF
College of Alameda
College of Marin
College of Redwoods
College of Desert
RA
College of the Siskiyous
W
SC
W
W
RW
W
SC
P
RA
College of Sequoias
Columbia College
W
SC
Cuesta College
Cypress College
DeAnza College
El Camino College
Evergreen Valley
Feather River College
Foothill College
Fresno City
Fullerton College
Glendale College
SC
W
W
RA
W
RA
W
RA
W
RA
RA
RA
W
W
RA
RA
Page 31
Ivine Valley College
Lake Tahoe College
RA
RA
LA Harbor College
LA Southwest College
LA Trade Tech College
Laney College
Merced College
Merritt College
Mira Costa College
Modesto Junior College
P
P
RA
W
W
W
P
RA
P
P
Moorpark College
Mt. San Jacinto College
Oxnard College
Palo Verde College
Palomar College
Porterville College
W
W
W
P
RA
P
RP
P
P
P
P
RA
RP
RA
Reedley College
W
RA
RA
W
RA
Rio Hondo College
San Diego Miramar College
San Joaquin Delta College
San Joaquin Valley College
San Jose City College
Shasta College
Solano College
Southwestern College
Taft College
RA
W
P
W
RA
P
P
Total Decisions
Percentage Sanctioned
P
P
RA
P
RA
West Los Angeles College
Woodland College
Yuba College
Total Sanctions
W
RA
Ventura College
Victor Valley College
West Hills College
RA
RA
P
W
W
P
12
18
67%
15
21
71%
RA -reaffirmed accreditation
W- Warning
P- Probation
SC - SHOW CAUSE
RW - Removed from Warning
RP - Removed from Probation
Page 32
15
21
71%
10
24
42%
Colleges on Sanctions January 2009 – January 2012
Top Perceived Deficiencies Causing Sanctions
2009
2010
2011
2012
Colleges on
Sanction
Program
Review
24
19
21
28
17
13
4
6
Planning
Internal
Governance
Board
Financial Stability
or Management
22
17
15
20
11
8
5
5
11
11
14
20
13
11
13
14
The ACCJC has been focused on issues of planning, review, and the behavior of local governing boards.
There is some question of whether the action of the governing board is a proper or legal item to consider
in the evaluation of the individual colleges. The attack by ACCJC on local governing boards has
increased significantly over the last year. The Commission noted in the Summer 2012 ACCJC NEWS,
that the ACCJC recognized that “In recent years, many external events have created challenge for
colleges; funding reductions, changing public policy, turnover due to retirements, changing student
populations and needs, and the accountability movement are among them. These are challenging times,
and it is the job of a governing board to assure that an institution finds the way to adjust to the external
and internal pressures without compromising educational quality and financial integrity. Strong and
effective governing boards are critically important to institutional success and survival.” It is nice that the
ACCJC recognized these challenges, it would be nicer if they did not use these challenges to attempt to
force district to change their mission statements as well as their scope of offerings.
June 5-7, 2013 Actions
The Commission met on June 5-7, 2013. It evaluated the accreditation 46 colleges and institutions. It held
a “public session” on June 7th at which public access was severely limited. The Commission also acted on
a number of policy changes that had not been properly disclosed prior to the meeting so that interested
parties could address the proposed changes. Their action clearly violated 34 CFR 602.23(b).
One such action was to approve a new “Statement on the Process for Preserving Confidentiality of
Documents Related to Institutional Evaluations.” The new policy reads: “Commissioners, ACCJC
committee members, and members of evaluation teams, in the course of reviewing institutions, may be
given copies of confidential documents pertaining to ACCJC's business and to the institutions under
review. Confidential documents include, but are not be limited to, personal notes by the Commissioners,
team and committee members, institutional self-evaluations, team reports, committee reports, institutional
audits, letters or memos to or from ACCJC affecting the institution, draft action letters, evidentiary
documents provided by an institution, and any documents containing information that would generally be
considered proprietary by the institution.
Commissioners, team and committee members should consider all documents pertaining to an
institution as highly confidential, unless the documents are explicitly identified in writing to the
Page 33
contrary. Accordingly, Commissioners, team and committee members must take reasonable measures to
assure the confidentiality of documents in their possession and may only discuss the contents of such
documents with anyone required to have the information in connection with the matter under review.”
This action was clearly a response to the CFT complaint and was approved in order to keep secret any
activity that might be suspect in the eyes of the Department of Education. The ACCJC Bylaws Article
V, Section 5 allows the Commission to “adopt, amend, or repeal policies that deal with the internal
operations of the Commission and its staff. Actions on such policies may take place at any Commission
meeting, in open or closed session, and do not require two readings.” The above Process for
Preserving Confidentiality is not limited to Commission and staff but also includes members of
evaluation teams. As such it is not an “internal operation” and must have two readings. It only had
one and proper notice was not made. The Commission clearly violated its own bylaws in approving
this new policy.
A major focus of the Commission at its June 2013 meeting appeared to be City College of San Francisco
and its previous “SHOW CAUSE” sanction. However, in addition to CCSF, the Commission also
reviewed Allan Hancock College, American Samoa Community College, Barstow College, Berkeley City
College, Carrington College, Chabot - Las Positas Community College District, Chaffey College,
Coastline College, College of Alameda, College of the Desert, College of the Marshall Islands, College of
the Siskiyous, College of Micronesia - FSM, Copper Mountain College, Feather River College, Fullerton
College, Gavilan College, Glendale Community College, Golden West College, Hartnell College, Hawai'i
Tokai International College, Heald College, Imperial Valley College, Laney College, Los Angeles
Community College District, Los Angeles County College of Nursing & Allied Health, Los Angeles
Harbor College, Los Angeles Mission College, Los Angeles Pierce College, Los Angeles Southwest
College, Los Angeles Valley College, Merced College, Merritt College, MiraCosta College, Monterey
Peninsula College, Mt. San Jacinto College, Orange Coast College, Palau Community College, Palo
Verde College, Peralta Community College District, San Joaquin Valley College, Santa Barbara City
College, Santa Monica College, Southwestern College, and West Los Angeles College.
How they were able to fully consider all of these colleges and institutions in a three day period is
anyone’s guess. If each Commissioner was serious about how they voted they would have been required
to at least read the college’s self evaluation as well as the Visiting Team report on the college for each
college up for evaluation. As each self evaluation runs about 400 pages and each Visiting Team report
runs about 60 pages, for the 46 institutions this adds up to about over 20,000 pages of documentation to
read over a three day period. Since the proceedings and votes are not made in public or even publically
disclosed, it is impossible for me to determine how the Commissioners actually voted and what materials
they were given to look over before deciding The ACCJC was clearly in violation of 34 CFR 602.17.
The results of sanctions for the June 2013 meeting are shown in the following table. City College of San
Francisco’s accreditation was terminated effective July 31, 2014. The College Board of Trustees will
immediately be moving forward to request a review of the Commission’s decision. After this review is
made, they will then need to decide whether to challenge the decision of the Commission. In that case, a
panel will be appointed by the Commission to hear the evidence and render a decision.
Out of the twentyone colleges that were up for possible sanction, ten actually received a sanction (47.6%).
The ACCJC continues to be out of step with the rest of the nation.
Page 34
PRIOR YEAR
Barstow College
Berkeley City College
City College of San Francisco
Coastline College
College of Alameda
College of the Siskiyous
Copper Mountain College
Feather River College
Gavilan College
Golden West College
Hartnell College
Imperial Valley College
Laney College
Los Angeles Harbor College
Los Angeles Mission College
Los Angeles Pierce College
Los Angeles Southwest College
Los Angeles Valley College
Merced College
Merritt College
Orange Coast College
San Joaquin Valley College
West Los Angeles College
Total
W
W
SC
SU 12
SU 12
W
W
W
W
SU 12
SU 10
SU 09
SU 10
Actions of ACCJC June 2013
ACCREDIT WARNING PROBATION SHOW CAUSE TERMINATE
W
A
T
W
A
A
A
W
W
W
W
P
SP 08
SP 09
SU 12
SU 12
P
W
A
A
W
A
P
SU 12
W
W
W
SU 11
SU 12
SP08
W
SU 12
W
W
A
A
W
A
A
11
8
1
Trends in Deficiencies Leading to Sanction January 2009 to January 2013
According to the Summer 2013 edition of the ACCJC News, the main “deficiencies for sanction” of the
ACCJC over the period from January 2009 to January 2013 were related to Program Review, Planning,
Internal Governance, Board Roles, and Financial Stability or Management. “The proportion of
institutions with deficiencies in program review work has decreased considerably from 71% of those on
sanction in 2009 to 19% of those on sanction in 2012, then increased to 28% in 2013.” According the
ACCJC:
 The proportion of institutions with deficiencies in planning practices has decreased somewhat
from 92% of those on sanction in 2009 to 64% of those on sanction in 2013.
 The proportion of institutions with deficiencies in planning practices has decreased somewhat
from 92% of those on sanction to 64% of those on sanction in 2013.
 Internal governance deficiencies have decreased from 46% of those institutions on sanction in
2009 to 20 % of those on sanction in 2013.
 Of most concern, the proportion of institutions with deficiencies in governing board practices has
remained too high at 68% in 2013.
Page 35
1

The proportion of institutions on sanction with deficiencies in financial stability or management
has remained at or slightly above 50% since 2009.
This record indicates that ACCJC standards do not reflect commonly held beliefs on what the standards
should be.
COLLEGES ON PROGRAM PLANNING INTERNAL
BOARD FINANCIAL
SANCTION
REVIEW
GOVERNANCE
STABILITY OR
MANAGEMENT
2009
SANCTIONS
(N=24)
2010
SANCTIONS
(N=19)
2011
SANCTIONS
(N=21)
2012
SANCTIONS
(N=28)
2013
SANCTIONS
(N=25)
71%
92%
46%
46%
54%
(17)
68%
(22)
89%
(11)
42%
(11)
58%
(13)
58%
(13)
19%
(17)
71%
(8)
24%
(11)
67%
(11)
62%
(4)
21%
(15)
71%
(5)
18%
(14)
71%
(13)
50%
(6)
28%
(20)
64%
(5)
20%
(20)
68%
(14)
52%
(7)
(16)
(5)
(17)
(13)
Accreditation Agency Sanctions 2013
Accreditation Results
2013
Granted Probation Warning Show
Cause
Middle
119
3
5
States
New
26
England
North
14
2
Central
Northwest
35
2
Southern
97
4
20
ACCJC
24
5
13
1
Total
315
14
40
1
Percent
7.6%
35.7%
32.5%
100.0%
Page 36
Removal Total sanctioned
1
1
2
50.0%
127
6.3%
26
0.0%
16
12.5%
37
122
44
372
5.4%
20.5%
45.5%
15.3%
ACCJC
The above numbers were derived from reports listed on the various websites of the accreditation
agencies. As in the past, ACCJC exceeded other agencies by a wide margin in the number of
sanctions levied. In short, ACCJC continues to be out of control.
ACCJC Actions of January 8-10, 2014
During its two day private meeting and one day public meeting, the Commission made 74 decisions (the
majority of which were made during the private meeting days). The Commission obviously does not take
much time to have discussion on actions. Since the behavior at the private meeting portion is not made
public, it is unclear to the public the process used for deciding issues or the role that staff play in directing
the discussion.
The decisions:
Reaffirmed Accreditation on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation: 8 colleges
Issued Warning on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation: 1 college
Continued on Warning on the basis of a follow-up report with visit: 1 college
Removed from Warning and Reaffirmed Accreditation on the basis of a follow-up report with a visit: 4
colleges
Removed from Warning on the basis of a follow-up report with visit: 1 college
Removed from Probation; Issue Warning on the basis of a follow-up report with visit: 1 college
Removed from Show Cause and Issued Warning on the basis of a Show Cause Report with visit: 1
college
Removed from Show Cause and Reaffirmed Accreditation on the basis of a Show Cause Report with
visit: 1 college
Reviewed and continued accredited status with midterm report: 10 colleges
Reviewed and continued accredited status with follow-up report: 1 college, 1 district
Reviewed and continued accredited status with report with visit: 7 colleges
Denied the Review request of CCSF: 1 college
Actions on Substantive Change Committee Actions: 17 colleges
First Reading Policies Approved: 5
Second Reading Policies Adopted: 3
Operational Policies and Documents Adopted: 2
Revisions between Commission Meetings: 6
Eliminated Policies: 3
ACCJC SANCTIONS OF JANUARY 2014 – A NEW DIRECTION?
ACCJC Actions of January 2014
California Community
Page 37
Colleges
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TOTAL
In addition, Antelope Valley, College of Marin, Evergreen Valley,
Moorpark,
Mt. San Antonio, Oxnard, Saddleback, San Diego Mesa,
San Diego Miramar, San Diego City, San Jose City, and Ventura
Colleges had midterm reports and continued in accreditation
status.
Also, after follow-up reports, DeAnza, Fresno City, Shasta, and
the Los Angeles Community College District were continued in
accreditation status.
Finally, after follow-up reports and visits the following colleges
continued
in accreditation status: Antelope Valley, Bakersfield, Cerro Coso,
College of the Redwoods, Cuesta, Palo Verde, Porterville,
Reedley,
and Windward.
The Committee also approved the CCSF closure report.
Page 38
13
4
TERMINATE
X
X
X
X
X
X
SHOW CAUSE
PROBATION
WARNING
ACCREDIT
CABRILLO COLLEGE
CANADA COLLEGE
COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO
CUYAMACA COLLEGE
GROSSMONT COLLEGE
SKYLINE COLLEGE
SIERRA COLLEGE
WOODLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE
COLUMBIA COLLEGE
CUESTA COLLEGE
SOLANO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
COLLEGE OF THE REDWOODS
MODESTO JUNIOR COLLEGE
VICTOR VALLEY COLLEGE
EL CAMINO COLLEGE
YUBA COLLEGE
COLLEGE OF THE SEQUOIAS
Out of Touch With California Educational Environment
The ACCJC seeks to improperly and contrary to California law impose standards for faculty
evaluation. Evaluation is an area of collective bargaining. The team recommendation "that the evaluation
of faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated student learning
outcomes include a component that assesses the effectiveness in bringing about those learning outcomes"
is not something that the ACCJC can legally require under California law.
Another area where the ACCJC does not follow California’s regulations occurs when it looks at the
adequacy of the district’s financial status. For example, in the case of CCSF the Evaluation Team found
that “While the reserves meet the minimum California community college requirement, it is well
below a minimum prudent level, as demonstrated by an increase in short-term borrowing to meet cash
flow needs.” Again the Commission does not recognize what colleges must do in order to meet their
student needs in this time of California’s financial crisis. CCSF should be commended not condemned
for effectively using all resources available to it in order to properly serve its students.
The disinterest in California and federal law and practice is emphasized in the ACCJC Team Evaluator
Manual. On page 23 of the August 2012 Manual it advises visiting teams that “Recommendations
should not be based on the standards of governmental agencies, the legislature, or organizations.”
Public Disclosure and Retaliation
Colleges are loath to complain about the fairness of an accreditation. The ACCJC has not refrained from
answering complaints before the press. This is encouraged under a section of the Public Disclosure rules
of the ACCJC: “If an institution conducts its affairs so that it becomes a matter of public concern,
misrepresents a Commission action, or uses the public forum to take issue with an action of the
Commission relating to that institution, the Commission President may announce to the public,
including the press, the action taken and the basis for that action, making public any pertinent
information available to the Commission.”
“The Commission does not ordinarily make institutional self evaluation reports, the external evaluation
reports or the Commission action letters public. Should the institution fail to make the institutional self
evaluation report, the external evaluation report, or Commission action letter available to the public as per
the institution's responsibilities for public disclosure contained in this policy, or if it misrepresents the
contents of the reports, the Commission will release the reports to the public and provide accurate
statements about the institution's quality and accreditation status.”
Again, the cloak of silence: “In order to assure the accuracy and appropriateness of institutional
information which is made public, the Commission expects evaluation team members to keep confidential
all institutional information read or heard before, during, and after the evaluation visit. Except in the
context of Commission work, evaluation team members are expected to refrain from discussing
information obtained in the course of service as an evaluation team member. Sources of information that
should remain confidential include the current Institutional Self Evaluation Report; previous External
Page 39
Evaluation Reports; interviews and written communication with campus personnel, students, governing
board members, and community members; evidentiary documents, and evaluation team discussions.”
California Community Colleges Task Force
In October of 2009 the Consultation Council of the California Community Colleges Task Force on
the ACCJC stated the following:
“In the spirit of collaboration, and with the belief that accreditation is necessary and important, we
provide the following recommendations to the ACCJC to enhance the process, especially as it applies to
the California Community Colleges. We pledge our ongoing support to this effort to ensure the success of
accreditation, the ACCJC and the California Community College System.
Recommendations to ACCJC from Task Force
1.
Develop a means for colleges to provide periodic feedback to ACCJC on the accreditation
processes and their experiences, including both commendations for what went well and identification of
what needs improvement.
2.
Strengthen standards-based training of both visiting-team members and ALOs. Consider
instituting an annual multi-day statewide California Community College conference to provide training
and information to all interested constituencies. This could be co-presented with the Academic Senate
and the CC League at the November annual CCC conference. Colleges could also present their best
practices.
3.
Review the ACCJC visiting-team selection process and consider means to involve a wider
cross-section of the individuals in our system who desire to participate. Team participation should be
treated as a professional development opportunity.
4.
Scale accreditation expectations of Western Region colleges to benchmarks formulated relative
to evidence of best practices documented in all of the accrediting regions in the country.
5.
Consider lengthening the cycle of accreditation to 8 -10 years.
6.
Employ cooperative ways to have accreditation result in improvement rather than just
compliance. Also, develop more non-public ways to communicate to campuses their need for
improvement.
7.
Avoid recommendations that encroach on negotiable issues.”
When Jack Scott, Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, requested that he be allowed to
address the ACCJC on the above list of recommendations - his request was initially rejected. Later,
after a hastily called executive session, he was allowed to speak for a couple of minutes. This is an
Page 40
example of the contempt that the ACCJC shows to its California community college representatives as
well as their interest in listening to the voices of the field.
ACCJC Response to Concerns of Chancellor Scott and the Task Force
The ACCJC responded in writing to Jack Scott on January 20, 2012. The response was the same sort of
purfunctory and self-serving response that has become common. It is certainly not an example of the
unbiased judgment required under 34 CFR 602.23( c ). The response spends much space on listing all of
the trainings and workshops they now provide - in short the lack of responsibility to have more real
interchange with the faculty and others in the colleges.
On point 1, the Commission stated that “the Commission believes it is getting ample feedback from its
member institutions and from individuals engaged in accreditation activities.” This despite the stated
feelings of the Consultation Task Force.
On point 2, the letter states “In the same spirit of collaboration with which you offered your suggestions,
the Commission wishes to suggest that the Chancellor's Office endorse the philosophy and set the
expectation that all California Community Colleges meet or exceed accreditation standards, and that
college CEOs support and engage themselves in the efforts needed to develop their own staffs' capacities
to understand and apply the standards in order to help their own institutions achieve educational
excellence. The vast majority of California Community Colleges already do this, but those that are
struggling, and presumably those that believe they need more training, also need the leadership of the
CEO and the ALO at their own campuses. The Chancellor's Office might encourage the CEOs of those
California Community Colleges in need to make a greater effort to attend the workshops and
presentations that the Commission sponsors, as well as send their staffs to such trainings. They can
also be encouraged to contact the Commission directly for assistance.”
On point 3, “The Commission fields approximately 13 comprehensive teams each semester,
approximately 26 per year. This means there are only approximately 52 slots per year available to give
first time team members their first experience.
Those approximately 52 slots are divided among evaluators in all ranks used on evaluation teams —
administrators, faculty, institutional researchers, CFOs, trustees, etc. Therefore, each group may perceive
that few new evaluators are selected each year. Some kinds of expertise are in higher demand than
others and will receive more of the "slots" for first time team members than others.”
On point 4, “the ACCJC must evaluate institutions against its own Standards of Accreditation, and will
continue to do so. “ No explanation is given as to why the ACCJC is so out of line with the other
accreditation agencies.
On point 5, “Institutions are expected to be in compliance with the Standards at all times, not just during
the peak of the accreditation cycle.“
On point 6, “It is no longer sufficient to use the accreditation self study and team review as the only form
of evaluation or assessment of institutional and programmatic quality.”
Page 41
“The genie is out of the bottle on this issue. The Commission moved to all public sanctions many years
ago in response to pressures from the Department of Education. The increasing public, student and
government interest in institutional quality has created a climate in which more information about
accreditation decisions is demanded.” This standard of public disclosure has not yet been adopted
by the ACCJC with regard to its own workings and the need for more information on how the
ACCJC reaches its conclusions. Public disclosure is great for the colleges but not for the ACCJC?
Carl Friedlander, a member of the Task Force, notes in the March 2013 issue of the Perspective that “In
response to a recommendation from the 2009 Chancellor's Office Accreditation Task Force to ‘develop
more non-public ways to communicate to campuses their need for improvement,’ ACCJC President
Barbara Beno replied that ACCJC ‘moved to all public sanctions...in response to pressures from the
DOE.’ Yet other regional accrediting commissions continue to treat and describe ‘Warning’ as ‘a private
sanction.’ So is it D.C. or Novato (where ACCJC is based) demanding that all sanctions be public?”
On point 7 the ACCJC avoids completely the legality of encroaching on issues of collective
bargaining. “This would not be in the best interests of institutional quality nor of students. The ACCJC's
institutional membership includes institutions with and without collective bargaining units. It is the
Commission's obligation to the public and to member institutions that the standards be applied uniformly
to all institutions that choose to be accredited by the ACCJC. The existence of labor contracts does not
exempt any accredited institution from meeting all accreditation standards and policy directives.
Member institutions are responsible for labor relations matters at their own institutions. Labor unions are
encouraged to raise any direct concerns with their own institutions.” Under this policy, how does a
college recognize college law and ACCJC demands at the same time? Which trumps which? It may take
a court case for this issue to be decided.
The letter closes with the following “The Commission remains open to continuing and even expanding,
where possible, its training collaborations with the California Community College system-wide
organizations within the context of the information provided above.
The Commission thanks you for your suggestions, hopes that this response has been informative, and
encourages your support for institutional adherence to the Standards of Accreditation as a means
to support institutional quality among the California Community Colleges and greater student
success.”
The RP Group Findings of February 2011
The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group) published its research
findings regarding community college accreditation policies and practices in February 2011. The title of
the report was “Focusing Accreditation on Quality Improvement.” Robert Gabriner directed this project
and was, at that time, the director of the RP Group’s evaluation division. He also serves as the director of
the doctoral program in educational leadership at San Francisco State University. He served as an
accreditation liaison officer and member of numerous accreditation teams over the past twenty years.
Before being employed at San Francisco State University he worked at the community college level for
forty years as a faculty member, dean of research and planning and vice chancellor for advancement at
City College of San Francisco.
The research project grew out of a conversation at a joint conference of the Research and Planning Group
Page 42
for California Community Colleges (RP Group) and the Chief Information Systems Officers Association
(CISOA) held in April 2009. The RP Group's board was concerned with the increasing number of
community colleges in the state receiving sanctions from the ACCJC. Concerns revolved around the
training of visiting evaluation teams, inconsistent application of accreditation standards by the
commission, ACCJC’s focus on compliance instead of on student success and institutional improvement,
and the degree of culpability on the part of the colleges being sanctioned. The RP Group decided to look
at practices of other regional commissions and compare what was happening in California with what was
happening elsewhere across the country.
The Preface to the report states that “The RP Group knew that weighing in on this issue held some risk;
the debate on accreditation was growing contentious. ACCJC asserted that college leadership had to take
responsibility for the sanctions received by their institutions, while college leadership pointed to the
commission as the problem. Wasn’t it safer for the RP Group to let the institutions work with ACCJC and
stay on the sidelines?” In the end, they decided to go forward with “the hope of moving the discussion in
a positive direction.” Even though the report did not have that effect as the controversy is even more
heated today, as this paper points out, but the findings are worth looking at. One note of interest is that
Barbara Beno, current President of the ACCJC, was one of the founders of the RP Group.
To find out what was happening with regard to the ACCJC the RP Group interviewed staff and faculty
from five colleges in the region. In order to keep remarks confidential the five colleges were denoted by
College A, B, C, D, and E. The need to keep them confidential may result as much from fear to speak
truthfully about the excesses of the Commission as it is a sometimes used research procedure.The colleges
were both large and small, urban and suburban.
Their results echo the concerns of this paper.
Three of the five CEOs from the colleges were “dissatisfied with ACCJC’s approach” to compliance. One
is quoted as saying “I don’t know how much compliance really improves us all especially if its strict
compliance with the attitude the commission has exhibited in the recent past in that you will do it our
way.”
One faculty member was quoted as saying “The self-study should be about celebrating what you do well
and identifying what needs to improve and not just how we can best get through this nightmare.” Many of
the faculty and staff responded in a similar manner but some administrators felt that the tough
accreditation application help force faculty to adapt more readily to changes forced on the colleges by the
ACCJC and gave them the leverage they needed to force change. As one CEO said “Many times its been
a nice stick to get people to change.” In short, it made some CEOs job easier. The use of a stick is one
way of educating but not one that most educators believe in today as a way of making real and productive
changes. Of course the fact that between 2004 and 2008, a total of 40 California community colleges had
received a sanction makes the argument stronger for the CEO that needs to use a stick in order to get the
attention of his or her faculty and staff.
This was reflected in the belief by many of those interviewed that “ACCJC has not succeeded in creating
a culture in the region that focuses on quality improvement” and that the “actions of the commission
appear to emphasize compliance over improvement and process over outcomes.” In short, “a commission
that emphasizes compliance rather than improvement, real and lasting change is difficult to achieve.”
One ALO noted that “the high proportion of institutions on sanctions has created a culture of fear among
Page 43
California community colleges.” Avoiding sanctions was critical to most respondents, not the need to
make actual institutional improvements or focus on the actual teaching that goes on in the institution.
An IR director was quoted as saying that “We switched from seriously looking at program review as
improvement, with always some worry about compliance, to just focusing on compliance. Our
administrators are so overloaded that they’re just trying to comply. They have a lot more work to do and
their attitude has shifted more towards survival and we get through this.” This feeling is repeated many
times in the report.
Many of those interviewed did not believe that the Commission and its staff helped colleges very much
and did not look carefully at their own practices. They felt that “the commission is not being receptive to
constructive criticism and not encouraging feedback from the colleges and expressed concerns about
retaliation. One CEO said it directly: “People are fearful to give open, honest feedback for fear of
retribution.” In talking to a number of people across the state, I have found the feeling of fear of reprisal at
epidemic levels. Some might even connect the issuance of the RP report with the SHOW CAUSE
sanction on CCSF.
There was also much concern on the part of those interviewed that the Commission was not consistent in
the application of sanctions. As one ALO said “teams are at times unclear what warrants a sanction and
what the distinction between being placed on warning or probation.” Many of the responses to the RP
Group involved how much harsher to Commission was a compared to the visiting teams in the placement
of sanctions. The group found that “interviewees expressed two concerns related to a perception that the
commission did not value the work or ju judgment of the evaluation teams. First interviewees commented
that the commission makes changes to team reports and second, that the commission will take more
severe action than what was recommended by the evaluation team. The CEOs from Colleges A, B, and D
all had served as evaluation team chairs and all reported having experienced one of both of these results.”
“College B’s CEO, who has chaired several evaluation teams, shared that the commission’s action on
accreditation status was in every case more severe than what his last three teams recommended.”
Training for evaluation teams was criticized on a number of grounds including “you can’t train somebody
for two days and think they understand accreditation.” Some descriptions of the ACCJC training were:
20.
Waste of time
21.
horrible, nothing but talking heads, very confusing and mystifying process and kind of unrealistic
too
22.
not effective or engaging
23.
little value
24.
massive PowerPoint slide presentation that’s almost too fast to learn anything
25.
inconsistent information
26.
lack of applicable training and absence of quality assurance
27.
conflicting information at different trainings
28.
emphasis on rules and policies, but not how to apply them
In short, “ACCJC respondents indicated that the commission’s training lack cohesion and shared concerns
about the timing, quality, consistency and relevance of the commission’s offerings.” “The commission
shared that in their view, colleges and constituent groups should lead training and effective practice
sharing.” Their capacity was limited by the size and scope to address a full professional development
program.
Page 44
One question that stuck out in the study was whether the amount of work necessary to write a successful
college report as well as the work involved in making big changes in a short period of time were justified
by the changes made. Most of those responding said that benefits achieved through ACCJC accreditation
did not justify the “significant amount of time, effort and resources invested by institutions in the
accreditation process and in particular the development of the self-study report.”
Attacks on Board of Trustee Members
Among the reasons given for sanctions for twenty colleges at the January 2012 meeting of the ACCJC
were “deficiencies in governing board roles and responsibilities; seven of these were colleges in multicollege districts where the key deficiencies were in district governing board operations.”
The ACCJC has entered a stage of micro-managing of district-level operations through sanctions on the
colleges of multi-college districts. This includes attempting to dictate to college governing boards how
they should operate. Actions against districts has been illustrated by recent actions related to the Ventura
County Community College District, the Peralta Community College District, the San Jose-Evergreen
Community College District, and the State Center Community College District.
Standard Ten of the ACCJC relates to elected Boards of Trustees in the community colleges. In Section
A. Governing Board it calls for:
“A.1 The governing board is an independent policy-making board capable of reflecting the public interest
in board activities and decisions. It has a mechanism for providing for continuity of board membership
and staggered terms of office.
A.2 The governing board ensures that the educational program is of high quality, is responsible for
overseeing the financial health and integrity of the institution, and confirms that institutional practices are
consistent with the board-approved institutional mission statement and policies.
A.3 The governing board establishes broad institutional policies and appropriately delegates responsibility
to implement these policies. The governing board regularly evaluates its policies and practices and revises
them as necessary.
A.4 In keeping with its mission, the governing board selects and evaluates the chief executive officer and
confirms the appointment of other major academic and administrative officers.
A.5 The size, duties, responsibilities, ethical conduct requirements, structure and operating procedures,
and processes for assessing the performance of the governing board are clearly defined and published in
board policies or by-laws. The board acts in a manner consistent with them.
A.6 The governing board has a program for new member orientation and governing board development.
A.7 The board is informed about and involved in the accreditation process.”
While the above may seem reasonable on its fact, the actual application is quite different. The ACCJC
under Beno’s leadership is attempting to dictate how governing board members behave as elected public
servants and how they should act against trustees that are not following the district party line.
Barbara Beno at the California Community College Trustees Annual conference held on May 5, 2012
cautioned those in attendance that "boards must recognize which members need help, and then provide
the help." She goes on to claim that "Only the board can regulate its members!" This statement, of course,
Page 45
overlooks the role of the voters to decide whether they approve of the behavior of their elected board
members.
In her presentation Beno noted the following steps for "Improving Board Performance"
•
Board Policies
•
New Trustee Orientation/Changes in BOT
•
Mentoring
•
Prompt Feedback/Correction when Behaviors Stray
•
Continuous Training
•
Individual Training
•
Board Warning
•
Board Censorship
•
Legal Action
Presumably, if the above are not followed by a board, sanctions on their district will follow.
Beno is a strong advocate for no dissenters on the board. She has been quoted in training before
administrators and trustees as saying that "once the board reaches a decision, it acts as a whole. It
advocates for and defends the institution and protects it from undue influence or pressure." There should
be an expectation of a "commitment to board decisions.” She wants boards to "avoid public conflict" and
once a decision is made, all board members must publically support the action of the board or "risk an
accreditation ding." This is not the way democracy should work nor is it the role of accrediting agencies
to dictate to governing boards how they will function, but if local governing boards were to seriously
follow her advice to defend and protect from undue influence or pressure, then they should make clear to
all what the ACCJC is doing to destroy their districts.
Beno calls on boards to "represent the entire community and not single interests." Although not stated
above, Beno's major target for “undue influence” are the unions that help elect governing board members
and the students and community members that speak at board meetings. On a number of occasions,
including at a recent conference of the Community College League of California, Beno spoke to unions
having undue influence on "problem boards." With regard to unions she is quoted as saying "Frankly, the
unions come in and institutional effectiveness is politically driven." She stated that "some boards are so
politcally weak, they cave to contracts they can't afford. Although they are elected by some folks, once
they take office they need to stay focused on institutional effectiveness. If you keep this in mind, it will
help you from being distracted and bending to political pressure." Again, not much understanding of
democracy and how it works.
Beno does not want Boards to "micro-manage" the district but rather leave the responsibilities and
authority to implement and administer board policies to the local CEO "without board interference." The
operation of the district is to be in the hands of the CEO instead of the elected board.
Among the many recent “dings” for discussing public issues in public are the following:
Los Angeles Southwest College
The Visiting Team at Southwest College accurately described the Los Angeles Community College
District as being run by a publically elected board. “LASC is one of nine constituent colleges of the Los
Page 46
Angeles Community College District (LACCD). The District Board of Trustees is a seven-member
policy-making body. Board members are elected for four-year terms district-wide by voters in the city of
Los Angeles and in neighboring cities without their own community college districts. Elections are
staggered, with three or four seats filled every two years. An advisory student member is elected annually
district-wide. The Board governs through policies that ensure and secure the academic and fiscal integrity
of the constituent institutions. A policy on conflict of interest assures that conflicting interests are
disclosed, and do not interfere with the impartiality of board members in decision-making.”
In their “Findings and Evidence they found that: “The Board of Trustees is an independent policy making
body that serves the public's interest; uniting to support local planning decisions made through shared
governance processes. In the self-evaluation of Standard IVB.I.a, the board members are reported to work
together collaboratively; however, in their recent Board Self-Evaluation (spring 2012) there is evidence
that describes the Board's communications to be disrespectful of one another and the administration.
In interviews, the Board Members described spirited dialogue rather than arguments, and reported that
their outcomes were better vetted through this open communication style. Additionally, the evaluation
described some board members as coming to the meetings unprepared and not giving their full attention
to speakers during board meetings.”
“Recently in the Board of Trustees Self-Evaluation Survey, participants reported that the Board focuses
too much on processes that should be delegated and not enough time on policy matters; that the work of
the Board of Trustees Committees is departing from oversight and policy level and becoming
directive at the operational level, to include micro-managing the Chancellor and his decisions. The
Board has been participating in several retreats this year and has one more planned before the end of the
academic year. Evidence from interviews of trustees reveals a willingness to continue to refine their roles
and attend to issues of collaboration, delegation and focused responsibilities. “
Ventura College
In the letter of February 1, 2012 to Ventura College the Commission stated the following: “Commission
Concern: The team report confirmed that the board development activities had been provided and all
board members were encouraged to attend. At the same time, the team expressed concern about the
consistency and long-term sustainability of the Board’s demonstration of its primary leadership role and
reiterates its recommendation for evidence of ongoing professional development for all Board
members. Specifically, the Commission notes a particular board member’s disruptive and
inappropriate behavior and the entire board’s responsibility to address and curtail it.” I have
addressed this issue elsewhere in this paper.
It is clearly time for governing board members to organize themselves and confront the ACCJC on its
attempt to interfere with the functioning of democratically elected boards. After all, the governing boards
are not playgrounds where children are to be disciplined for bad behavior but rather a part of the
sometimes dynamic democratic process in California.
Page 47
City College of San Francisco - PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2012),
ACCREDITATION REMOVED (2013)
In June of 2012, the City College of San Francisco was placed on Show Cause by the ACCJC. Prior to
that time no sanctions were in place against City College of San Francisco. In short, CCSF went from
accreditation with no sanctions to Show Cause why the institution should not lose its accreditation.
There appears to be no sense of progressive discipline. In addition, CCSF was charged with not
addressing suggestions from past visiting teams that were not considered violations by the
Commission itself at that time.
In a shocking disclosure from the ACCJC report seeking to discredit CFT’s complaint it seems that
“CCSF did not contradict or disagree with the team report and chose not to provide additional
mitigating evidence nor attend the Commission meeting in June 2012 where the report was
discussed.”
The City College of San Francisco sanction to cease operations is another good example of how the
ACCJC prioritizes it work.
The ACCJC, at its meeting June 6-8, 2012, considered the institutional Self Study Report, the report of
the evaluation team which visited City College of San Francisco Monday, March 12-Thursday, March 15,
2012, and the additional materials submitted by the College. Contained in a letter from ACCJC President
Barbara Beno was the following: "The Commission is compelled to order Show Cause and to require that
the College complete a Show Cause Report by March 15, 2013." "City College of San Francisco must
show cause why its accreditation should not be withdrawn by the Commission at its June 2013
Commission meeting." "The burden of proof rests on the institution to demonstrate why its accreditation
should be continued." This is a clear example of Commission policy – guilty unless the district can prove
itself worthy.
CCSF is now ordered to “develop an overall plan of how it will address the mission, institutional
assessments, planning and budgeting issues identified in several of the 2012 evaluation team
recommendations, and submit a Special Report describing the plan by October 15, 2012."
In terms of the quality of the program, the visiting team found that CCSF:
 “operates in accordance with a mission statement that is comprehensive and clearly defined.”
 “The mission statement is appropriate to the college as a degree-granting institution of higher
education with a commitment to its local community.”
 “is fully operational and has students who are actively pursuing programs of study in its degree
and certificate programs.”
 “offers degree programs that are appropriate to and congruent with its mission, are based on
recognized higher education fields of study, and are of sufficient content and length to ensure
quality. Noncredit classes and programs also are offered with appropriate rigor and in
accordance with the college’s mission.”
 “defines and incorporates into all of its degree programs a substantial component of general
education designed to ensure breadth of knowledge and promote intellectual inquiry.”
 “The faculty members are qualified to conduct the institution’s programs and services and meet
state-mandated minimum requirements.”
Page 48

“provides specific, long-term access to sufficient information and learning resources and services
to support its mission and instructional programs through a variety of formats, including library
collections, media centers, computer labs, and other means.”
In short, the team found that “The college is to be commended for embracing all aspects of its mission
and for the dedication of its staff to understanding and responding to the needs of the communities
served by the college.” Of course, all of this will be lost if CCSF loses its accreditation as proposed by
the ACCJC board.
Show Cause was ordered for City College of San Francisco (CCSF) because the ACCJC felt that City
College of San Francisco (CCSF) had "failed to demonstrate that it meets the requirements outlined in a
significant number of Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards. It has also failed to
implement the eight recommendations of the 2006 evaluation team; five of these eight were only partially
addressed, and three were completely unaddressed." It must be noted that CCSF received full
accreditation in 2006 and as such, could not have any deficiencies. In short, there was no requirement by
the ACCJC to respond to the eight “recommendations” from the 2006 evaluation team.
The emphasis of the ACCJC was on such items as assessments, planning, budgeting, and adapting
to the new realities of underfunded community colleges which should therefore reduce their
missions. The college is advised to stop relying on grants and contracts to provide the financial support
needed to address basic operational expenses. The college was told to stop its "longstanding pattern of late
financial audits and deficit spending." It was not pointed out that deficit spending was possible
because of large reserves built up over the previous years.
The belief by the Commission that CCSF was wrong in spending down reserves is interesting in
light of the 10 percent dues to colleges increase that the ACCJC is set to put in place due to its own
use of reserves in order to address their $191,883 deficit. CCSF addressed its need for more
revenue by having a parcel tax approved by voters.
As with most colleges, the district has "not fully addressed its post-employment medical benefits
(OPEB)" (which is actually not required by law –the District did report its obligation as required)
and a "substantial underfunding of the district's workers compensation self-insurance fund.” This issue is
of particular interest given the role of Commissioner Kinsella discussed later in this paper. Instead the
District used its limited funding to maximize class offerings.
The district was also held accountable for having too few administrators and too many administrative
positions held by temporary employees. No mention was made of the large number of temporary
faculty being used to teach classes. In fact, the visiting team found that “...the college has fulfilled its
priority to hire and maintain an ample number of full-time faculty to meet the instructional mission of
the college.” This in spite of the reported fact that the college employed 810 full-time faculty and more
than 1,000 part-time faculty.
The ACCJC claimed that from their point of view "the College lacks adequate numbers of
administrators with the appropriate administrative structure and authority to provide oversight and
leadership for the institution's operations." This may stem from the strong shared governance structure of
the college. This shared governance climate has, in the ACCJC's mind, "kept City College of San
Page 49
Francisco from adapting to its changed and changing fiscal environment." That is, the need to reduce the
mission has been thwarted by the governance structure in place.
One of the characteristics of CCSF shared by most community colleges in California is the lack of "a
funding base, financial resources or plans for financial development that are adequate to support student
learning programs and services, to improve institutional effectiveness, and to assure financial stability." It
would be good if the ACCJC pointed that out to the State Legislature and the Governor.
One of the biggest crimes of CCSF is that it "has failed to follow Commission directives to address the
deficiencies noted by the 2006 evaluation team." Later it is noted that "The Commission wishes to remind
you that while an institution may concur or disagree with any part of the report, City College of San
Francisco is expected to use the Evaluation Report to improve educational programs and services and to
resolve issues identified by the Commission."
Another issue that was brought up several times concerned the measuring of "the intended student
learning outcomes at the course, program, general education, and certificate and degree levels." The
value of SLOs as a way to improve instructions is still widely disputed among academics. Many
members of the community college faculty believe it is just another passing fad that the ACCJC is
attempting to force on all colleges and their faculty.
The visiting team also recommended "that the college identify, develop and implement assessments of
student learning, and analyze the results of assessment to improve student learning. The results of ongoing
assessment of student learning outcomes should foster robust dialogue and yield continuous improvement
of courses, programs and services and the alignment of college practices for continuous improvement."
As a mathematician I find the concept of "continuous improvement" mathematically flawed. "The team
recommends that the institution systematically assess student support services using student learning
outcomes and other appropriate measures." How to do this is at best vague.
Even though the college does not have enough money to provide all the classes that it should be offering,
the visiting team suggests that it spend their limited funds to " engage the services of an external
organization to provide a series of workshops for all college constituencies, including the members of the
governing board, the chancellor, faculty, staff, students and every administrator, in order to clarify and
understand their defined roles of responsibility and delineated authority in institutional governance and
decision making." No recommendation was made as to the identity of such an external organization or
how much the district could expect to pay for such external “enlightenment.” It was also not clear if the
workshops should inform those in attendance regarding the roles defined in California laws and
regulations or rather just concentrate on the ACCJC Standards (which are often not consistent with
California’s laws and regulations including those deriving out of AB 1725 and the Rodda Act).
The College first hired “Interim Chancellor” Pamila Fisher. Fisher retired as chancellor of the Yosemite
community College in 2004. At a radio interview on July 6, 2010, Dr. Fisher stated that "Ninety-two
percent of our costs are in personnel and that is much larger than the state average with respect to
personnel costs. So we're going to have to address personnel costs. The number of people we have, the
compensation, the way people are compensated for certain kinds of work, the reassigned times -- there are
a lot of issues there that relate to or contribute to that 92 percent."
"The state has redefined the mission of community colleges. We are doing our darn best to still be all
Page 50
things to all people and the state has essentially said, 'You can't do that anymore.' So that means our
Board of Trustees and our campus leadership are going to have to make some priority decisions about
what programmatic things are most critical to the city of San Francisco, and do more of some and less of
others."
In October 2012, Bob Agrella was then chosen by the state community college chancellor’s office to
serve as the “special trustee” to oversee efforts to reverse the SHOW CAUSE action of the ACCJC.
Agrella was voluntarily accepted as “special trustee” by the elected trustee board in San Francisco. Under
this arrangement the elected board continues to maintain authority but the special trustee will have veto
power over any action he deems inconsistent with the college's recovery plan. Agrella holds B.S. and
M.S. degrees in mathematics from Purdue University and a doctorate in education from Nova
Southeastern University in Florida. Nova is often used by community college administrators wishing to
hold a doctorate in order to become a college president or chancellor and it is often joked that “Nova”
spelled backwards is “Avon” due to its almost correspondence school approach to education degree
granting. Agrella receives a reported $163,236 per year in CalSTRS retirement and is reported to receive
$1,000 for each day he works for CCSF as the “Special Trustee”.
After Pam Fisher left, the District Trustees appointed interim Chancellor Thelma Scott-Skillman on
November 1, 2012. She recently retired as president of Folsom Lake College. Scott-Skillman is reported
to be receiving the same pay as Fisher received to serve as interim chancellor - $276,000 per year. And
the Commission is concerned with the high faculty salaries?
Under the newly arrived leadership of Scott-Skillman and Agrella, the district has attempted to
unilaterally cut employee salaries by 5% without bargaining as required under California law. The cuts
unilaterally imposed are on top of over $4 million in negotiated salary cuts and freezes over the last four
years. Local 2121 has filed a grievance and and an unfair labor practice charge against the district. The
College administration is also attempting to budget the funds derived from Proposition A, a voter
approved parcel tax, in a way that is in conflict with the stated purposes of the Proposition. The $79-ayear parcel tax will last for eight years and is expected to generate $17 million. The money is supposed to
be used offset budget cuts, prevent layoffs, and provide affordable, quality education to almost 100,000
students at City College's nine campuses.
The College administration is also trying to impose or bargain changes in the faculty collective bargaining
contract that would reverse gains made to part-time faculty employment rights, health care benefits, and
salaries. Nanette Asimov writing in the San Francisco Chronicle on February 28, 2013 accurately
described the positions of the faculty and the administration as “If the administration gets its way, faculty
members say, the college would be a shrunken shadow of itself, closed to many students who depend on it
for a leg up into the middle class, and an inhospitable environment for part-time faculty - the majority of
instructors - unable to earn a living wage. If the faculty vision prevails, administrators say, the college
would run afoul of the accrediting commissioners who hold its fate in their hands.” So once again we see
the power of the ACCJC to destroy the very essence of a long-time successful college through the threat
of removal of accreditation.
Resolution of the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges.
Page 51
At the Fall 2010 Meeting of the Academic Senate, delegates voted to approve the following resolution:
“Whereas, City College of San Francisco is a vital multi-cultural, multi-campus community college and
has been an essential part of the city of San Francisco since 1935;
Whereas, City College of San Francisco has always sought to provide much needed support for those in
its community that have been historically left out;
Whereas, City College of San Francisco has always served as a statewide model of strong faculty
participation in college governance and also a model for developing and maintaining appropriate salaries
and benefits for both their full- and part-time faculty; and
Whereas, City College of San Francisco values the knowledge and strength of its own faculty as they seek
to resolve their accreditation issues through a strong and fair shared governance process drawing in all
appropriate stakeholders;
Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges acknowledge City College of
San Francisco’s efforts to maintain its multi-cultural, multi-campus structure and its shared
governance process; and
Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges acknowledge the leadership of
the faculty in their efforts to solve their accreditation issues.”
CFT Complaint Filed on April 30, 2013
On April 30, 2013, the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and its City College San Francisco
(CCSF) affiliate, AFT 2121, filed a complaint and “third party comment” protesting ACCJC’s action
placing CCSF on SHOW CAUSE. The CFT attempted to file the complaint at the Novato office of the
Commission but the people working there refused to receive the complaint or even time stamp the
complaint and threatened to call the police if the CFT representative’s did not leave the office. The CFT
left the office but left the complaint at the office. The staff then locked the door to the office and pulled
the shades closed.
The complaint was directed at “the abuse of authority by the Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges in performing the functions entrusted to it by the U.S. Department of Education, and the
California Legislature. The Commission has violated nearly every Federal regulation which guides it,
disregards its own policies, misrepresents its actions or legal requirements, fails to respect the law and
public policy of the State, violates Federal common law due process and California common law fair
procedure, and acts arbitrarily, capaciously, unfairly and inconsistently in evaluating colleges and districts
throughout the State, thereby harming colleges, students, faculty and staff, boards of trustees and
ultimately the People. And that is how it evaluated City College of San Francisco in June 2012.”
The complaint can be found at the CFT website www.cft.org.
ACCJC Response to CFT Complaint
Page 52
On May 10, 2013, Sherrill Amador sent a letter to Community College Chancellors, Presidents, and
ALOs (Accreditation Liaison Officer). The letter was clearly a response to the complaint filed by CFT.
One section of the letter was titled “The ACCJC Response to Recent Events.” It noted that the CFT
filed it complaint on April 30, 2013. It did not note that the ACCJC would not receive the complaint in
their office as their office was “private property.”
The letter stated that “The complaint alleges, in part, the ACCJC engaged in irregularities when it
evaluated and placed City College of San Francisco on "show cause" on July 2, 2012. While the
complaint was presented in a format similar to legal complaints, the ACCJC does not operate as an
administrative review court. The agency has a formal Policy on Complaints Against the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, which sets forth the manner in which complaints are
handled. The ACCJC will follow that Policy in reviewing the CFT complaint. After it concludes its
review, the ACCJC will issue a formal report of its findings and a copy of that report will be provided to
the complainant. Until the ACCJC's report is issued, the ACCJC will not comment on the merits or
substance of any of the allegations in the complaint. To do so would prejudge its formal review.”
And then the letter goes on to prejudge.
The letter made no mention of my more general complaint filed electronically on the same day with
regard to the operation of the ACCJC generally and with respect to all of the community colleges
evaluated.
Although the letter states that it will “not comment on the merits or substance,” it went on to state that
“The member institution has not complained about any aspect of the ACCJC review process, which
resulted in the institution being placed on a sanction known as "Show Cause." To the contrary, chief
administrators of CCSF have consistently and publically supported the findings of the visiting team and
the decision of the Commission.” I guess this is not a comment on the complaint in the eyes of the
ACCJC. It is just reporting that the current short-term administration and Special Trustee are not fighting
for CCSF to survive. It also assumes that the college is another name for the administration.
The letter went on to argue that “The standards, policies, and procedures followed by the ACCJC in its
evaluation of CCSF are the same standards, policies, and procedures it employs when it reviews all of its
accredited institutions. These standards and policies were developed in consultation with the member
institutions of ACCJC, and represent those institutions' collective and shared ideas for practices that lead
to quality higher education. The standards and policies of the ACCJC are the result of a voluntary process
of peer review that has been ongoing in California since the creation of the ACCJC over 50 years ago.
ACCJC's standards, policies, and procedures are under continual scrutiny from the United States
Department of Education, which has consistently found that ACCJC is a reliable authority for the
accreditation of community colleges in the Western Region.” This is clearly an argument that ACCJC is
pure and clean. This is an obvious attempt to prejudge the well documented CFT complaint. The
volunteer nature of the ACCJC affiliation by colleges is clearly not true given California law that required
community colleges in California to use the ACCJC for its accreditation. The “collectively developed”
standards and policies is not consistent with the recent history of the ACCJC.
Later in this paper I discuss specifically how the ACCJC has attempted to impose its values on faculty
union/district negotiations.
Page 53
May 30, 2013 Accrediting Commission Perfunctory Response to CFT Complaint/Comment
On May 30, 2013 the ACCJC responded (or more properly, the Executive Committee of the ACCJC in
ACCJC's name responded) to the 280 page complaint/comment by the CFT by dismissing all charges out
of hand. In relation to legally based complaints the ACCJC Executive Committee stated that "the ACCJC
has no reason to believe that its policies are not fully in accordance with all applicable legal
requirements" and thus "the Committee will not address any of these allegations in this report." The fact
the CFT complaint documented, in detail, a large number of legal violations was not enough to raise any
suspicion on the part of the Committee that there were reasons that some of their policies were not
consistent with legal requirements. This alone clearly shows a lack of due diligence on the part of the
Committee in considering the CFT complain.
The Committee goes on to state that it would not respond to a number of the non-legal complaints in
writing. They then explain that "the lack of a response to a particular allegation does not imply that the
allegation has merit in the view of the Commission. To the contrary, it reflects the fact that the Committee
concluded that such allegation did not merit a reply in this report." There is no explanation of why the
allegations have no merit. Again the Commission illustrates its feeling that the conclusions of the
Commission are not subject to review based on the reasons used for such conclusions. We see this in
other areas of the report. The report is, at best, perfunctory.
After noting that CCSF was not a party to the complaint, the report states "There is no reason to believe
from a review of the Complaint that the institution agrees with or believes that any of the allegations have
merit." Of course there is also no reason to believe that the "institution" (whatever human that is) does not
agree with some of the points made in the CFT complaint. In any case, the report states that " it is fair to
conclude that those allegations are not reflective of the views, official or otherwise, of CCSF." That is a
huge leap in logic especially given the general level of fear of retaliation by the ACCJC for any perceived
disloyalty and the resulting reluctance of governing boards to confront the Commission.
The general lack of equal application of standards by the ACCJC, one of the CFT complaints, is actually
reinforced by a number of statements by the Committee. Here are a couple of examples of the looseness
of ACCJC actions taken from the Committee Report itself:


"When the Commission finds that an institution's continuing ability to meet a particular
Accreditation Standard is potentially threatened, it alerts the institution to these areas of possible
future deficiency and generally requires that the institution address them in one or more followup reports."
"The 2012 evaluation report also documented that the improvements that the institution professed
it had made in its various follow-up reports to the Commission did not appear, in fact, to have
been implemented."
With regard to the allegation that it was a conflict of interest that Barbara Beno's husband was on the team
that visited CCSF, the Executive Committee found that a conflict did not exist. The claim that her
husband was only one member of the visiting team and thus did not have the power to sway the team
loses its effect when in fact the Commission did not follow the visiting team's suggested sanction but
rather upped it to SHOW CAUSE after input from Barbara Beno (who certainly had the opportunity to
discuss the sanction privately with her husband). The conflicts of interest of other Commissioners was
also considered without merit even though at least two of the Commissioners had an interest in a finding
Page 54
the college had not adequately funded future GASB 45 retiree benefits liabilities.
The Committee did not address the fact that CCSF did meet the State Chancellor's Office requirement for
a level of reserves and replaced that well recognized standard with its own.
In conclusion, the Commission found that "the allegations in the Complaint are without merit."
The Commission sent out notices on May 23, 2013 to persons who have served on the CCSF visiting team
that they are not to speak to or provide evidence to the CFT, its lawyers, the press, or anyone else
interested in finding out what happened at the college visit. This is just another example of the ACCJC’s
attempt to keep public matters away from public scrutiny.
The Commission claimed that the visiting team members were represented by the ACCJC lawyers even
though the team members had not agreed to such representation. The letter declared, in part:
"The purpose of this memo is to inform you that, as an evaluation team member, you should consider that
you are at all times represented by our law firm in any issue that relates to review of and the sanction
imposed on CCSF.” “It is part of the service the ACCJC always affords evaluation team members if some
legal issue arises that relates to their service to the ACCJC. We have informed the Bezemek law firm that
you are represented by our law firm, and that accordingly, they may not contact you about any matter
related to the CCSF matter ..."
"You may also be contacted by someone who requests information from you who is not directly
associated with the Bezemek law firm, but who has some other association with CCSF. Again, please just
let the person know that you are represented by legal counsel in this matter and they should contact our
law firm ..."
"Finally, it is possible that you may have retained personal notes, ACCJC agendas, or copies of
documents that pertain to your service related to CCSF ... These documents are not public ... but it is
important to preserve them for the present. Under no circumstances, share any written materials you may
have retained with any third person. If anyone requests any written materials from you that relate to the
ACCJC/CCSF matter, please let me know immediately. I will advise you how you should respond ..."
"You may be contacted by someone who says they are from a news agency or some other publication. In
such a case, do not discuss the matter with them but refer them to Barbara Beno at (415) 506-0234."
This memo is a direct attempt to cover up any wrong doing by the Commission. Later in June the ACCJC
went further in their attempt to stifle debate and discussion of their findings.
The ACCJC report on the CFT complaint was consistent with letters that I have received over time from
the ACCJC as described elsewhere in this document - misleading, ill informed, and generally
unresponsive to the concerns voiced. One new wrinkle for me is that the Commission did not respond
to my complaint/comment also filed on April 30, 2013 until May 31, 2013 and that was only a notice
that they received my follow-up question of why I had not received any reply. Clearly this is a
violation of their rules.
The Department of Education has directed the ACCJC to fully investigate the CFT charges.
Page 55
Later in this paper I discuss specifically how the ACCJC has attempted to impose its values on faculty
union/district negotiations.
Letter to Chronicle of Higher Education by Commissioner Frank Gornick
ACCJC Commissioner Frank Gornick responded to a Chronicle of Higher Education article that spoke to
the shock of CCSF faculty and students when learning of the action of the ACCJC to strip the college of
its accreditation. The article by Paul Basken noted that AFor the past year, the City College of San
Francisco worked hard to meet accreditation rulesCcutting its staff, retooling its management, and
winning critical new taxpayer support. A core part of its community, the institution appeared to many to
have done just enough to save its life. Instead, last week the Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges slammed the door, saying the college simply isn't making ends meet and declaring the end
of its accreditation as of July 2014.@
Basken quoted Barbara A. Beno, in a letter announcing the Commission decision that “many of its staff
have worked very hard to move the institution forward@ but the college would “need more time and more
cohesive institutionwide effort to meet accrediting standards.” The ACCJC was unwilling to allow for the
needed time to meet the standards.
In an answer to the article Commissioner Gornick stated that AAs a member of the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, I was surprised and disappointed by the article
describing the commission=s actions on City College of San Francisco and, particularly, the
characterization of our commission as AMs. Beno=s agency@ (AStunned by Accreditor, City College of
San Francisco Suddenly Faces Hard Choices,@ The Chronicle, July 7).@ He then went on to characterize
the commission as voluntary although it is the required accreditation agency for California=s community
colleges.
Gornick then went on to claim that A In 2012, CCSF=s alignment with the standards had deviated to such
a degree that it was placed on show cause and required to describe why it should retain its accreditation.
The commission determined that CCSF had completely addressed only two of its 14 recommendations.
We were surprised to read that people were stunned about the commission=s decision when, in fact, the
college had seven years to make necessary changes. Anyone in the institution who was stunned wasn=t
paying attention.@
He then went on to state that AWe sincerely hope that CCSF, working with the California Community
College system and the City of San Francisco, will now address its challenges and reclaim its historic
position as a first-rate educational institution. We stand ready to work with all parties to accomplish that
goal.@ I am not sure Gornick was authorized to speak for the ACCJC as he seems to be in this reply.
Perhaps someone at the aCCJC helped him write the letter. In any case, Chancellor Gornick of the West
Hills Community College District certainly believes that his words reflect the thoughts of the ACCJC.
In a letter to the editor, Rick Sterling from Walnut Creek, California and a retired senior engineer at the
University of California at Berkeley and a close follower and astute commentor on what has been
occuring at CCSF responded to Gornick=s letter as follows:
Page 56
AI wish to respond to the July 16 letter from Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
member Frank Gornick regarding the decision to terminate accreditation of City College San Francisco in
2014 (AAnyone Stunned by San Francisco Decision >Wasn=t Paying Attention,=@ The Chronicle, July
16).@
AMr. Gornick says that in 2006 CCSF was found to be Anot in compliance@ with ACCJC standards. That
is not true. In 2006 CCSF retained full accreditation with no sanction (the college has never previously
been sanctioned). The accrediting commission gave six recommendations only. Coincidentally, that is
the same number of recommendations received in 2011 by Mr. Gornick=s college (West Hills
Coalinga). Would he say that his college is Anot in compliance@ because it received six
recommendations?@
AIn 2012 the accreditation commission went from no sanction on CCSF all the way to Ashow cause.@
This was accompanied by fourteen recommendations. CCSF was given nine months () to respond to all
of these while simultaneously maintaining high teaching standards and trying to counteract the flood of
negative publicity and public confusion. All this while trying to recover financially after $53-million in
reduced state funding over the previous few years. As proof of CCSF=s standing in the community, a
whopping 73 percent of San Franciscans voted to increase property taxes to support the college.@
AMr. Gornick says he is puzzled that anyone could be stunned at the decision to terminate accreditation.
However it=s a safe bet that even members of the show-cause evaluation team were shocked, because
their report and evaluation contrasts significantly with the decisions of the accrediting commission.
Unlike Mr. Gornick=s commission, the show-cause evaluation team concluded that CCSF had
addressed all of the recommendations, four of them fully and the remainder partially or on the way
to full completion.@
AMr. Gornick claims that today CCSF is not Afiscally solvent,@ Aadministratively strong@ or
Aacademically successful.@ In fact, prior to the accrediting-commission decision, the Board of Trustee
passed a balanced budget including a substantial reserve. As to the academics, CCSF is in the top tier of
community colleges. For example, in the important completion statistic, the rate for all community
colleges is 49.2 percent, for West Hills Coalinga 52.3 percent, and for CCSF 55.6 percent. In the
persistence statistic, community colleges overall average 65.8 percent, West Hills achieves 60.7
percent, and CCSF reaches 75.2 percent.@
AReaders can see from Mr. Gornick=s false assertions a little glimpse of what CCSF is dealing with on
top of everything else.@
It also brings into question whether the Commission fully understood the facts when they voted to refuse
accreditation to CCSF.
CFT Statement on CCSF Loss of Accreditation
The California Federation of Teachers will fight the decision to take accreditation away from CCSF. In
press release issued on July 3, 2013, the CFT explained that “The Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges today ordered the closure of California's largest college and a beacon of
Page 57
higher education in America’s most progressive and prosperous cities. The City College of San Francisco
(CCSF) serves 90,000 students and has produced the thousands of thousands of police officers,
firefighters, nurses and teachers who protect and serve our communities. This outrageous, ill-conceived
and unprecedented decision will have a harsh, immediate and irreversible impact on the academic future
of current students and will undermine the achievements of College alumni. “
They went on to state the following:
“We share the anger and disappointment of colleagues, dedicated professionals who have worked
tirelessly to build CCSF into one of the premier post-secondary institutions in the nation.
Make no mistake however; we will fight back.
At no point in the accrediting commission’s so-called assessment has anyone faulted the quality of
education our students receive.
This arbitrary and punitive action by the Commission, coming on the heels of numerous protests over its
illegal evaluation processes, serious conflicts of interest by its president and other representatives, and
violations of Federal and State law, reveals the extent to which the Commission is out-of-touch with its
primary mission, to recognize, and collaboratively assist colleges in meeting Federal requirements for the
benefit of their students.
The ACCJC has cultivated a climate of fear and intimidation throughout the entire community college
system. They have usurped the authority of the Chancellor’s office of the California Community College
system by involving itself in financial operations of the community colleges. Yet, efforts to raise
questions about their behavior and conflicts of interest have been followed with further sanctions against
the institutions that have dared to speak out.
The CFT believes a robust, thorough, and transparent accrediting process conducted by qualified and
legitimate educators and one that engages the entire education community is critical to developing
workable short and long-term strategies for academic achievement.
Coercion and intimidation to impose its own top down and extremist philosophies on colleges have no
place in our schools or our democratic society. This most egregious example of a reign of terror has gone
unchecked by top-level system wide bureaucrats.
The CFT will continue to stand with the students, faculty and staff of CCSF. We will work to overturn
this unjust decision that threatens the entire City College community and colleges throughout California
and the western region.
The CFT Will Fight for Students, Faculty and Staff and to Maintain A Quality Public Education for
All “
Statewide Community College Chancellor Brice Harris July 3, 2013 Statement on
Appointment of Special Trustee
Page 58
On July 3, 2013 California Community College Chancellor Brice W. Harris issued a statement that
“"As chancellor of the largest system of higher education in the nation, I cannot sit by and allow this
institution, which serves 85,000 students, to close. After consulting with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, I
have determined that the best course of action to try to rescue City College is to appoint a special trustee
with extraordinary powers to help right the institution and position it for long term success. Under the
accrediting commission's appeal process, City College can appeal the decision and work over the next
year to address the remaining deficiencies identified by the commission. It is very important to note that
City College is still open and accredited and will accept new students for the fall term."
“The community college Board of Governors will approve a special trustee entrusted with the ability to
run the college in place of the elected Board of Trustees. The current Board will be in office but without
the power to act. The new special trustee will not be given the ability to nullify collective bargaining
agreements but would be able to negotiate new contracts. A major emphasis will be to strengthen the
fiscal administration of the college. The hope is that enough movement toward meeting the demands of
the ACCJC will be made before July of 2014 to allow CCSF to continue to operate as an accredited
college.”
In a video provided to the public on July 3, 2013, Chancellor Harris stated that CCSF has not done
enough to bring the college into compliance with the standards that the community colleges of California
agreed to operate under. He claimed that CCSF did not have the luxury of time to meet the requirements
required by ACCJC. Even though the college had made progress, Harris said that it had not made enough
progress to satisfy the ACCJC and thus the need to appoint a special trustee to replace the elected trustees
at CCSF. He asked that everyone in the college community work together in order to make the changes
that would allow CCSF to continue to be accredited.
At the conclusion of the showing of Chancellor Harris’s video, he and Deputy Chancellor in the
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office Erik Skinner received the following e-mail from
Barbara Beno:
“From:Barbara Beno
To:
Harris. Brice, Skinner. Erik
Subject:
Roll out
Date: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:30:49 PM
Dear Brice:
Beautiful job. Thanks for your video statement, and for all the rest. We are staying late, watching the
various news accounts. I think generally the news is letting people know that the college may survive,
with the right leadership. I look forward to watching your efforts.
Have a good weekend.”
I am not sure what Beno means when she says that with the right leadership the college may survive. I am
not sure what Harris is talking about when he says that “work over the next year to address the
remaining deficiencies identified by the commission.” The review procedure and the appeal procedure do
not allow any new information into the hearings. There are no planned visiting teams scheduled to visit
CCSF before the July 2014 deadline. There is no requirement for the ACCJC to consider their action
except in the review and appeal process. When and who would look to see what “improvements” the
“new leadership” would bring? By the way, the “new leadership” are the same people who were running
the show when the college was denied accreditation.
Page 59
An-mail dated July 3, 2013 was sent from Beno to Scott-Skillman to Agrella stating:
“Dear Thelma and Bob,
Here is a copy of the action letter that was mailed today, certified, return receipt.
Sincerely,
Barb”
This was referring to the appointment of a special trustee (Agrella).
Current CCSF Board of Trustee member Rafael Mandelmann opposed the appointment of a Special
Trustee: “Now I’m sure that the State Chancellor is a well-meaning man, but the fact is that his people
have been in charge of the college for nearly a year, with the elected Board deferring to their direction on
all matters. The problem is not the elected Board, or the State Chancellor, or an excess of democracy at
the College. The problem is the ACCJC.”
Parallel to Compton College
The Commission review letter in the case of the denial of accreditation at Compton College does not give
much hope for a solution in the arena of Commission Review. As in all of their letters, the level of sheer
arrogance and intransigence on the part of the Commission is nothing short of shocking. It is possible that
an appeal to the ruling could serve a purpose although the appeal board is appointed by the ACCJC. If it
chooses people that have already drunk the Kool Aid, it may be that the appeal is also denied. This will
leave the Department of Education to act or the college or the CFT takes the case to court.
The setting up of a Special Trustee to run the college is exactly what was done in Compton. In Compton,
the Commission actually used the fact of the Special Trustee to assert that the College did not have a
functioning board and was thus in violation of Standard One and deserved to have their accreditation
removed. The Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) was called in to look at the
financial situation in San Francisco and it was also involved in tearing the college down in Compton. In
San Francisco the FCMAT team found what they believed to be problems with a general lack of fiscal
controls which make the college vulnerable to fraud although no fraud was found. Also decision which
affect the college’s finances are of made in order to keep peace in the college. The lack of institutional
memory due to the rapid turn over of administrative staff was also mentioned.
Comments Before the California Community College
July 8, 2013 CFT Remarks to the Board of Governors
“Board of Governor’s Public Meeting Regarding Agenda Items AA
July 8, 2013
Comment of Monica Henestroza, Legislative Director, CFT
on behalf of the California Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL-CIO
Good afternoon: My name is Monica Henestroza and I am appearing on behalf of the California
Federation of Teachers (CFT) regarding Agenda Item AA involving creation of a special trustee at the
Page 60
San Francisco Community College District. I ask that my written comments, which I will provide to the
Board, be made a part of the record of this proceeding.
The CFT and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) local 2121 vehemently oppose the decision of
the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) to deny accreditation to the
City College of San Francisco (CCSF) effective July 2014.
This punitive action by the Commission denying accreditation to CCSF, coming on the heels of numerous
protests over serious conflicts of interest by the Commission’s president and other representatives, and
violations of Federal and State law, reveals the extent to which the Commission is out-of-touch with its
primary mission of working collaboratively with member colleges in order to assist them in meeting
Federal requirements for the benefit of their students.
The Commission needs to be opened up to a rigorous and thorough review of their approach to the
accrediting process by our elected leaders and the government bodies responsible for overseeing the
Commission. ACCJC’s decision to terminate CCSF’s accreditation is certainly its most appalling
decision, but the entire California community college system has been victimized by the high-handed,
arbitrary and vindictive approach that has characterized the work of the Commission under its current
leadership for the last decade.
Although we applaud Chancellor Harris and the Board of Governors for taking steps to appeal this unjust
decision, we have both doubts and questions about the actions being taken today. Most notably, in the
case of disaccreditation of Compton Community College District, the ACCJC determined that the College
was in violation of Standard One because it did not have a functioning board of its own. In affirming its
2005 disaccreditation of Compton, the Commission specifically relied on the continued appointment of a
special trustee to disaccredit, writing:
‘The Commission notes that the Chancellor chose to extend [the authority of the special trustee] in June
2005 rather than returning the operations of Compton to its Board of Trustees.’
Ultimately, we have a tremendous level of skepticism that the accreditation climate for California
community colleges can normalize or that the educational futures of the Bay Area’s deserving students
can be restored as long as ACCJC is allowed to continue operating with its current leadership and no
effective oversight.
Since last summer City College has turned itself upside down to address the ACCJC’s demands. Much
has been achieved, but still CCSF, which has served so many so well, is now facing extreme risk of a
completely unnecessary closure. More than 80,000 students would be denied access to the quality
education CCSF provides.
We are additionally concerned that today’s action by the Board of Governors will contribute to significant
downward pressure on this fall’s enrollment. Without aggressive community outreach and a
comprehensive public relations plan geared to bolster enrollment -- something the administration over the
last year failed at miserably -- a downward spiral of enrollment decline followed by loss of funding
leading to shrinking the number of course offerings and then fewer students, etc., could ensue.
We hope that in the days and weeks ahead we will witness a new commitment to openness, transparency
Page 61
and accountability that will lead to a real inclusive process allowing for the many dedicated people at the
college and throughout the Bay Area to lend their support and participate in a process of renewal and
rebuilding of this vital California resource.
The CFT and AFT 2121 believe a robust, thorough, and transparent accrediting process conducted by
qualified and legitimate educators -- and that engages the entire education community -- is critical to
develop workable short and long term strategies for strengthening academic achievement.
We want CCSF to be an even stronger, better college. And we want an Accrediting Commission that
follows state and federal law and its own policies and procedures and that works in partnership with its
member institutions.”
Dean Murakami, representing FACCC, called for the recognition of the need for a functioning Board of
Trustees at CCSF using the example of Compton College when the State Chancellor appointed a Special
Trustee to run the district.
Jim Mahler, president of the CFT Community College Council, recommended that the Board of
Governors not pass the motion at this meeting. This would leave time to fully consider the effect of this
move on the accreditation of CCSF.
Richard Hansen of the California Community College Independents supported the other speakers and
backed up the point regarding the hard work done by the faculty at CCSF. A student spoke in favor of not
acting on the motion at this meeting but give time for students to be represented.
Scott Lay of the CCLC spoke in favor of the motion. He did not feel that it attacked the authonomy of
local districts.
The six members of the Board of Governors present voted in favor of the motion to add language to
regulations which allow for the appointment of a Special Trustee. The Board of Governors lawyer stated
that the new language could also allow the Board to appoint a Special Trustee for a college on any level of
sanction. Since the change is an emergency change it will come back at the next Board meeting for first
reading and could be changed at that point.
A number of speakers including CCSF Trustees, faculty, and students from CCSF spoke against turning
the college over to a Special Trustee. They outlined the positive changes that have been made at CCSF in
the last year as well as the high quality education that is offered at the college. The Board then approved
the appointment of a Special Trustee for CCSF.
Chancellor Harris suggested that the Special Trustee will appoint a permanent Chancellor for CCSF at
least by October of 2013. He stated that it will also be important to appoint other permanent
administrators at CCSF. Bob Agrella, the current Special Trustee, will be appointed to be the new Special
Trustee. How long he will be in the position is not known at this time. Chancellor Harris and his team will
have daily interaction with Agrella.
CFT Complaint to Department of Education July 26, 2013
Page 62
On July 26, 2013 the California Federation of Teachers filed a complaint with the Department of
Education and the ACCJC based on the ACCJC’s and the Department of Education’s responses to an
amendment to the CFT earlier complaint. The amendment to the original complaint contained, in the
words of the CFT, “charges of various new violations of Federal Regulations that had occurred since the
filing of the April 30 complaint. Among these charges was the allegation that “ACCJC's new policy to
shred documents related to institutional evaluations was a violation of their duty to maintain complete
and accurate records of institutional evaluations and reviews as prescribed by 34 CFR 602.15(b).” The
ACCJC claimed that the amendment was untimely. The CFT wrote that “We appreciate the DOE's email
of July 23, indicating that the ‘Amendment’ submitted by CFT and AFT 2121 dated July 1, 2013 will be
considered in connection with DOE's review of ACCJC for re-recognition. We understand that DOE
practice is not to accept "amendments." Nonetheless, we feel the issues raised in the Amendment are
sufficiently serious so as to merit the filing of a separate Complaint incorporating the substance of
the Amendment. Our conclusion is furthered because of the letter from ACCJC dated July 16, 2013, in
which ACCJC asserts that the CFT's July 1, 2013 complaint was "untimely." It was not "untimely." We
believe that ACCJC's unwarranted rejection of the July 1 complaint as "untimely" evidences the
Commission's practice of refusing to respond to complaints as Federal regulations require.”
The July 26th CFT complaint added one new complaint to those submitted on July 1, 2013. The new
claim is that “ACCJC has violated and continues to violate 34 CFR section 602.23(c)(1), by failing to
review in a ‘timely, fair and equitable manner’ the ‘Amendment’ Complaint filed against it by the CFT
and AFT Local 2121 on July 2, 2013, the same "amendment" submitted to the ACCJC.”
ACCJC Information to the Field - July 2013 – An Unlikely Story
Without mentioning the July 1, 2013 amendment to the CFT complaint, the ACCJC sent out the
following:
“DATE: July 26, 2013
TO: Chief Executive Officers of ACCJC Member Institutions
CC: Accreditation Liaison Officers
SUBJECT: Additional Information from CFT Complaint
The Commission wishes to respond to all elements of the complaint against ACCJC filed by the
California Federation of Teachers and others (CFT). The Commission Executive Committee's May 30,
2013 response to CFT focused on, and addressed, the substantive claims made in the complaint. The
Commission has now developed information concerning the other claims in the complaint, which is
presented in a document titled “Additional Information from the CFT Complaint.” The document
discusses these other elements in the CFT complaint and the basis for the Commission's earlier
determination that they were not material or that they did not accurately present or describe ACCJC
policies, procedures, purposes or actions.”
The July response (“Additional Information Pertaining to Executive Committee Report on the CFT
Complaint.”) was in response to the Department of Education demand that they answer the CFT
complaint more fully than they had in their earlier seven page reply (although they did not admit that to
the persons who received the note). In any case, the new report followed earlier replies to complaints with
a series of vague and often misleading comments. Of course some of the replies are statements such as
Page 63
“For approximately 50 years of ACCJC accreditation practice in the Western Region, recommendation
has been the term that refers to both the citation of standards - Eligibility Requirements (ERs),
Accreditation Standards (Standards), and Commission policies, (together commonly referred to as
standards) - about which action is taken, and to the recommendation for how an institution can address
the issue raised. Recommendations stem from the findings, analysis and conclusions in a team report,
wherein the team identifies the college's deficiencies in meeting standards. “This misses the point made
by CFT that “recommending” and “demanding” are two different things. The use of the word “can” does
not equate to the word “must.”
An interesting comment in the report comes in the context of “recommend”: “Recommendations from the
ACCJC are of two types: either ‘to meet the standard’ or ‘to increase institutional effectiveness’.
Recommendations to meet the standard are given when the institution has a deficiency in meeting
standards. Recommendations to increase institutional effectiveness (to improve) are given when the
institution may meet the level of a particular standard, but additional effort would bring the institution to
closer alignment with expectations of institutional effectiveness.” I am not sure where this distinction
appears in the ACCJC policy or whether many colleges are aware of this distinction. It certainly does not
appear in the letters to the colleges regarding the decision on the college accreditation.
The report goes on the state: “In most ACCJC comprehensive evaluation reviews, some deficiency in
meeting standards is found. Institutions are required to address all recommendations and to demonstrate
they have come into compliance with standards. When the deficiencies rise to a particular level of
concern, a sanction is assigned in accordance with the Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions.”
This is a strange statement given the often made comment in the letters to the college that “I wish to
inform you that under U.S. Department of Education regulations, institutions out of compliance with
Standards or on sanction are expected to correct deficiencies within a two-year period or the Commission
must take action to terminate accreditation. X College must correct the deficiencies noted or the
Commission will be required to take adverse action.”
The report has the interesting statement that “Beginning in 2008, the ACCJC shifted its interpretation of
this regulation. Whereas prior to that time, the Commission had applied the regulation to deficiencies
noted as a part of a sanction, it was clarified during the 2007 U.S. Department of Education recognition
review of ACCJC that regulatory intent was for the language "not to be in compliance with any standard"
to apply to all deficiencies in compliance with standards. Further, the time requirement for an
institution to "come into compliance within a period not to exceed two years" began to run when the
deficiency was first noted as such.” The problem here is whether there are any “deficiencies” if a college
is not given any sanction. This is what happened at City College of San Francisco when it received
accreditation year after year and then suddenly was to be held to suggestions made by a visiting team
many years before.
I was also interested in the statement “As mentioned in the CFT complaint, there is a regulatory provision
for a good cause extension of the two year limit for an identified deficiency. However, the good cause
extension is far from an entitlement; it is applicable in limited circumstances, such as when the deficiency
will be fully resolved upon an action by an external body which has the authority to do so.” Again CCSF
comes to mind given their good faith effort to meet demands under the short time-line allowed. Given
time the Visiting Team report indicated that the so-called “short comings” would be corrected.
The above statement when combined with the often made statement that “The recommendations
Page 64
contained in the Evaluation Report represent the best advice of the peer evaluation team at the time of the
visit, but may not describe all that is necessary to come into compliance. Institutions are expected to
take all action necessary to comply with Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and
Commission policies” is in direct conflict with the recognition that many colleges are out of compliance
but still maintain accreditation - often without any sanction at all. This is an example of one possible
cause of the lack of consistent decisions made by the Commission. The “may not describe all that is
necessary to come into compliance” directly contradicts the need to advise colleges of a requirement to
make changes.
The July reply to the CFT complaint lays out what the Commission believes are the issues raised by the
CFT and the order of the reply:
“The voluminous materials provided by CFT carry several themes that are repeated multiple times
through the complaint. This Additional Information document is organized into six sections as follows:
 Thematic Misinterpretations
1. Recommendations
2. Graduated Sanctions
3. Impartial Teams
4. Peer Evaluators
5. External Standards
6. Two-Year Rule

Erroneous Claims
1. Lack of Commission diligence in reviewing institutional materials
2. Differing application of standards.
3. Conflict with state law and regulatory requirements.
4. Inappropriate practice as demonstrated by statistics.
5. Improper Advocacy by ACCJC.
6. Adversity to unions by ACCJC.

Conflict of Interest
1.
Inaccurate Underlying Assumptions
a.
The action letters show Barbara Beno's opinion of CCSF.
b.
Barbara Beno is a key actor in the decision-making of the Commission.
2.
General Conflict
3.
Spousal Conflict
4.
Revealing Confidential Information
5.
Advocacy Conflict
 Application and Enforcement of Standards with Respect to Mission
1.
Inaccurate Underlying Assumptions
a.
There was no confidential recommendation from the team.
b.
The Commission inappropriately applied a new standard when considering the
CCSF financial requirements.
c.
There are improprieties in the sanctioning of CCSF for not pre-funding Other Post
Employment Benefits (OPEB) liabilities through an irrevocable trust.
d.
CCSF was found deficient because it obtains grant funding.
2.
Due Process is a control against bias, conflict of interest, and misapplication of standards
 Events Since the CFT Complaint was Filed in April, 2013
Page 65
I am sure that the CFT will file a reply to the ACCJC comments on how wrong the complaint is. I will
add their comments when they are released. In the meantime, I have the following comments on a few
aspects of the ACCJC “reply.”
Most of the “evidence” presented is a statement that says that the Commission does things correctly. As
an example of this type of argument: “The ACCJC does not follow a practice of graduated sanctions. In
accordance with its Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions, the Commission reviews the status of
an institution in meeting ERs, Standards, and Commission policies and, in cases when it is warranted,
assigns a sanction that best reflects the institution's standing relative to compliance with standards. While
it is not common for the situation of a college to have significantly declined since the previous external
evaluation, there have been instances when the ACCJC has found serious deficiencies in meeting
standards where previous indications had been an institution was aligning itself to standards. In like turn,
institutions which have been on a serious sanction may come into full compliance with standards by the
next external review and are removed from any sanction, rather than somehow having to ‘move down the
sanction ladder." How is one to determine if the above claim is true? The discussion and decision of the
Commission is made in secret and the participants are sworn to secrecy. Where is the evidence that they
proceed in compliance with their policy? How can we judge when a sanction is warranted if we do not
know what happened in the secret sessions?
Secrecy about how decisions are actually made by ACCJC is the name of the game as indicated by the
statement that “One of the hallmarks of ACCJC accreditation practice is that Commissioners do not act
solely to ratify team reports. Instead, institutional reports and evidence, previous reports and action letters,
and testimony and documentation provided by the college Chief Executive Officer, as well as the team
reports and recommendations are reviewed and considered by the Commission before it takes action on
the accredited status of institutions. It should be noted that these same voluminous review materials,
comprising multiple copies of the originals held securely on file by the ACCJC, must be collected and
shredded upon conclusion of each meeting.” No one could read all of the material for 21 colleges! How
does one know which Commissioners vote on a sanction and how much these Commissioners have
actually studied the documents? How does one challenge the sanctions if the records are shredded?
Here is the type of answer given to serious charges: “Institutional evaluations are conducted by peer
evaluators who are professionals in the field. They apply standards consistently and fairly to all
institutions.” How is this even possible given all the various teams and the sometimes limited training the
teams receive? How does one determine that this statement is true when peer evaluators are told not to
disclose any information on what happened during the working of the Visiting Team nor disclose what
the Visiting Team recommended for a sanction level?
Another: “While institutions under review may have deficiencies in complying with one or more
standards that another institution under review also has, the combination of deficiencies and the level of
impact on an institution will vary. Consideration of sanctions is based upon the individual case of an
institution given all of the deficiencies and related evidence. This practice is appropriate to the review
of an institution's accredited status and does not demonstrate an inappropriate disparity of approach
toward certain institutions.” In short, ACCJC is judging that their practice is “appropriate” and does not
lead to inconsistency of application of standards. On the basis of the above quote, inconsistency of
application is inevitable. This inconsistency is a violation of 34 CFR 602.18.
And another claim without evidence: “Not all deficiencies result in sanctions. Most colleges will have
Page 66
citations to limited deficiencies in recommendations as a part of their review. However, when the level of
deficiencies has warranted a sanction, the sanction has been issued.” How can this be proved when the
process of issuing sanctions is done in a cone of silence? As I learned early in life, “saying something is
true doesn’t make it true.” And saying something is true doesn’t prove it is true.
The report also includes suggestions from the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) on
how to answer the critics of the United States method of using private self-appointing accrediting
agencies to determine when colleges shall receive sanctions or be shut down. The purpose of CHEA is to
provide national advocacy for the current mode of accreditation in the United States. It is dedicated to
defeating any attempt by Congress to develop a European-style governmental based accreditation system
in the United States. The report from the ACCJC incorporates the CHEA argument that is then used to
speak out against those who would criticize aspects of the current accreditation format.
The report makes the claim that Barbara Beno has no role in the determination of the level of sanction
imposed on colleges. The report states that “Over her tenure as Commission President, Dr. Beno has
signed more than 500 letters, entailing several communications to each of the ACCJC member
institutions. While this activity has resulted in her familiarity with the accredited status of the member
institutions, the letters are not a reflection of her views of any institutions but instead document the
actions of the Commission as to the institutions, and the Commission's directions for information to be
included or emphasized in the action letters.
The member institutions are aware of this role (communicating the Commission actions) of the
ACCJC President, and are aware the letters are not the President's own views reflected in writing.
Team members invited to participate in external evaluation visits are aware of this role of the ACCJC
President, and are aware the letters reflect the decision of the Commission.” It is interesting that none of
the people that I have spoken to, either on teams or on the campuses, understands that Beno does not play
a decisive role in the decision making of the Commission. As an example, college presidents have
described to me how Beno has called them directly and demanded that they make certain changes.
The report goes on to make the remarkable statement that “As President of ACCJC, Barbara Beno holds
an important position as spokesperson for the Commission, as manager of the accrediting agency, and as
implementer of accrediting activities. However, her role does not include participation in the
Commission's decisions on the accredited status of institutions. She and her staff are present during
Commission deliberations in a support capacity: supporting meeting logistics, taking notes of
Commission actions, locating and identifying specific portions of reports or evidence when called upon
by Commissioners, referring to Commission policies and procedures when questions arise, responding to
requests of the Commission Chair, and ensuring the process follows an orderly progression to its
conclusion. Neither the President nor other staff participate in the discussions of evaluative content,
nor do they vote in actions on institutions. The Commission decisions are based upon the Commission's
examination of an institution's self evaluation report and evidence, the team report and recommendations,
and previous reports since the last comprehensive evaluation, if any. The Commission also considers any
supplemental information presented by the institution's CEO, and the confidential recommendation of the
team as to a disposition of the review. The ACCJC President's role does not include any participation
in the actions on institutions.” I do not believe that the above statement is true. I am sure that it will
come out in the testimony of the Commission members before the Department of Education that the
above statement is not true. The statement contradicts everything that is known about the operation of the
Commission in determining sanction levels.
Page 67
One last note for all colleges to understand: “It should be noted that ACCJC has not sanctioned CCSF for
failure to pre-fund its OPEB liability through an irrevocable trust. Additionally, it has placed no
obligation or burden on CCSF to utilize an irrevocable trust.”
Accreditation Group finds ACCJC out of compliance – August 13, 2013
On August 13, 2013 Kay Gilcher, the Director of the Accreditation Group of the Office of Postsecondary
Education, wrote to Barbara Beno informing her that “the Accreditation Group has found that some
aspects of the agency's accreditation review process do not meet the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition.
Specifically, the Accreditation Group has determined that the ACCJC is out of compliance with , 602.15
(a)(6), 602.18(e), and 602.20(a) of the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition.” This was in response to
complaints filed by the CFT, myself, and six others. The 34 CFR sections noted are some of the same
ones that I have noted.
The Accreditation Group did not go into other possible violations that were not directly related to the case
of City College of San Francisco. However, Gilcher pointed out that “The Department noted other issues
raised in the complaints submitted and considered those in the course of its review. To the extent issues
identified by the staff from the complaints have not been discussed above, they are issues which the staff
concluded were either not related to the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition or were found to be
compliant with the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition within the context of this review. As the agency
has submitted a petition for recognition to the Department, a complete review of all sections of the
Secretary's Criteria for Recognition will be conducted in that context and it is possible that areas of noncompliance could be found that were touched on in the complaints but not identified as such by the
staff in reviewing the complaints.” An example of such an issue might be the clear inconsistency in
application of policy when giving sanctions. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.18.
The Accreditation Group (which reviews accreditation agencies for compliance with the rules of the U.S.
Department of Education) found that the ACCJC had failed to comply with Criteria for Recognition in
four basic areas:
The first related to the ACCJC’s lack of adequate faculty representation on the Visiting Teams for City
College of San Francisco and the lack of clarity regarding the composition of visiting teams in ACCJC
policy. The letter called for more faculty on the Visiting Teams in accordance with federal requirements.
In fact, as stated in the Gilcher letter: “The agency does not have a specific policy on the composition of
on-site evaluation teams.” The lack of adequate representation on Visiting Teams has been present
on most Visiting Teams as I have noted in this paper. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.15.
The second failure to comply related to conflict of interest requirements. The Accreditation Group found
that the presence of Beno’s husband on the CCSF visiting team had “the appearance of” a conflict of
interest which violates national standards. The Accreditation Group also raised issues regarding the
propriety of Commission members and staff representation on Visiting Teams. This has been an issue
not just at CCSF but also on many college visiting teams. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.15.
The third violation related to the agency statement that has two types of recommendations - “to meet the
standard” or “to increase institutional effectiveness.” The letter went on to state that “what is not clear
Page 68
is how the recommendations are differentiated between those two types and how an institution, an
evaluation team, the Commission, or the public is to know the difference.” The truth is that they do not
understand the difference. This also speaks to the inconsistency of judgments made by the ACCJC.
This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.18.
The letter from Gilcher went on to point out that “In the Executive Committee report of the agency's own
review of the CFT complaint, the agency states the following: ‘It is accurate that the 2006 Report found
that the institution met sufficient numbers of standards to have its accreditation reaffimied. However, the
2006 report also included eight "major recommendations." When the Commission met and considered the
2006 Report at its Commission Meeting on June 7-9, 2006, it considered two of the "recommendations" to
be serious enough to require that the institution take corrective action and provide the Commission with a
Progress Report.’ And, later in the same section of the report: ‘The Evaluation Report (the "2012
Report") of the team that visited the institution in March of 2012 documented that, between 2006 and
2012, the situation at CCSF had deteriorated dramatically, and many of the areas which were noted only
as "recommendations" in the 2006 Report had deteriorated to the extent that they had become serious
deficiencies in 2012.’
“This summary alone reflects the difficulty to ascertain what a recommendation represents- an area of
noncompliance or an area for improvement.” This has been the case in many colleges in addition to
CCSF as pointed out in this paper.
The fourth violation cited also involved the different uses of the term “recommendation” by the ACCJC.
Again it is not clear when they mean that a college has a deficiency in meeting a standard or that the
college meets the standard but could use additional effort in the area. If it is the first, the two year
rule applies. If it is the second, it does not apply as no “deficiency” has been found. The ACCJC is not
consistent in the application of the word “recommendation.”
The Accreditation Group pointed out that “it appears that the Commission continues to implement the
required enforcement timeframe only after the agency has imposed a sanction on an institution.” At
that point they give two years to implement the change back to the time of the first mention by a visiting
team.
“In its response, the agency states that the recommendations included in the 2006 Commission action
letter to CCSF to reaffirm the institution's accreditation and require a follow-up report needed to be
resolved within a limited timeframe. As excerpted above, the Commission considered two of the
recommendations ‘serious enough’ to require interim reports (a progress report in 2007, a focused
midterm report in 2009, and a follow-up report in 2010). And, the agency stated in the 2012 Commission
action letter to CCSF that part of the reason for the show cause order was the failure of the institution to
correct areas of noncompliance cited in 2006. The agency cannot treat an issue serious enough to
require reporting and to be part of the rationale for a show cause order, but not serious enough to
enforce the timeframe to return to compliance, as required by federal regulation.” “The Commission
has not demonstrated appropriate implementation of this regulation.”
In conclusion the letter states that “The Department finds that ACCJC does not meet the requirements of
the sections cited above. Section 496(1) of the Higher Education Action of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C.
§1099(b)(1), requires the Department to initiate adverse action when it determines that a recognized
accrediting agency fails to meet the Criteria for Recognition. Alternatively, the Department may allow the
Page 69
accrediting agency a limited timeframe, not to exceed 12 months, to come into compliance. Therefore, we
have determined that in order to avoid initiation of an action to limit, suspend or terminate ACCJC’s
recognition, ACCJC must take immediate steps to correct the areas of non-compliance identified in this
letter. Please provide your response to the specific sections in this letter, within your response to the draft
staff analysis of the agency's petition for recognition to the Accreditation Group.”
ACCJC Press Release of August 13, 2013
The ACCJC responded to the Accreditation Group decision with the usual disdain that they show toward
any complaint filed against them. The press release stated that “The ACCJC is provided an opportunity to
respond to the Department's review of information and documentation during the recognition process
later this fall, and will be doing so. There will be some correction of errors of fact, and some provision of
explanatory information.”
“It also appears the Department has developed a new requirement that is not included federal regulations
or in the Guidelines for the Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies. The letter suggests that
accreditors must ensure "reasonable representation" of academics and administrators on evaluation
teams, in terms of the number of each on a team. The Department's directions to accreditors remain
vague, and will require clarification.” They say this without regard to the vagueness of their policy and
applications of policy illustrated in the Department’s findings above.
The Commission continues to defend its use of the word “recommendation” as sometimes meaning a
“deficiency” and at other times just a suggestion to improve.
Then the ACCJC claims that “The Department's letter suggests the need for possible revisions of ACCJC
policies or procedures as follows:
Definition of "reasonable representation" of academics and administrators on evaluation teams.
Added conflict of interest policy language prohibiting spouses of Commission staff or
Commissioners from serving on evaluation teams.
Helping the public and others understand that recommendations provided by the Commission to
member institutions stating "in order to improve, the college should take certain actions" are different
from recommendations stating "in order to meet the standards, the college should take certain actions."
Not only are revisions necessary but the ACCJC should also suspend all of their current sanctions
that were soiled by the ACCJC violations and redo them in accordance with federal standards.
Finally the ACCJC notes that it will take its pound of flesh by looking at terminating colleges earlier “in
future reviews of institutions in the Western Region.”
The letter concludes with “The Commission will be responding formally to the Department's letter and
will, of course, make necessary policy changes to appropriately address the Department's concerns. The
ACCJC response to the Department's findings will be submitted as part of its recognition review with the
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Improvement in December 2013.” The
mention of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Improvement is their attempt to
tell the Accreditation Group that they may not have the final word on the fate of the ACCJC. There is
clearly no limit to the ACCJC’s belligerence.
Page 70
Letter from AFT Local 2121 to Scott-Skillman and Agrella
In the days approaching the deadline for CCSF to file their review of the disaccreditation of CCSF many
of the CCSF community were waiting to see what the administration was going to file. Both Special
Trustee Agrella and Community College Chancellor Brice Harris had promised that the process would be
transparent.
On August 15, 2013 the CCSF Faculty Union (AFT Local 2121) wrote to Interim Chancellor Thelma
Scott-Skillman and Special Trustee Robert Agrella regarding the lack of contact by the administration.
The union noted that they were surprised that they had not been contacted since “we have already filed a
lengthy complaint against the ACCJC, and have information concerning the actions of the Commission,
which is relevant to the College's request for review.
In particular, we received on August 13, 2013 the results of the United States Department of Education's
(US DoE) review of the Complaint. The US DoE found that the 2012 review by ACCJC, which led to
Show Cause status and subsequently disaccreditation was fatally flawed.”
The letter from the union continued by laying out some information that it felt was relevant to the review:
“In particular, we received on August 13, 2013 the results of the United States Department of Education's
(US DoE) review of the Complaint. The US DoE found that the 2012 review by ACCJC, which led to
Show Cause status and subsequently disaccreditation was fatally flawed.”
“The evaluation team, which the ACCJC staff - headed by President Beno - appointed for City College of
San Francisco in 2012 was invalidly constituted. This is because Ms. Beno's husband was placed on the
team. The US DoE agreed this was a conflict of interest, which violated Federal regulations 34 CFR
602.15(a)(6). The conclusion that the Commission does not meet the Secretary's criteria means the team's
evaluation was prejudiced by her husband's involvement in the assessment of CCSF and consequently the
Evaluation Team Report should be considered null and void. There was no valid team evaluation for the
Commission to rely on. The Commission's decision to place CCSF on Show Cause sanction is therefore
itself null and void.”
These violations go to the legitimacy of the evaluation team and the subsequent actions of the
Commission.”
“If that conflict is not enough, the team was also invalidly created because it lacked sufficient educators.
There were only 3 faculty members on the team out of a total of 17 members. In appointing this team
without sufficient faculty educators, ACCJC's staff, headed by Ms. Beno, did not comply with Federal
law.”
“And if that wasn't enough, the team and the Commission both erred in penalizing CCSF because the
ACCJC had not clearly informed CCSF prior to July 2012 that it had deficiencies. This violated 34
CFR 602.15a (3). In 2012, the Commission wrongfully relied on the existence of these alleged
deficiencies to issue Show Cause, and later disaccreditation. Had CCSF been promptly notified of
deficiencies, if they existed, in 2006, ACCJC was duty-bound to give it two years to correct them. ACCJC
did not give this two-year notice, more proof there were in fact no deficiencies. The US DoE correctly
found that ACCJC failed to give proper notice or due process to CCSF.”
Page 71
“The ACCJC's violations, confirmed by the DoE, mandate that accreditation be fully restored, and that
the sanctions of Show Cause and Disaccreditation be rescinded.”
The union then requested that the request for review include the CFT complaint to the Department of
Education and the follow-up letter from the Department of Education.
The union also requested that CCSF’s reasons for review include the following grounds:
1. Errors or omissions in carrying out prescribed procedures on the part of the evaluation team and/or
Commission which materially affected the Commission's decision, including but not limited to the
following;
 There was no basis for Show Cause, as demonstrated by the CFT's Complaints to the ACCJC and
DOE, and the USDE letter.
 Show Cause was invalid because of the violations set forth in the Complaint and those found valid
in the USDE letter.
 The decision of the USDE, issued August 13, 2013, confirms that the evaluation teams created by
the Commission for the Show Cause review in 2012, and the subsequent Show Cause review, were
created in violation of the DOE's regulations, and hence their decisions were invalid and both
Show Cause and Disaccreditation decisions must be reversed.
 As set forth in the Complaint, the ACCJC's actions in placing CCSF on Show Cause were in
violation of law, and there was no basis for a Show Cause review in 2012-2013.
2. There was demonstrable bias or prejudice on the part of one or more members of the evaluation team
or Commission, which materially affected the Commission's decision, including but not limited to:
 Insufficient faculty and mix of educators on the 2012 team and the 2013 Show Cause evaluation
team.
 Inclusion of Yulian Liguoso, a trustee of the Community College League of California (CCLC)
Retiree Health Benefits JPA, on the 2012 Show Cause team, due to conflict of interest.
 Inclusion of Frank Gornick and Steven Kinsella on the Commission due to conflict of interest
involving the CCLC JPA.
 The Commission as a whole was disqualified from determining the accreditation of CCSF because
of its support of SB 1456, in opposition to the expressed position of CCSF. This conflict of interest
also suggests retaliation against CCSF, and materially affected the outcome of the ACCJC review.
3. The evidence before the Commission prior to and on the date when it made the decision, which is
being appealed, was materially in error. This includes, but is not limited to, the evidence of
leadership, governance, and finances of CCSF.
4. The decision of the Commission was not supported by substantial evidence.”
The union requested that the “Trustee, College, and State share its proposed statement of reasons for
review with us in a timely fashion, so we may have further input, and include the information set forth
above.”
The letter from Local AFT 2121 concluded with: “We hereby reserve the right to initiate appropriate
legal or administrative actions, to challenge the disaccreditation of CCSF, and to add to, modify,
supplement or amend the grounds for such action. Moreover, the parties hereto reserve the right to raise
grounds beyond those specified above.”
Page 72
August 16, 2013 Letter from Beno to Agrella on Confidendiality of Review Process
On August 14, 2013, Barbara Beno wrote to Agrella and Scott-Skillman as follows:
Subject:
Appeals Process definitely confidential
Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:26:46 PM
Dear Bob and Thelma:
Please see Section M of the Appeals Procedure Manual, which states the appeals process, even the date,
location of the appeals panel meeting, is confidential.
We are still checking with our attorneys on the Review Process, but I will state now that is the beginning
of the legal, confidential process, a pre-appeal of sorts, and is probably best kept confidential....
Barb”
On August 16, 2013 in a follow-up letter from Beno to Agrella a demand was made to keep everything
secret from the public. The letter stated that (emphasis added):
“I am certain that you are aware of the high level of publicity that has surrounded the Commission's
decision. The public scrutiny of the Commission's decision has been extraordinary and without precedent.
The ACCJC appreciates the public's interest in the outcome of this matter, and the value of
transparency in the review and appeal process. At the same time, however, and as I am sure you would
agree, it is also in the public's interest that the Review Committee and Commission members be able to
render a decision, in so far as possible, free from any outside influences or pressures. Impartiality of the
review process is paramount, and the Commission is determined that the institution be afforded such a
review. For this reason, the public's interest in access to information and documents exchanged during
the review process must be tempered with the need to maintain a sufficient level of confidentiality in the
proceedings in order to preserve such impartiality.”
Recall that the review process is done by the same group that made the ruling. This is what Beno
means by “impartially.”
“The ACCJC is concerned that certain actions by third party members of the public, if continued or
expanded, have the potential to undermine the fairness and impartiality of the review and appeal process.
Several complaints regarding the ACCJC's review of CCSF have been filed by the California Federation
of Teachers, AFT Local 2121 (the "Union") with the U.S. Department of Education ("USDE"). Despite
the publicity being afforded to the issues raised in the Union's complaints, the preservation of the
impartiality of the review proceedings dictates that the institution's standing with the Commission not be
abrogated or replaced by the undue influences of third parties that clearly lack any such standing. The
Union's complaints, and the USDE's responses to the complaints, should not supersede what the
institution determines to be in its best interests to raise in the review. To date the Commission has not
received a single complaint from CCSF concerning the issues raised by the Union. Nor, to the
Commission's knowledge, has the institution lodged such a complaint with the USDE. The institution
has been and continues to be free to raise similar issues with the ACCJC.”
Page 73
The “USDE” mentioned is the United States Department of Education. I guess that Beno feels that
the USDE is one of those plotting against her. If it is true that the “institution” has not lodged a
complaint with the USDE or used the decision by the USDE that the ACCJC had committed
violations of their policy, why haven’t they? Whose side is the so-called “institution” on? Do their
lawyers have an obligation to present the best case possible to the review committee of the ACCJC?
“The rights of CCSF under ACCJC's standards and polices, including the institution's rights under the
pending review and appeal process, and also its rights under the attendant USDE regulations, cannot be
adopted by or transferred to third parties. While the Union is free to submit complaints about the
ACCJC, just as any other third party, the Union is not a representative or agent of the institution, and has
no authority to represent the institution in its dealings with the Commission and USDE. Nor should a
third party's comp1aints be treated or handled in the process of review requested by a member institution
of ACCJC, in this case CCSF. The public's and USDE's responses to the Union's complaints give the
appearance that these clear boundaries are not being respected.”
“To ensure that the Commission's review of its decision to terminate the accreditation of CCSF is free
from the undue influences of third parties, it is critical that the institution maintain the confidentiality of
certain aspects of the review process. By voluntarily participating in accreditation by the ACCJC, CCSF
has agreed to comply with all ACCJC Policies and Procedures, including those in respect to the
upcoming review, in particular ACCJC's Policy on Public Disclosure and Confidentiality in the
Accreditation Process and the confidentiality requirements set forth in the Appeals Procedures Manual.”
There is no “voluntary participation” in ACCJC - it is required by the Community College Board of
Governors regulations.
“In accordance with these Policies and Procedures, CCSF is obligated to prevent the disclosure of any
information with respect to the selection and appointment of the Commission's Review Committee
members. This includes, but is not limited to, contact information, including the identity of any
prospective or appointed committee member. Similarly, any Review Committee report drafts that CCSF
receives for purposes of correcting errors of fact must be kept confidential. Likewise, the Commission
expects the Commission members, the Commission staff, and its agents to respect the confidentiality of all
aspects of the review process, which includes maintaining the confidentiality of all of the materials that
the institution sends to the Commission and the materials that are sent to the institution from the
Commission that pertain to the review process.”
“On August 20, 2013 the institution is expected to submit its Statement of Reasons. Historically, the
Statement of Reasons has not been considered a public document in any other review conducted by the
Commission nor has it ever been shared by an institution or by the Commission with the public. It is a
document that will establish the parameters of what the Review Committee will investigate and review
and which will set the groundwork for a possible Appeal, another confidential procedure. This document
may be returned to the institution for revision or clarification. The Commission is expecting that the
Statement of Reasons, and any correspondence between the Commission staff and the College that
pertains to the Statement of Reasons, remain confidential. The Commission expects its staff will also
respect the confidentiality of all materials exchanged in connection with the Statement of Reasons.”
“Given the extraordinary amount of publicity surrounding this matter, it is critical that the identity of
the Review Committee members be kept confidential. This is necessary in order to prevent these
Page 74
individuals from being harassed or otherwise inappropriately contacted by members of the public.
Therefore, pursuant to and consistent with ACCJC's policies, the Commission is requiring that the
institution not disclose the identities of these persons.”
“After completing the review, the Review Committee members will prepare a preliminary report (i.e., in
draft form). This report will be sent to CCSF for comment by the institution on any factual errors, prior to
its finalization and prior to it being sent to the Commission. For the same reasons it is essential that a
draft external evaluation team report remain confidential until after the Commission renders a decision
on an institution, it is similarly essential that the draft Review Committee report remain confidential until
the Commission has had an opportunity to review it and render a decision on outcome of review. Until
that time, however, the Commission insists that its member institutions not disclose the contents of the
Review Committee report.”
“As the process unfolds, there may be a need to ask or require that CCSF respect the confidentiality of
other aspects of the process; however, at this stage these are the elements that appear to be critical and
apparent. We also understand that CCSF is a public institution, and as such is subject to laws that
govern records maintained by all public institutions. If CCSF believes, based on advice from its legal
counsel, that the law requires that it act in a way that is contrary to the requirements of this letter, we
would expect that the Commission would be notified prior to any such disclosure, and that CCSF use its
best efforts to limit such disclosure to the extent required by law.”
I and others have asked, pursuant to the California Public Records Act, for materials from CCSF and the
Chancellor's Office with respect to the content of CCSF's request for review. I did receive some material
including material mentioned above from the Chancellor's Office. CCSF refused the request with a letter
dated September 13, 2013. The letter, after the demand by ACCJC to keep everything under wraps,
stated that:
"The College believes that your request concerns records that are exempt from disclosure under the Act.
Specifically, they are exempt from disclosure under Government Code Section 6254(b) and (k), and the
privilege contained in Evidence Code Section 1040. They are also exempt from disclosure under
Government Code Section 6255. In that the public interest served by not disclosing the records clearly
outweighs the public's interest served by disclosure.”
“The College is committed to taking all steps possible to retain its accredited status. That includes
pursing processes specified by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges for
institutions that wish to retain their accreditation. This process, and the documents related to them, are
confidential according to Commission Rules. The College supports those rules and wishes to comply
with them. A failure by the College to adhere to Commission Rules could have a negative result on the
College's efforts to retain its accreditation during its pursuit of the Commissions processes."
I will not go into the argument of why "the College" is wrong in its understanding of the Records Act. I
am sure that will be played out in Court by others like the San Francisco Chronicle that requested the
information. But the reason for confidentiality is clear - to keep the public from knowing whether the
representatives of CCSF are putting on the best defense of the college and what that defense is.
Page 75
August 19, 2013 Agrella Letter to the College Community
In an August 19, 2013 letter to the “College Community” Community College Chancellor Brice Harris’s
Specially Appointed Trustee Agrella wrote a public letter that attempted to explain why he must not
anger the ACCJC and at their demand must keep all of his dealings with respect to the review strictly
confidential. Although “ both Chancellor Brice Harris and I publicly stated that the review letter (due
Tuesday, August 20, 2013) would be placed on the college’s website” they would not be doing so. He
states that “we were informed by ACCJC that all materials submitted to ACCJC are to be treated as
confidential. While both Chancellor Harris and I sincerely apologize for our premature comments
regarding disclosure of the review documents, our intention was never to mislead the college
community.”
“We cannot share the review documents because we have been clearly informed by the Commission that
all parts of the appeal process, including the review, are to be treated as confidential.”
I note that there is nothing in the ACCJC policies that speak to a requirement that the “all parts of the
appeal process” are to be treated as confidential. This new requirement is a violation of due process and
transparency.
Agrella goes on to state he will not use the DOE letter in their review. He does not want the ACCJC to
think that CCSF is endorsing the CFT complaint. He stated that “If we were to use these arguments they
would become the college’s official position and therefore the college would join in the attack on the
Commission.” The fear of the wrath of the ACCJC is apparent as the letter continues “If our review
document joins the attack on the Commission, I believe that the review and appeals process will be
unsuccessful. If this is the case, I also believe our timeframe for meeting the standards may be
significantly shortened.” In other words, we can’t afford to mess with the “my way or the highway”
attitude of the ACCJC.
“Please understand that I am not trying to stand in the way of concerns about the Commission. I am
dealing with the specifics of accreditation and the processes determined and articulated to us by the
Commission. I believe that if the college changes direction and begins to attack the Commission, rather
than working with it to correct the problems in the institution, it will jeopardize our ability to maintain
accreditation.” This is a sad commentary on the actual due process rights under the ACCJC.
Agrella continues to believe that they will be allowed, during the review, to show the progress made by
the college since the ACCJC acted in June. In fact, this is not spelled out in the rules of the ACCJC.
Finally Agrella concludes with an appeal “Although we may disagree on the strategy to be employed, the
college community needs to be in total agreement to work together during these coming months to meet
the accreditation standards.”
Save CCSF Coalition Complaint of August 19, 2013.
The Save CCSF Coalition sent a complaint to Kay W. Gilcher, Director of Accreditation Group U.S., a
complaint on August 19, 2013. The letter began with a thank you to the Accreditation Group for not only
lifting the spirits of those at CCSF but also “For the first time it seems that entire process may not be
Page 76
stacked against us and that not all decisions are going to be made by ACCJC insiders.”
The letter noted that “At the Welcome Address for the new semester on August 13th, Special Trustee
Robert Agrella told us that the review documents would be posted on the college website for all
constituents to view.”
“In an email sent on the morning of August 15th, Accreditation Liaison Officer Gohar Momjian informed
the college community that she, along with Special Trustee Robert Agrella and Interim Chancellor
Thelma Scott-Skillman, had met with the ACCJC the previous day, August 14th, one day after your DOE
letter was received by the ACCJC. At that meeting, they were informed by the Accrediting Commission
that the "review and appeals process is a confidential matter." As a result, Momjian stated that CCSF's
top administrators would "not be publishing drafts and documents online," nor share any of these
materials with the college constituencies. We believe that this action is illegal as it denies CCSF and its
constituents due process.”
At a Participatory Governance Council meeting on August 15, Momjian stated that she “she planned to
rely primarily on the improvements made in recent months - the college's work on its Action Plans and
progress toward meeting the accreditation standards. The problem here is that the ACCJC's review rules
do not allow any information into the hearing that was not available at the time of the ACCJC's
decision in June. So this information was very confusing to those present at this meeting.”
The violations of U.S. DoE regulations cited in the letter included:
 “ACCJC written policy does not require that a request for a review, reconsideration or appeal of
any ACCJC adverse actions be kept confidential. Yet, the ACCJC is requiring CCSF to do just
that.
 DOE policy does not permit an institution's internal governance policies to be dismantled by the
accrediting commission, according to due process regulations 602.25 that govern the review or
appeal of accrediting decisions. The Commission cannot prohibit an institution from seeking
constituency input or sharing information with constituency leaders when the current practice,
even for confidential information, has in the past, routinely been shared with constituency leaders
when they are stakeholders in a matter, with the understanding that it remain confidential.
 An Accrediting Commission should not dictate the nature and content of the institution's Written
Statement for Review, especially when it falls within the Commission's own parameters.
 The basis for justification of a review that our administrators were told to use appears to differ
substantially from what is in written ACCJC policy, to the point of being completely opposite. The
Commission's repeated divergence from written commission policy via oral instructions is cause
for serious concern. Our administration has assumed that oral instructions override written
policy, but the college is left vulnerable to charges of non-compliance when there are
inconsistencies between the two forms of guidance. This continues the pattern that your office has
already identified: lack of clear communication by the commission.”
The Save CCSF Coalition letter stated that “It appears that our administrators have been intimidated by
the Accrediting Commission into not using the letter from your office as part of the basis for appeal. This
would explain why they demand that no one be allowed to see these materials, although all government
organizations are subject to laws and regulations regarding transparency. Many of us expected
(including our faculty union) that your letter would be used since it gives us such a strong basis for
requiring the ACCJC to reverse its decision to terminate CCSF accreditation and provide us with the due
Page 77
process that has been missing. In short, the violations of the ACCJC were such that they tarnished the
decision to terminate CCSF's accreditation. This decision to terminate should be withdrawn and a new
properly conducted process be carried out.”
“While we understand that at this point the Department of Education cannot reverse a sanction decision,
we do believe that the violations cited by the Department could be used to discredit the process by which
the sanction was developed.”
The letter was signed by a number of faculty and community members.
CFT letter to Brice Harris August 19, 2013
On August 19, 2013 the California Federation of Teachers wrote a letter to Community College
Chancellor Brice Harris and CCSF Special Trustee urging them to include in their grounds for review of
the ACCJC decision to deny CCSF accreditation the following grounds: Insufficient Time, Continued
Reliance On False Findings About CCSF's 2012 Review, ACCJC Continues To Fail To Clearly Identify
Deficiencies, Invalid Show Cause Evaluation Team, and Leadership.
The letter noted that CCSF was never given two years to make improvements. This conflicts with other
colleges that were given more than 9 weeks to make improvements. This inconsistency is a violation of
34 CFR 602.18.
The letter went on: “Moreover, ACCJC had the power to give CCSF a full two-years - until 2014 - to
come into compliance. And for "good cause," it could give even more time. It should have afforded more
than two years, and ACCJC's failure to do so under the circumstances is arbitrary, retaliatory, and an
abuse of discretion.
Many of the changes ACCJC demanded in July 2012 were known to require more than 9 weeks, and 9
months, or even two years to accomplish. For instance, ACCJC demanded a wholesale change in the
governance structure, which, as noted, required collegial consultation (and which, as you know, is a
virtual mirror of the governance systems demanded by AB 1725 and in place throughout California's
community colleges).
Then, in its decision, ACCJC asserted that the new structure has not yet had a chance to really work - to
be "defined" - and said that since there wasn't enough time to be defined, it meant CCSF had failed to
satisfy ACCJC's Requirements, Standards and recommendations. This is nothing but a set-up for failure,
a predetermined result, predictable by the demands made by ACCJC. ACCJC should be estopped from
demanding or relying on CCSF taking actions which could not be completed in a year or even two, and
then sanctioning CCSF for "failing." “
“The Show Cause team report found that CCSF was out of compliance with approximately 19 elements of
the four Standards, though in each case it is substantially in compliance or in full compliance. The
Commission, with no discussion of the reasons or facts, increased this to 30 elements in its Action Letter
and Decision. (See letter, p. 2, last paragraph.) This failure denies Federal common law due process
and violates the same California law on fair procedure, as well as the Federal regulation which USDE
cited on August 13.”
Page 78
The Show Cause Evaluation Team for CCSF had 9 members, only one of which was a faculty member.
The team included ACCJC staffer John Nixon. “It included Yulian Liguoso, a member of the Community
College League of California (CCLC) JPA board. Given the conflict between demanding prefunding
(exposed in the April 30th complaint), his inclusion on the team was improper. Liguoso was put in charge
of the very elements for which he has a conflict of interest - finances, especially GASB 34 prefunding.”
In short it was an improperly formed Visiting Team.
By the action letter from the ACCJC stating that: “CCSF needs "more cohesive" institution-wide effort to
fully comply with accreditation requirements” the ACCJC is making “an attack on differing opinions, and
resistance to the Commission's illegal activities and demands.”
The ACCJC stated that “Leadership and governance deficiencies have inhibited the college's ability to
move "effectively and with appropriate speed to resolve its problems." CFT believe that “This is a
rejection of the role of collegial consultation and collective bargaining, both required by State law.”
The CFT also noted that a statement that “Disagreements characterize the CCSF's [new] governance
system” reflects a misunderstanding that “disagreements are at the core of democratic decision-making.
The Legislature decreed in AB 1725 that all constituencies have an effective voice; ACCJC has no right to
demand lock-step adherence to, for instance, the position of the interim Chancellor, or the ACCJC.”
The CFT letter also points out that there are no facts that support claims of significant division among the
faculty or that faculty feel intimidation from faculty leaders. There is also a misplaced attack by ACCJC
upon free and open discussion. The CFT letter notes that “at board meetings, the audience of the People
of the City and college has included individuals who have spoken eloquently, if at times angrily, about
what they see as ACCJC's effort to destroy CCSF, or re-mold it in an image contrary to that intended by
the People of the City. The term 'acrimony' does not appear in the Report. Acrimony means harsh or
biting sharpness of words, manner or disposition. Sanctioning CCSF because its faculty, students, staff,
or CCSF residents, offer biting criticism is not just a rejection of State and Federal law, it is unAmerican.”
The letter concludes with “Chancellor Harris, we understand that Acting CCSF General Counsel and
Vice Chancellor of the California Community Colleges is also conflicted here, since he served as a
commissioner for two terms, during which the ACCJC engaged in similar activities (see, e.g., the April
30th Complaint). Given that, we ask that that the State Chancellor and the Special Trustee for CCSF be
fully inclusive of the grounds for appeal, as requested by AFT 2121 and CFT.”
CFT CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
On September 24, 2013 the California Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 2121, and several students and
faculty members at City College of San Francisco filed a class action complaint with the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The plaintiffs asked the Court to:
1. Order the ACCJC to restore the status quo accreditation status of CCSF “by vacating and rescinding
the improper Show Cause and Disaccreditation decisions against CCSF, and restoring CCSF's
accreditation, subject to future reviews that are conducted in accordance with California law, legitimate
ACCJC policies and Federal regulations”;
Page 79
2. “Enjoin the ACCJC from engaging in accreditation evaluations of CCSF, and any of California's 112
community colleges in a manner that violates applicable federal or state law, or any of its own legal
policies and procedures”;
3. “Order ACCJC to rescind, and cease giving force and effect to its Standards, elements of Standards,
policies and procedures which constitute unlawful or unfair business practices”;
4. “Order the recusal from evaluation or actions involving CCSF, of ACCJC officers, agents, putative
team members, and representatives who participated in the unfair and unlawful business practices proven
in this case, including but not limited to Barbara Beno, Sherrill Amador, Frank Gornick, Steven Kinsella,
John Nixon, Norval Wellsfry, Krista Johns, and Garmon Jack Pond; and anyone affiliated with (i) the
CCLC JPA trust from 2006 onwards and (ii) anyone involved in advocating directly, or indirectly through
another entity, for the Student Success Task Force or as a member or participant with a trade or other
association pursuing matters involving CCSF; and for anyone else involved in an actual or apparent
conflict of interest involving CCSF.”
5. “Order the ACCJC to pay the costs of suit”;
6. “Order ACCJC to pay attorneys fees pursuant to Motion, in accordance with California's private
attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5".
7. “Provide such other and further and additional relief as is just and proper”.
The class action suit came out of the actions by the ACCJC to take away the accreditation status of the
City College of San Francisco (CCSF) effective July 31, 2014. CCSF has for 50 years and continues to be
an outstanding institution of higher education as documented in the law suit. The suit points out the harm
that disaccreditation would do to the residents of San Francisco, the employees of CCSF, and to the
economy of San Francisco. The action to remove accreditation and thus close the college would deprive
the County of San Francisco its right to a community college - a legal right of every county in California.
The “Complaint alleges that ACCJC's decree, and its underlying actions leading to this decree,
constitutes an unfair and unlawful business practice, in violation of California Business & Professions
Code §17200. The Complaint seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent the decree from closing City
College this summer by restoring the status quo before the ACCJC decree.”
CCSF had never been issued a sanction prior to the SHOW CAUSE action by the ACCJC in June of
2012. Even though the ACCJC claims that CCSF has been told to clean up certain aspects of its operation,
that claim has been destroyed by the recent finding of the United States Department of Education and
substantiated in the suit. In addition, the ACCJC has lobbied to reduce the open access scope of the
California Master Plan for Higher Education - a legislative action that CCSF has opposed. The suit
claims that the opposition by CCSF to the will of the ACCJC helped lead to the action by the ACCJC. In
short “The recent decree to close City College is ACCJC's effort to send a message that colleges should
conform to ACCJC's agenda, and to accomplish through accreditation what it could not accomplish by
lobbying.” The climate of fear caused by the ACCJC and its actions has been documented in this paper.
The suit also details the various ways that the ACCJC had “violated California law, federal regulations,
and its own policies and procedures, in arriving at its decision” to remove accreditation. The violations
should invalidate the disaccreditation decree but since the United States Department of Education does
not have the power to reverse the decision of the CCSF and since the review and appeal process to the
decision is controlled by the ACCJC itself, the only remaining avenue of reversal is the courts - thus the
law suit.
Page 80
Among the violations listed in the CFT suit were:
 ACCJC is required to appoint an independent evaluation team. Instead, ACCJC President Beno
appointed her own husband to the 2012 team as the hatchet man, a man who had predetermined
to disaccredit City College before he even conducted the evaluation. In 2013, she appointed her
Vice President, along with a trustee of a trust fund that CCSF was ordered to pay into, by the
2012 and 2013 evaluation teams, and Beno.
 ACCJC is required to appoint an evaluation team consisting of a balance of administrators and
faculty peers. Instead, Ms. Beno appointed a team in 2012 with 17 members, just one a teacher. In
2013, the 9 person team had just one faculty member. Under Beno's leadership, ACCJC teams
give administrators, who represent just 3 % of the colleges employees, 75% of the seats on the
teams.
 ACCJC's decree was based on a finding that City College had failed to cure deficiencies identified
in past ACCJC reviews of City College, in 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010. This was false. Past
ACCJC reviews had identified no City College failures to meet accreditation standards.
 The current review found no deficiencies in any of City College's 140 vocational programs or its
hundreds of academic programs.
 While the 2013 evaluation team found 19 violations of ACCJC's non academic standards,
ACCJC's Commission raised this to 30 violations. ACCJC's rules allow this only when ACCJC
first gives the college written notice, an opportunity to respond to the new charges in writing,
and postpone the ACCJC decision until its next regular meeting, 6 months hence (i.e. in January
2014). But ACCJC failed to do so.
 ACCJC's decree was based in part on ACCJC "team reports" and Beno's letters, criticizing City
College for not paying money into the prefunded retiree health benefits trust (CCLC JPA). A
founder of the trust, and one of its trustees, Steven Kinsella, is the Vice Chair of the ACCJC;
another trustee of the fund, Frank Gornick, is a commissioner; many of the ACCJC's team leaders
and members are trustees of the trust; and the trust's founder Kinsella is especially responsible for
ACCJC's using prefunding as an indicator of whether a college should be sanctioned.
 ACCJC failed to follow basic due process procedures, including a failure to provide findings of
fact that justified its death penalty verdict, and Standards that fail to take into account California
law on education as a constitutional right, and the impact of any failings of a college when they
are legitimate ones on academic quality.
 ACCJC normally gives a warning or probation to colleges that allegedly violate its Standards for
the first time. Disaccrediting a first time offender is Draconian and unsupported by the evidence,
and the result of the many conflicts of interest and other unfair and unlawful practices alleged.
 Most of ACCJC's standards and criteria are not required by the U.S. Department of Education.
ACCJC applied these standards of its own creation, even though they do not measure the
academic quality of institutions, and they are arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and
disrespect the public policy, laws and Constitution of California.
 ACCJC decrees rely on its conclusion that CCSF did not meet several of these unlawful, unfair
and sometimes unwritten standards. ACCJC found CCSF deficient because, inter alia, individual
board members expressed their opinions on matters of public concern to their constituents, the
board did not "speak as one," because of dissent by students, faculty and even the public from the
views of some of CCSF's new leadership and the ACCJC, and because of criticism of ACCJC.
 In July, the California Community College system installed a trustee to run City College,
removing the elected school board. That trustee is allied with ACCJC and will not challenge its
decree; his boss, the State Chancellor, was a member of the Commission for 6 years, and has been
Page 81
a confidante of ACCJC president Beno during the events alleged herein. They will not challenge
unlawful and unfair practices, placing their hope on the goodwill of ACCJC and their internal
"request for review" which they have refused to make public on the advice of ACCJC.
“This lawsuit seeks to preserve the heritage of a San Francisco institution, the only access that thousands
of present and future San Francisco residents have to higher education, and the open access mission
foreseen by a generation of Californians who valued affording California residents this opportunity.”
The class action suit was brought under the Business and Professional Code:
“California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 prohibits any "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business act or practices." The acts and practices described above constitute unfair and unlawful
business practices, and unfair competition, within the meaning of Business and Professions Code
sections 17200 et seq. The ACCJC committed unfair and unlawful business practices when it issued the
order of Show Cause and Disaccreditation, because those orders were based on and were the outcome of
its unlawful and unfair acts alleged herein. Among other things, the acts and practices of
DEFENDANTS have taken from PLAINTIFFS, the class members they represent, including the public of
San Francisco, the educational opportunities and employment they are rightfully entitled to from an
accredited CCSF, while enabling ACCJC to disregard its obligations to be a fair and impartial evaluator
and accreditor of CCSF. ACCJC's actions, policies and practices, as set forth in this complaint, constitute
unfair business practices because they offend established public policy and cause harm that greatly
outweighs any benefits associated with those actions, policies and practices.”
“The unlawful and unfair business practices of the DEFENDANTS, as described above, present a
continuing injury and threat of injury to the students of CCSF, the employees of CCSF, and the residents
of the City and County of San Francisco.”
Save CCSF Rally - November 7, 2013
SF Gate Article by Nanette Asimov
Two Peninsula representatives Thursday became the first members of Congress to weigh in on the crisis
facing City College of San Francisco, whose accreditation is to be revoked next summer. "This institution
cannot be shut down," Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, declared as she and Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo
Alto, joined hundreds of faculty, students and politicians who packed an auditorium on the Phelan Avenue
campus to say the accrediting commission must be stopped.
They expressed support for a lawsuit filed Thursday against the Accrediting Commission for Community
and Junior Colleges - the third since August - seeking to invalidate its ruling on City College. The suit is
from the "Save City College Coalition" of students and employees. The earlier suits - from the city of San
Francisco and the California Federation of Teachers - are also seeking to invalidate the ruling. "We
hope that one of the three lawsuits would stop this bad dream - this nightmare that would have City
College close," Speier told the crowd.
She and Eshoo criticized the commission for what they said was its record of sanctioning colleges at a far
higher rate than similar commissions around the country. They also cited an Aug. 13 reprimand by the
Page 82
U.S. Department of Education, which oversees the commission. It identified problems ranging from too
few teachers on the commission's evaluation team for City College, to the appearance of a conflict of
interest when it appointed the husband of its president, Barbara Beno, to the evaluation team.
The accrediting commission is a private, nonprofit agency that must follow federal guidelines in its role
as the arbiter of quality for California's 112 community colleges. "Reports of bad record-keeping and
conflicts of interest - these have fueled my concerns," Eshoo said. "I want to hear how the system can be
made better."
Attacks 'disheartening'
Beno was not at the forum, but responded by e-mail when contacted by The Chronicle. "Attacks against
the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior College and its work to ensure quality education
are disheartening to the evaluation teams who volunteer their time for peer reviews each year," she said.
"The Commission is confident that all City College of San Francisco supporters share the belief that the
students and residents of San Francisco deserve an institution that meets standards of quality met by 111
other public community colleges in California."
The commission placed City College in the most severe sanction, "show cause," in July 2012, citing an
array of problems in governance and finance. A year later, the commission said the college had failed to
fix all of its problems and would lose its accreditation in July 2014. Without it, the college would close.
Speier said she had invited Beno to participate in Thursday's event, billed as a forum for understanding
how college accreditation works in the state.
"Dr. Beno declined our request to participate," she told the booing audience. "Her lack of
responsiveness is emblematic of the problem."
Among the 11 people on stage were state senators Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, and Jim Beall, DSan Jose, who promised to pursue legislation to overturn a law designating the Accrediting Commission
for Community and Junior Colleges as the only agency able to accredit California colleges.
In August, Beall and Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber (Tehama County), persuaded a state audit committee to
investigate the college accrediting system in the state. "We need a fair and, most importantly, a
transparent system," Beall said Thursday.
Chancellor speaks out
Also on stage was Ron Galatolo, chancellor of the San Mateo Community College District, the state's
only college district leader to speak out against the accrediting commission, though he said many others
have told him they wish they could. "Some would say I probably should have my head examined, since
I'm going through (accrediting) review right now," Galatolo said. "But this is the right thing to do."
He made the audience laugh and applaud by mocking the commission's reasons for yanking City
College's accreditation. "They say City College should be closed forever because they did not develop and this is a quote - 'a strategy for fully implementing the existing planning process' " he said to hoots
from the crowd.
In the audience, art student Rose Byers, 20, said she had come to the forum to learn more about the
accreditation crisis. She's dismayed because students are no longer able to take classes more than once.
Page 83
"A lot of people want to take the classes over to improve their skills," she said. "That's what I do."
Nanette Asimov is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer.
Hittelman comments:
Beno’s quote is characteristic of all of her responses to criticism of the ACCJC and her part in their
proceedings. When she speaks to the work of the “evaluation teams who volunteer their time for peer
reviews each year," she doesn’t mention that the team recommendations for sanction are often ignored
by the Commission and that the teams have been found to be lacking in faculty representation by the
U.S. Department of Education. When she speaks to the “111 other public community colleges in
California" that have met the ACCJC “standards” she leaves out that, in fact, the Commission has placed
71 of the 112 California community colleges (63%) on sanction since 2007 for not satisfying all of the
“standards” imposed by the ACCJC. It is clear that the standards, as they are enforced by ACCJC, are
not well accepted in the California community colleges. In fact, from 2003-2008 ACCJC generated 89%
of all sanctions nationwide. ACCJC is simply out of control.
The ACCJC wrote a letter to Congresswoman Jackie Speir on October 28, 2013 in response to the
invitation to attend the forum of November 7, 2013. She stated she could not attend as the ACCJC is “not
able”, due to the various law suits, to comment on accreditation matters related to CCSF.
However, the ACCJC did place on their website a “Response to the November 7 Forum.” The response
begins by stating that “The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)
cannot comment at this time on accreditation matters related to the City College of San Francisco
(CCSF) as the College has entered into a due process of Review with the Commission, and there is
litigation brought by third parties against the ACCJC concerning its evaluation and accreditation
decision on CCSF.” It then goes on comment on the lawsuits:
“The ACCJC believes these third-party lawsuits are without merit. They all rest on similar premises that
are, in fact, weak. It is important to note that the City College of San Francisco itself is not involved in
these suits. The College has stated that it subscribes to ACCJC standards, and is working to come into
compliance with standards. These lawsuits are politically motivated and do not align with the real efforts
to assure CCSF's future accreditation, but rather distract from those efforts.” Of course she doesn’t note
the fact that the ACCJC has forbidden the Special Trustee and the District from making any public
comments with regard to their request for review of the Commission’s removal of accreditation. It does
not note that the Department of Education found the ACCJC in violation of its standards – many of the
same issues raised in the lawsuits.
The letter continues with: “Accreditation of a college is crucial. Without it, students cannot receive
financial aid. The accreditation process is designed to assure that a member college meets standards;
that the education given is of value to the student who earned it; and employers, trade- or professionrelated licensing agencies, and other colleges and universities can accept a student's credentials as
legitimate.” She fails to mention that none of the so-called “deficiencies” at CCSF speak to whether the
education at CCSF is of high quality or whether other colleges and employers have any concerns with the
students that CCSF has sent them. The issues are not those suggested by the letter but rather of a
bureocratic nature.
The letter speaks to what the ACCJC considers “transparency”: “The Commission provides transparency
Page 84
of its decisions by requiring the colleges to make the major documents, the college self-evaluation, the
evaluation team report, and the Commission's letter detailing the reasons for its action, available to the
public.” She does not mention that the Visiting Team recommendations for sanction are not made public
and that the Commission often ignores the recommendation for sanction proposed by the Visiting Teams.
She does not mention that the Commission meets in private and only after all the decisions are made is
the public able to address the Commission and even then, attendance at the Commission meetings is
strictly controlled. The actual work of the Visiting Teams and the Commission are kept secret by edict of
Dr. Beno and documents are required to be destroyed. This is hardly a transparent operation.
California Joint Legislative Audit Committee – Action on August 21, 2013
Call for State Audit
On August 21, 2013, the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) approved Senators Beall
and Nielsen's call for a state audit to examine the practices, financial and programmatic implications
resulting from unilateral actions initiated by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges (ACCJC), the accrediting agency for California Community Colleges. The call included the
direction to the State Auditor to “answer the following questions as they relate to ACCJC accreditation
for the period from 2009 through 2013. The audit would use a sample of at least three California
community colleges chosen by the State Audit's Office and include two colleges that have been sanctioned
by ACCJC.
1. For the three selected community colleges, determine the following:
 Whether the ACCJC accreditation process was conducted consistent with applicable laws and
policies and was applied consistently among colleges. This should include an evaluation of
policies and practices to determine if they are in conflict with or ignore any relevant state laws,
rules or regulations.
 Whether changes in ACCJC policies during the accreditation process had fiscal or other impacts.
 Whether the ACCJC accreditation process has sufficient links to ensuring a college's educational
quality, and whether ACCJC unnecessarily infringes upon the autonomy of California
Community Colleges. For example, what is the relevance of penalizing a college for using grants
to help fund their budget, discouraging dissent among community college board members or
criticizing campus governance roles?
 Whether the ACCJC has required any of the selected campuses to take any action that was
inconsistent with applicable laws and policies.
 What changes, programs or additional activities have each community college undertaken during
the 2009 through 2013 period to address requirements imposed by ACCJC.
 The additional costs incurred by each of the community colleges in making changes or
undertaking new or additional activities to comply with any requirements imposed by ACCJC.
2 Identify trends in the number, percentage and types ofsanctions imposed on California Community
Colleges when compared to other regions. To the extent possible, determine the reasons for significant
variations.
3. Identify the number of consultant contracts entered into by ACCJC, who the contracts were with, the
purpose(s) of the contracts, the contract amounts and the entities responsible for payment.
4. Identify any state and federal public meeting laws, requirements and policies that apply to ACCJC.
Page 85
Provide any changes that have occurred in these public meeting laws, requirements and policies between
the period of 2009 through 2013. Determine whether ACCJC has complied with relevant public meeting
laws and policies.
5. Provide information regarding ACCJC's policies for retaining documents relating to community
college accreditations, and provide any changes that occurred in these policies between the period of
2009 through 2013.
6. Identify and assess any other issues that are significant to the process for accrediting community
colleges.”
Senator Nielsen gave a strong opening statement regarding the problems with ACCJC, mentioning at one
point that "Senator Beall and I met with President Barbara Beno in my office.In all my career, in my
thousands of meetings with agency individuals -- representatives, secretaries, etc. -- I have never dealt
with a more arrogant, condescending and dismissive individual...."
Dr. Frank Gornick, an ACCJC commissioner, and Krista Johns, ACCJC vice president of policy and
research, appeared to testify in opposition. Their arguments against the audit focused on the idea that the
USDOE investigation/ review should suffice. They claimed that Dr. Beno did not appear at the hearing as
she had other ACCJC business to attend to.
The Community College Chancellor's office did not testify. The California Community College
Independents, the California Federation of Teachers, the California Teachers Association, and the Faculty
Association of California Community Colleges all testified in support of the audit.
The final vote of the committee was a bipartisan vote of 10 Yes, 1 No, and 3 Abstains.
Backgound for Call
The background for the call included information regarding the Title V regulation 51016 requirement that
community colleges in California are to be accredited by ACCJC. It went on to note that “According to
the ACCJC website, its accreditation authority is provided "by [fee-paying] member institutions that have
voluntarily joined a regional association to improve educational quality." Some California community
colleges have spent tens of thousands of dollars in state revenue to fund ACCJC. As a U.S. Department of
Education recognized accreditor, ACCJC decisions affect campus eligibility for federal Title IV student
financial aid and other federal grants and contracts. ACCJC accreditation standards are used to assess
college success "in providing high quality education" and "focus a good deal on institutional practices
that support student completion of certificates and degrees." To ensure its decisions and evaluation teams
are fair and unbiased, the Commission self-regulates itself and "holds itself accountable for good
practice by evaluating and assessing its own ability to make fair and unbiased decisions on
accreditation." [ACCJC: Twelve Common Questions and Answers about Regional Accreditation].”
The background information notes that “A "governmental function" is defined as an act which is so
“Intimately related to the public interest" as to mandate performance by the government, and require
either the exercise of discretion in applying government authority or the use of value judgments in making
decisions for the government [Martin v. Halliburton, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18698 (5th Cir. Tex. Sept, 7,
2010)1, As an accrediting agency for state community colleges that fall under the authority of the
governor and state legislature, ACCJC, by performing a government function, is accountable for
Page 86
decisions it makes intended for the general public good.”
The background information documents the disparate number of ACCJC sanctions as compared to other
accreditation agencies. It also goes into the climate created by ACCJC: “A highly critical and documented
assessment of ACCJC by retired community college math professor Martin Hittelman illustrates a climate
of arrogance and secrecy [ACCJC Gone Wild]. The California Federation of Teachers (CFT) recently
released its 298-page ACCJC public comment response to the severe sanctions executed at San Francisco
City College. The comprehensive document includes charges and supporting evidence that ACCJC
President Barbara Beno engaged in improper conflicts of interest; disregarded and/or violated state
and federal laws, policies and regulations; denied due process; imposed policies that violate or
circumvent employee contracts; violated ACCJC procedures by applying costly sanctions to collegessuch as 'Show Cause' that is sanctioned prior to a campus closure -without first applying less
egregious sanctions, such as a 'Warning' or 'Probation;' enacted systemwide policies and programs in
conflict with state policy that lacked legislative oversight or approval; and threatened reprisals of
faculty and administrators.”
The background to the request for an audit included information that “Under 34 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 602.10 and 602.13, an accrediting agency is required "to be able to demonstrate
that its standards, policies and accreditation decisions are widely accepted in the United States by
educators and educational institutions, licensing bodies (if appropriate), practitioners, and employers of
graduates for accredited institutions and programs." Unfortunately, ACCJC policy discourages
consideration of a college's compliance with state and federal laws and agencies. As written in the
ACCJC Team Evaluator Manual (page 23, August 2012), "[Accreditation] recommendations should not
be based on the standards of governmental agencies, the legislature, or organizations."”
“ACCJC wields enormous power to materially and adversely affect colleges, but there appear to be
serious questions whether it affords colleges appropriate due process. There are also concerns whether
ACCJC-issued sanctions bear any reasonable relationship to the commission's Standards or
Requirements being scrutinized. Furthermore, ACCJC is required to assure that constituencies
represented at the colleges it evaluates are adequately represented by the site-visit evaluation teams.
However, it appears ACCJC has not met this requirement -with some constituencies disproportionately
represented or not represented at all - and materially affecting campus review outcomes.”
“Since community colleges are required to comply with ACCJC "requests, directives, decisions and
policies" [ACCJC: Eligibility Requirements for Accreditation], the commission has unilaterally imposed
numerous community college policy changes resulting in financial obligations that have not been
reviewed or approved by the California State Legislature, ACCJC has also increasingly criticized the
state's community college statutory "shared governance" process, and distinct from assessing the
educational quality of an institution, has sanctioned campuses for deficiencies in governing board
practices growing from 46% of sanctioned campuses in 2009 to 71% of sanctioned campuses in 2012
[ACCJC News, Summer] 2012].”
“Beginning in 2002, ACCJC implemented a 10-year timeline requiring community colleges to develop
Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) to assess student achievement "bearing in mind that grades are not the
best evidence of student learning" [ACCJC: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes]. The SLOs are
included in the assessment of instructional programs, student services, financial aid and student
orientation. Numerous faculty, staff and administrative hours are dedicated to SLOs, detracting time
Page 87
away from educating students and operating campuses. Since ACCJC is self-regulated and selfassessed, there is little independent evidence, if any, that the SLO mandate has resulted in improved
teaching, program accountability, or an increase in student academic achievement.”
“The imposition of SLOs for student orientations, administration of financial aid, student services and
instructional programs has created new costly administrative positions, programs and structures.
Examples include the accumulation of college SLO coordinators, SLO analysts and SLO advisory
committees; SLO workshops, evaluations and trainings; and new campus administrative centers such as
the Planning, Research and Institutional Effectiveness (PRIE) division at Sacramento City College.
Distinct from SLO-imposed obligations, colleges also pay expenses for ACCJC visiting teams;
consultants; special trustees; additional administrative personnel and other related costs.”
The conclusion is that “Overwhelming evidence appears to indicate that ACCJC has exceeded its
authority in the accreditation of California's two-year, associate degree public colleges. This evidence
includes: the disparate number of California community colleges being sanctioned; disregard for state
laws governing community colleges and contractual agreements; imposing costly and unnecessary
policies without the approval or oversight of the state legislature; and creating campus climates
whereby limited resources are being redirected to comply with compulsory ACCJC directives by
funding new administrative functions and positions.”
2013-123 AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES - Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges - Community College Costs and Nonstate-Approved Policies
The audit by the California State Auditor will provide independently developed and verified information
related to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) and its accreditation
of California Community Colleges (community colleges) for the period 2009 through 2013 and will
include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives.
2. For a selection of three accredited community colleges, including two that the ACCJC has sanctioned,
to the extent possible determine the following:
(a) Whether the ACCJC accreditation process was conducted consistent with applicable state laws and
regulations and was applied consistently among colleges. Further, assess the extent to which ACCJC
policies comply with applicable state requirements.
(b) Whether ACCJC accreditation policies changed and, if so, whether these changes had fiscal or other
impacts.
( c ) How the ACCJC's accreditation process incorporates measures of educational quality - for example
student achievement -and whether the ACCJC's use of such measures is reasonable and effective.
(d) Whether the ACCJC's recommendations or requirements comply with applicable state laws and
regulations.
(e) Whether the ACCJC has required any of the selected colleges to take action that was inconsistent with
applicable laws or policies, including with respect to the colleges' governance structure.
(f)
What changes, programs, or additional activities has each community college undertaken during
the 2009 through 2013 period to address requirements imposed by ACCJC.
(g) The additional costs incurred by each of the community colleges in making changes or undertaking
new or additional activities to comply with any requirements imposed by ACCJC.
3. To the extent possible, determine whether there are discernable trends in the number, percentage, and
Page 88
types of sanctions imposed on community colleges subject to adverse action by the ACCJC compared
with actions taken by other accrediting organizations in the United States, and identify the factors
contributing to any significant variations.
4. Identify any state or federal open-meeting laws, and any changes to those laws, that applied to ACCJC
from 2009 through 2013 and whether it complied with any such laws during that period.
5. To the extent possible, describe ACCJC's policies, and any changes to those policies, in effect between
2009 and 2013 for retaining documents relating to community college accreditations.
6. To the extent possible, identify the number, contractor identity, purpose, and value of consultant
contracts entered into by ACCJC, and the entities responsible for payment.
7. Identify and assess any other issues that are significant to the process for accrediting community
colleges.
San Francisco City Attorney files Law Suit August 22, 2013
On August 22, 2013 San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed two civil lawsuits challenging the
termination of City College of San Francisco’s accreditation. The first lawsuit was against the ACCJC for
“unlawfully allowed its advocacy and political bias to prejudice its evaluation of college accreditation
standards.” The second lawsuit was against the Board of Governors of the California Community
Colleges for impermissably delegating “its statutory obligations to set standards and determine eligibility
for public funding to a wholly unaccountable private entity in the ACCJC.”
City Attorney Herrera's civil action alleges that the commission acted to withdraw accreditation "in
retaliation for City College having embraced and advocated a different vision for California's community
colleges than the ACCJC itself." The complaint was filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The complaint
notes that “the accrediting commission's multiple conflicts of interest, improper evaluation process and
politically motivated decision-making constitute unfair and unlawful business practices under California
law.”
Herrera noted that “"Nothing about the actions I've filed today should distract or delay City College from
doing everything in its power to solve the problems threatening its survival," said Herrera. "But neither
should these steps tempt accreditors to consider -- for even one moment -- retaliating against City
College for legitimate challenges to their conduct and authority under the law."
"The evidence is clear that the ACCJC ignored multiple conflicts of interest, flouted laws, and allowed its
political advocacy to color public responsibilities it should frankly never have been given," Herrera
continued. "For this, the State Board of Governors is also to blame for unlawfully ceding its public duties
to a private entity wholly beyond the reach of public accountability. Though I seek to enjoin the ACCJC
from improperly terminating City College's accreditation, the issues raised by both actions go far beyond
any single college alone. This accreditation process has exposed bias, institutional flaws and illegalities
in the oversight of the nation's largest higher education system. It potentially affects 72 community
college districts, 112 community colleges, and more than 2 million students in California. The issues are
serious, and they merit rigorous scrutiny."
Herrera addressed what he considers ACCJC’s “extensive financial and political relationships with
advocacy organizations and private foundations representing for-profit colleges and powerful student
lender interests, with which the ACCJC has in recent years shared a policy agenda to significantly
Page 89
narrow community colleges' longstanding open access mission.” Included in the suit was information
regarding the role of the Lumina Foundation for Education’s role in funding programs, such as those at
ACCJC, “that call for public community colleges to narrow their offerings and focus on degree
completion.” He points out how that agenda was directed toward CCSF’s long-time commitment to
open access and culminating with a decision to remove accreditation.
The law suit asks the Superior Court to:
 “Order the ACCJC to vacate the improper Show Cause and Termination decisions against City
College;
 Enjoin the ACCJC from engaging in accreditation evaluations of any of California’s 112
community colleges in a manner that violates applicable federal or state law;
 Order the ACCJC to pay $2,500 in civil penalties for each unlawful or unfair act, pursuant to
Business and Professions Code Section 17206;
 Order the ACCJC to pay the costs of suit; and
 Provide such further and additional relief as the Court deems proper.”
The cases are: People of the State of California ex rel. Dennis Herrera v. Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges, et al., San Francisco Superior Court No. 13-533693, filed Aug. 22,
2013; and In re Legal Challenge and Petition for Rulemaking, Before the Board of Governors of
California Community Colleges, filed Aug. 22, 2013.
ACCJC Press Release of August 23, 2013 on SF Attorney Suit
On August 22, 2013 the ACCCJ placed on their website one of their typical replies to any complaint
against the Commission as follows: “The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
(“ACCJC”) was surprised to learn that today the City Attorney of San Francisco filed legal actions
againt the ACCJC and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. While the ACCJC
has not had a chance to fully review the City Attorney’s allegations, these actions appear to be without
merit and an attempt to politicize and interfere with the ongoing accreditation review process with
respect to the City College of San Francisco. The ACCJC will respond to the City Attorney’s allegations
in a court of law.” We will see if they are as dismissive concerning this complaint as they have been
relative to each of other complaints that have been filed against them.
Trustee of Coast Community College District Support of Complaint
August 20, 2013
As an individual member of the Coast Community College Board of Trustees, Trustee Jerry Patterson
bravely sent a : “Letter of Support for Complaint Against Accrediting Commission of Community and
Junior Colleges and Request for Review of Coast Community Colleges Accreditation Warning Status”
to Kay Gilcher, Director of the Accreditation Division.
Trustee Patterson wrote as a seventeen year member and former president of the Coast Community
College Board of Trustees. He has been a part of multiple accreditations and has been following events at
CCSF as well as the recent ACCJC visit to the Coast District. In his letter Trustee Patterson wrote that he
has “become gravely concerned about how the ACCJC operates and functions.”
Page 90
Trustee Patterson noted that “In 2008, our board had made some significant changes to the governance
structure of the District, given very serious instances of repeated wrongdoing that had occurred in our
Administration. The Board created a new position, "Secretary of the Board" that would be filled by a
District classified manager, hired a general counsel to bring our contracts, land development issues, and
board governance process in full compliance with all established laws, and developed Board committees
to ensure that all activities of the Board were kept open and transparent.”
Patterson went on to describe some changes that were made based on some serious breaches that occurred
in their administration. The breaches included: “a Warning Status notification from ACCJC in 2008,
regarding Orange Coast College, was hidden from the governing board by the District's administration
and the Board of Trustees was never advised nor the public given the information.”
He then went on to explain how the Board has operated and how ACCJC responded: “highly irregular
and very different from our previous Accreditation site visit in 2007, and giving cause for grave concern
about the ACCJC's objectivity in this matter.
I feel that ACCJC's actions with Coast Colleges, just as with the City College of San Francisco is unjust
and that they require investigation. I am especially concerned that so many chief executives are
involved in the Accreditation process. Why aren't more faculty, staff members and trustees involved in
this important peer review exercise? Why do community college chief executives have such a dominant
relationship with the ACCJC and yet they seem not to ever be selected for Improvement or warning of
violations? How can trustees work to reform ACCJC to improve its objectivity, and to change its
interpretation of the Accreditation standards it is charged with enforcing to be focused on transparency,
compliance with the law, and on continuous self-improvement to accomplish our mission and
guarantee student success?”
He concluded his letter with “As a Trustee, maintaining the Accreditation of our three colleges is of
highest priority, but I want to ensure that the process is completed in the most honest, open, transparent
and legal way. Given what has been happening at San Francisco City College, and now at Coast
Colleges, I am very concerned that the ACCJC has lost its way. The students we serve need to be assured
that colleges in our community college system, as well as the Accrediting body, are keeping their best
interests in mind.”
At a Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees held on August 21, 2013, the Trustees voted 3 to 2 to send
another letter to the Department of Education stating that the view of Patterson did not represent the view
of the entire board. One of the Trustees who voted to reject the Patterson letter was Trustee Mary
Hornbuckle. Hornbuckle was quoted as saying that “I think it is an incendiary letter, and I think it may
very will blow up in our face.” Hornbuckle continued “If I were at the Department of Education and got
this letter, I would think, ‘Wow, there’s a district in serious trouble, and I might send somebody out to
here to investigate.” I guess she is so unaware of the process of accreditation that she does not understand
that the Department of Education does not investigate colleges. Of course, her remarks also make clear
the kind of fear that local governing board are operating under due to the ACCJC reign of terror.
Page 91
Letter from State Superintendent of Public Instruction to ACCJC, September
17, 2013
“September 17, 2013
Dr. Sherrill Amador, Chair
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges 10 Commercial Blvd., Suite 204
Novato, CA 94949
Dear Dr. Amador:
I am writing today to emphasize just how vital the Community College of San Francisco (CCSF) is to the
San Francisco Bay Area. I believe ensuring CCSF receives reaccreditation and is removed from its "show
cause" status as soon as possible must be a priority.
CCSF's possible closure would have clear negative impacts on our K-12 students and the economic
vitality of the San Francisco Bay Area. We must do everything possible to avoid these devastating
potential outcomes.
Over 65,000 students from the San Francisco Unified School District and South San Francisco Unified
School Districts depend upon CCSF to assist them with transferring to four-year institutions, career
technical education training, job skills and training, English as a Second Language, and other
educational opportunities.
CCSF plays a vital role in ensuring the region's students have access to our state's public higher
education institutions. For example, of the 3,849 San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) spring
graduates, approximately 1,106 of them enrolled at CCSF in the fall of 2011 (29 percent of the
graduating class at SFUSD).
Students that had planned to obtain job training (like a certificate in automotive technology or computer
applications) will have to look elsewhere, potentially to more expensive private, for-profit institutions.
CCSF's closure will leave many students discouraged and unsure of how to continue their postsecondary
paths. This frustration, and the potential loss of their higher education dream, could increase the dropout
rate and lead to higher unemployment.
If CCSF closes, students who planned to attend CCSF may not be able to afford to travel to local
community colleges in neighboring areas. Those who can travel could also overload surrounding
community colleges.
CCSF has a significant impact on San Francisco's workforce. For example, nursing students who
received an Associate of Arts/Science degree at CCSF earned an average annual salary of $78,000 within
five years of earning their degree. Its closure would create a large gap in workforce education in San
Francisco, which can ultimately affect the local and state economy. CCSF offers over 200 low-cost
Career Technical Education programs. Students in the middle of their programs would have to find other
community colleges to continue their programs. Or worse, they will drop out completely.
Page 92
I urge you to do everything possible to avoid the horrible outcomes I have described above. Our students,
the San Francisco Bay Area, and the state cannot afford them.
Given the recent United States Department Education findings that the City College of San Francisco
accreditation review process was flawed, I encourage the Accrediting Commission of Community and
Junior Colleges to rescind the college's show cause sanction.
Removal of the immediate disaccreditation threat will create a more positive environment. It also will
allow all interested parties to work together and take necessary steps to ensure CCSF remains open to
serve the students and the community.
If you have any questions about this subject, please contact me through Rebecca Barrett, Special Advisor
to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, by phone at 916-3241597 or by e-mail at
rbarrettcde.ca.00v.
Sincerely,
Tom Torlakson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction”
ACCJC Press Release on Superintendent Tom Torlakson's Letter
“Novato, California - 18 September 2013:
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (ACCJC) was surprised to receive a letter addressed to Chair Sherrill Amador from
Superintendent Torlakson, and copied widely to educational and political leaders in the Bay Area, in
which he asks the ACCJC to reverse the action taken on City College of San Francisco (CCSF).
The public needs to know that there is a federal regulation that mandates that an accrediting body
terminate the accreditation of an institution found in noncompliance with any standard or provide a
timeframe of no more than two years for the institution to bring itself into compliance. The ACCJC
enforced this rule after CCSF had been given far more time and opportunity - up to seven years in some
areas - to come into compliance.
When the Commission told the College in 2012 that it needed to move expeditiously to fully address
deficiencies, the institution was unable to achieve the internal consensus and commitment to action that
was needed to enact changes identified by the college Chancellor and State Trustee. The Commission's
action in June 2013 was based on the evidence provided by the College itself and by the evaluation team,
which showed the college was able to accomplish little over the previous year, was still divided and still
did not comply with Accreditation Standards.
Commission Chair Sherrill Amador stated, "The best way forward is for the institution, its staff and
faculty, to join the college leaders in making needed changes to improve the quality and secure the future
accreditation of the college. The Commission is sure that Mr. Torlakson, other political leaders and
educators in the Bay Area and the State share the belief that the students and citizens of San Francisco
deserve an institution that meets standards of quality met by 111 other public community colleges in
California.”
Page 93
As I have documented in this paper, most of the community colleges have been on some sanction from
the ACCJC over the last six years for not satisfying all of the so-called “standards of quality” imposed on
them by the ACCJC. The ACCJC was criticized by the United States Department of Education for its
numerous violations of national requirements - one of those violations addressed the issue of what
constituted “noncompliance” and the unclear nature of the difference between a suggestion for a change
and a requirement to change made by a Visiting Team or the ACCJC. As state many times in this paper,
the concerns raised by the ACCJC did not address the quality of the educational program at CCSF
which by all accounts is outstanding.
September 5, 2013 Letter from Academic Senate to Department of
Education
On September 5, 2013 President Beth Smith, president of the Academic Senate of the California
Community Colleges (ASCCC), wrote to Kay W. Gilcher, Director Accreditation Division in the U.S.
Dept. of Education Office of Postsecondary Education, with regard to the upcoming review of the
ACCJC.
The ASCCC is the statewide, democratically elected organization that represents 113 California
community college academic senates. She noted that “By California Code of Regulations (Title 5
§53200(b)), the primary function of academic senates is to make recommendations with respect to
academic and professional matters, one of which is "Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation
processes, including the self-study and annual reports. " Given this official responsibility, our member
senates are extensively involved in the accreditation process at their colleges, and, as their statewide
organization, the ASCCC not only supports them in their accreditation work locally but also seeks to
identify and report collective challenges experienced by member senates with accreditation and, when
appropriate, to make recommendations to the ACCJC for improving the general accreditation process.”
She noted that the Accreditation Group in the Office of Postsecondary Education found the ACCJC in
violation of a number of requirements to be reaccredited and particularly Criteria for Recognition
§602.15(a)(3), which states that the agency has "academic and administrative personnel on its evaluation,
policy and decision-making bodies, if the agency accredits institutions."
President Smith stated that “The Academic Senate concurs with the Accreditation Group's fmding that the
ACCJC is out of compliance with respect to §602.15(a)(3) and would like to provide further evidence to
the Accreditation Group as it reviews ACCJC's status as an accrediting agency.”
She then runs through a number of Academic Senate resolutions over the year directed at the activities of
the ACCJC and its lack of faculty participation and no policy to correct this problem. She continues with
the statement that “The Academic Senate is also concerned about the ACCJC's failure to follow its own
stated policies with regard the appointment of faculty to its committees
The letter concludes with the following “With the concerns described above, the Academic Senate for
California Community Colleges respectfully asks the Accreditation Division and the National Advisory
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) to review the ACCJC's adherence to CFR
Page 94
§602.15(a)(3) and, if found out of compliance, to delay the decision to extend ACCJC's recognition
for one year to allow the ACCJC to demonstrate compliance with CFR §602.15(a)(3).
September 10, 2013 Complaint by the League of United Latin
American Citizens
On September 10, 2013 the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) wrote to Kay Gilcher,
Director of the Accreditation Division in the Office of Postsecondary Education (US Department of
Education) requesting that her office “take increased action to correct the ongoing mismanagement and
misapplication of accreditation policies and procedures by the ACCJC.”“We are specifically concerned
with the reckless manner in which the ACCJC is handling its accreditation and licensing oversight of the
112 California Community Colleges (CCC).”
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) was established 84 years ago and presently has
over 120,000 active members across the nation. Its mission "is to advance the economic condition,
educational attainment, political influence, housing, health and civil rights.” In that regard, it is LULAC’s
“that higher education is the primary avenue for an individual to obtain equitable opportunity and
equitable treatment in our society. The community colleges are essentially the last line of defense for
students seeking an affordable, quality education. Indeed, the California Community Colleges are a
critical resource for our communities and for our constituency and we therefore consider the
Commission's conduct to be a major threat to the ability of our colleges to effectively serve our students.”
The LULAC letter noted their awareness of other complaints that have been filed including the CFT/AFT
complaint but filed their complaint “because we felt it was important to not only bring further attention to
the Commission's conduct in our community, but also across the state and possibly in other outlying areas
under its jurisdiction, such as Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and Micronesia. Given the widespread
expressions of concern by colleges and communities regarding the conduct of the Commission across the
state, it is highly doubtful that off-shore communities subject to the Commission's oversight are not
suffering the same type of treatment. In essence, we believe the inappropriate conduct of the Commission
is systemic in nature and the problem will not be resolved unless there is intervention from a formal,
higher authority.”
The letter to the Department of Education continued: “The constant attack of community colleges across
the state in recent years by the Commission has unjustifiably shaken the confidence of the public in that
system. We are greatly concerned that this treatment is having a detrimental impact on the ability of our
community colleges to focus their undivided attention on fulfilling their compelling and intended mission
of educating our students, as opposed to wasting precious resources and countless hours of faculty and
administrator time defending their campuses against the noted threat.”
The letter notes the disproportionately harsh sanctions against California Community Colleges as outlined
in ACCJC Gone Wild. The letter also noted the Commission position that “we are not accountable to the
public” as well as “Ms. Beno’s inability to understand due process, the importance of transparency” and
“the meaning of "conflict of interest." Also noted was Beno’s “disdain for legislative enactments in our
state, such as Proposition 59 (2004), which requires that public officials maximize the public's right to
accountability from public officials.”
Page 95
The letter also called attention to the attack by the ACCJC on publically elected Community College
Trustees and in particular, the attack on Trustee Art Hernandez by the Commission when he sought to
protect the educational program at Oxnard Community College. As the letter from LULAC reports: “The
Commission's stated reason for putting the district on probation was apparently not tied to the core
mission of the college pertaining to the quality of instructional and/or student services. The action of the
Commission was clearly tied to personal and political reasons. As reported in the press and stated to
LULAC by numerous college individuals, it was apparently the objective of Commission Executive
Director Barbara Beno to extinguish the voice of one outspoken College Board trustee.” In short “To the
best of our knowledge, and consistent with the letter of the law, the authority of the ACCJC does not
supersede the right of a populace to maintain and receive genuine representation from its elected
officials.”
The letter continued “After examining the noted complaints from other communities across the state and
examining the local situation in depth, it is our position that Ms. Barbara Beno and the ACCJC, as a
whole, has lost its way in terms of its founding mission.” “As amply documented in the CFT/AFT's
complaint, and reaffirmed through other similar complaints, Ms. Beno appears to be using her leverage
as a licensing agency to enforce and impose her personal and political views on local communities, with
little relevance to the core standards of the accreditation.”
In adddition: “There is no way to measure or justify the amount of time unduly wasted by VCCCD
faculty and staff defending the district against retaliatory actions by the Commission. In monetary terms,
the time-on-task by VCCCD staff assigned to needlessly appease Ms. Beno and the Commission has to be
in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Pursuant to existent right of the public to inform elected officials
about their expectations, we are requesting that, at a minimum, your office clarify to the Commission the
importance of not interfering with the relationship that college board of trustees are entitled and required
to maintain with the electorate that they serve.”
“Finally, LULAC would appreciate whatever you can do to encourage Ms. Beno to seek a dialog with our
organization on the issues we have raised. We believe a meaningful discussion serves the best interests of
the commission, the public they serve, and the educational attainment of students.”
Complaint of September 25, 2013 by the San Mateo County
Community College District
On September 25, 2013, San Mateo Community College District Chancellor Ron Galatolo wrote to Kay
W. Gilcher, Director of the Accreditation Group of the Office of Postsecondary Education (U.S.
Department of Education) with regard to the action of the USDE to initiate action to “limit, suspend, or
terminate” its recognition of the ACCJC if, within one year, it does not correct the four deficiencies found
by the USDE.
Just as the ACCJC has required Closure Reports when it placed San Francisco City College, Diablo
Valley College, College of the Sequoias, Cuesta College, College of the Redwoods, Compton College,
Northern Marianas College, Palau Community College, College of Marshall Islands and the Salvation
Army College for Officer Training at Crestmont on SHOW CAUSE why these college should continue to
be accredited, the letter from Chancellor Galatolo requested that ACCJC be directed to do likewise.
Page 96
The letter from Chancellor Galatolo stated that “Given the growing number of recent complaints that have
been made against the ACCJC; an action by California's Joint Legislative Audit Committee ordering a
comprehensive audit of the agency; the multiple remonstrations (including lawsuits filed by the City of
San Francisco, American Federation of Teachers and California Federation of Teachers); as well as its
impending follow-up review by your office, we respectfully request that the USDE consider requiring the
ACCJC to develop a similar Closure Report outlining how it would cease operations and, more
importantly, identifying alternate accrediting organizations for its member institutions.”
“California's community colleges operate under a six-year accreditation cycle and often prepare many
reports —such as Mid-Term Reports and Substantive Change Requests — throughout that six-year
period. Therefore, if ACCJC's recognition as an accrediting organization is terminated, it's imperative
that member institutions have clear direction and viable options to ensure a seamless transition to
another "recognized" accrediting body.”
The letter concludes with the statement that “Accordingly, I strongly believe that there needs to be a clear
and concise plan in place for how the ACCJC would terminate operations to protect the interests of the
member institutions it presently serves. I greatly appreciate your attention to this matter.”
October 7, 2013 Letter from San Mateo Chancellor Galatolo
On October 7, 2013, San Mateo County Community College District Chancellor Ron Galatolo wrote to
Kay Gilcher, Director of the Accreditation Group in the United States Department of Education calling on
the Department of Education to investigate the ACCJC in relation to 34 CFR:
602.13 (a) Acceptance of Agency by Others
602.14 (a) Purpose and Organization
602.18 (b) Ensuring Consistency in Decision Making
These three areas are covered in both the CFT and my complaint to the Department of Education but it is
worthwhile repeating the arguments as they are laid out by Chancellor Galatolo.
34 CFR 602.13 Acceptance of the Agency by Others
"The agency must demonstrate that its standards, policies, procedures and decisions to grant or deny
accreditation are widely accepted in the United States by
a) Educators and educational institutions"
Galatolo writes: “ACCJC is under siege by a variety of educators and educational organizations and
their affiliates including 1) the California Joint Legislative Committee on Audits which ordered an audit
of the agency; 2) the United States Department of Education which found ACCJC to be out of compliance
with Basic Eligibility Requirements; 3) the City of San Francisco and the American Federation of
Teachers(AFT)/California Federation of Teachers (CFT) which have both filed lawsuits against ACCJC;
and 4) the California Department of Education, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the
AFT which have filed complaints against ACCJC.
Page 97
In 2011, the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group), found that
the orientation of ACCJC is at odds with best accreditation practices, which, according to the RP Group,
should focus on active engagement with a college community in educational quality improvement, not
punitive focus on compliance. The RP Group notes that the emphasis on compliance "...can detract from
institutional improvement priorities—implying a disconnect between the intentions of the commission and
the experience of the colleges."
In addition, the RP Group found that "transparent, open and honest opportunities for feedback without
fear of retribution are critical to the commission's relationship with member colleges" but "the colleges
interviewed found ACCJC generally unreceptive to constructive criticism and expressed a fear of
retaliation."
Please note that USDE Guidelines for Preparing/Reviewing Petitions and Compliance Reports indicate
that "Criteria §602.10-§602.13 are basic eligibility requirements. An agency that cannot demonstrate
compliance with these sections of the criteria cannot proceed with the initial recognition process and
recognized agencies may not be eligible for continued recognition."
We do not believe that ACCJC meets this eligibility requirement.”
34 CFR 602.14 Purpose and Organization
(a) The Secretary recognizes only four categories of agencies; two of these apply to ACCJC:
1) To participate in HEA programs: An accrediting agency that has a "voluntary membership" of
institutions of higher education and satisfies the "separate and independent requirement."
(2) To participate in non-HEA programs: An accrediting agency that has a "voluntary membership".
With reference to 34 CFR 602.14 Galatolo writes that “California Administrative Code (5 CCR § 51016)
states "Each community college within a district shall be an accredited institution. The Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges shall determine accreditation." Therefore, voluntary
membership does not exist.
We do not believe that ACCJC meets this eligibility requirement.”
34 CFR 602.18 Ensuring Consistency in Decision Making
"(b) Has effective controls against the inconsistent application of the agency's standards"
Galatolo writes that “the following statistics call into question whether ACCJC is applying its standards
consistently:
Over a ten year period (2003-2013), ACCJC sanctioned 66% of California community colleges
undergoing accreditation. During that same time period, 18 colleges had a representative sitting on the
Commission when their college underwent accreditation and NONE of those colleges were sanctioned. If
you assume that colleges which have sitting commissioners are constructively exempt from receiving
sanctions and remove them from the denominator, the sanction rate of colleges by ACCJC approaches
80%. Conversely, the average sanction rate for the other six accrediting agencies in the nation is
approximately 2%.
In the last three years, 35 of 51 California community colleges were reviewed by the ACCJC —
69% were sanctioned.
Page 98
From 2003-2008, ACCJC generated 89% of all sanctions nationwide. We believe this constitutes
inconsistent application of standards—particularly in regard to colleges which have members sitting on
the accrediting commission—and we do not believe that ACCJC meets this eligibility requirement.
October 8, 2013 Letter from Beno to Dr. Bonnie Dowd Requesting Help
On October 8, 2013 ACCJC President Barbara Beno wrote to President Bonnie Dowd of the Association
of Chief Business Officers requesting help with regard to the ACCJC’s application to be reaccredited.
The letter illustrates the problems that ACCJC faces in its effort to appear respectable.
The letter read:
“The ACCJC has submitted its petition for renewal of its recognition from the U.S. Department of
Education under the regulations for recognition of accrediting bodies associated with the Higher
Education Act of 2008. The regulations are contained largely in Part H of the Act.
The Commission is now in an approximately two week period in which it may provide responses to the
Department's preliminary analysis of the petition for recognition, with the goal of addressing any
concerns with compliance that the Department analysis may have identified. This is, by the way, the
process in which the ACCJC will have opportunity to respond to the Department's August 13, 2013 letter
that provided its preliminary findings on the CFT Complaint, a letter many of you are aware of.
The ACCJC is compiling documentation to make its case on all issues that the Department's preliminary
analysis raised. We need your assistance with one area described below.
Section 602.13:
Acceptance of the Agency by Others
The agency must demonstrate that its standards, policies, procedures and decisions to grant or deny
accreditation are widely accepted in the United States by(a) Educators and educational institutions; and
(b) Licensing bodies, practitioners and employers in the professional or vocational fields for which the
educational institutions or programs within the agency's jurisdiction prepare their students.
The USDE has indicated it received letters of gratitude from institutions about ACCJC's actions, but not
letters of support or broad acceptance for ACCJC's standards, policies, procedures and decisions.
It has indicated that it has received letters from four faculty senates at California public institutions,
three California-wide faculty organizations (unions) and one national faculty organization (AFT) that
"indicated their disagreement with the policies and actions of the agency (the ACCJC)."
If these communications remain the only "voice" of the California Community Colleges, then it is possible
that the U.S.D.E. will not be able to grant recognition to the accrediting body the region's institutions
established in 1963, the ACCJC.
I am writing in hopes that you will be willing to provide a letter to the ACCJC that describes your
institution's or your organization's commitment to ACCJC accreditation standards and policies and
Page 99
practices (item (a) above.) Because the period in which third party letters written directly to the U.S.
Department of Education can be added to the recognition proceedings has closed, we ask that you send
any letters to the ACCJC. The ACCJC will be submitting all letters it receives as evidentiary documents,
along with a narrative response to the Department's comments, and record of the ACCJC's various
partnerships with higher education organizations in the region, and documentation of the wide
participation of administrators, educators and others in accreditation activities.
Please feel free to call me or Krista Johns at the ACCJC offices if you we can answer any questions.
Please send your letter by October 18, 2013. The ACCJC's deadline for submission is October 25, 2013.”
And what will be the reprisal for those not submitting letters of approval to the ACCJC?
Oct. 24, 2013 Chancellor’s with Opposing Views
ACCJC Commissioner Kinsella Writes
On October 24, 2013 ACCJC Commissioner and Gavilan College CEO Steve Kinsella wrote an e-mail to
CEOs statewide entitled Does Your Accreditation Really Matter. In the e-mail he made the claim that
“membership organization” ACCJC “is threatened by faculty unions who are attempting to decide
among other things which organizations are to be accredited.” The purpose of the letter was to get CEOs
across the state “speak up for your accrediting commission.” He then goes on to argue that it is very
difficult for people to stand up to union power, but they should. “Those of you who have challenged the
faculty unions know the sacrifice and price of demonstrating the courage to say no when you must. That is
the type of leadership you now have to demonstrate to retain your accrediting commission.” He goes on
to write that CEOs are urged to stand up to the unions and their “paid consultants in the Assembly and
Senate.”
Kinsella concludes with the following: “if you think this is an ACCJC issue you need to think beyond this
because this is nothing more than a fight for total control, void of all but legal constraints that enrich
faculty with more entitlements every year. Once they control accreditation they own you.” “If you are
willing to stand next to the handful of us who see this issue for what it really is then you need to take a
couple minutes to write a letter as the CEO of your college that says the accreditation standards are
accepted in your service area and that those standards (and your accreditation) are supported by your
communities.” I guess the CEOs now speak for the service area and the communities, not just for
themselves or for the District Governing Board when it so agrees.
“Oh yes” he wites in the following PS: “I have great personal respect for the faculty I have had the
pleasure of working with over the past 23 years. The unions however continue to show a single sided
winner take all viewpoint.”
San Mateo Chancellor Galatolo Replies
Page 100
Later in the day San Mateo District Chancellor Ron Galatolo wrote an e-mail to the CEOs in answer to
Kinsella. He began with: “In response to Steve’s email, the benefits of accreditation and of a regional
accrediting agency are not in question. The issue is ACCJC’s inconsistent application of its own
standards; its punitive focus on compliance – irrespective of relevance; its imposition of numerous
sanctions; its preferential treatment of its own Commissioners; and its indifference to the application of
reasonable due process.”
He stated his belief that the termination of CCSF’s accreditation was an “egregious error in judgment of
epic proportions” and that “CCJC has fundamentally harmed the reputation of our entire system and
reinforced my belief that the ACCJC has not been objectively operating in the best interest of its member
colleges for an extended period of time.” He urged the CEOs to read “the well-prepared CCSF Show
Cause Evaluation Report at the following link:
http://www.ccsf.edu/ACC/CCSF%20Show%20Cause%20Visit%20Team%20Report_05_20_2013.pdf”.
“The report highlights the status of 14 recommendations made by the 2012 evaluation team. As you read
those recommendations, I ask you to preface each one with: City College of San Francisco should be
closed permanently because…”
“As an example using the first recommendation in the report, City College of San Francisco should be
closed permanently because they do not have a ‘prescribed process and timeline to regularly review the
mission statement and revise it as necessary.’ Or, the second recommendation, City College of San
Francisco should be closed permanently because they did not ‘develop a strategy for fully implementing
its existing planning process.’”
“CCSF is an imperfect institution – we all are! But do we eternally deny access to 85,000 students in San
Francisco because of these largely non-academic issues or do we collectively get behind an institution
that is performing (according to the State Chancellor’s Office Scorecard data) well above the statewide
average in Completion, Persistence and Remedial English as well as ESL?”
Galatolo then notes that “The ACCJC is under siege by a variety of educators, public officials and
educational organizations: 1) the California Joint Legislative Committee on Audits ordered a formal
State audit of the ACCJC; 2) the United States Department of Education found the ACCJC to be out of
compliance with Basic Eligibility Requirements; 3) the City of San Francisco and the American
Federation of Teachers (AFT)/California Federation of Teachers (CFT) have both filed lawsuits against
the ACCJC; and 4) the California Department of Education, the League of United Latin American
Citizens and the AFT have filed complaints against the ACCJC.”
He then goes over the record of the ACCJC: “Over a ten year period (2003-2013), the ACCJC sanctioned
66% of California’s community colleges undergoing accreditation. Since 2007, all 112 California
community colleges were reviewed by the ACCJC – 71 of 112 colleges were sanctioned (63%). In the last
three years, 35 of 51 community colleges were reviewed by the ACCJC – 69% were sanctioned.
Conversely, the average sanction rate for the other accrediting agencies throughout the nation is
approximately 2%. From 2003-2008, ACCJC generated 89% of all sanctions nationwide.” He also notes
that the “ACJC Commissioners have ignored recommendations of the visiting teams they sent out to
review institutions.”
“In March of 2013, Santa Barbara City College received a prominent national award by the Aspen
Institute for “high achievement and performance in America’s community colleges” – Santa Barbara was
Page 101
chosen from more than 1,000 colleges nationwide. Nevertheless, the ACCJC sanctioned that very same
college two months earlier, in January of 2013.”
Chancellor Galatolo goes on to mention the results of RP Group study and the findings of the United
States Department of Education (USDE) that are discussed elsewhere in this paper. Galatolo goes on to
note that “in response to the USDE’s letter informing the ACCJC that it did not have ‘letters of support or
broad acceptance for ACCJC’s standards, policies, procedures and decisions’ from educators and
educational institutions, the ACCJC President selectively petitioned CEOs, educational organizations
and others asking them to send support letters in order to bolster ACCJC’s request for reauthorization.
The President also asked the responders to send these letters directly to her and not straight to the USDE.
The ACCJC President is soliciting these letters of support from colleges that it accredits, which could
exert undue influence on those individuals and entities to respond favorably.”
Chancellor Galatolo concludes his e-mail by noting that “Lastly, this email comes from a district that has
all three of its colleges fully accredited. I have no personal axe to grind, nor am I expecting any ‘awards
granted by union power.’ I merely care about the long-term welfare of our exceptional system as a
whole!”
The reader will have to decide who is braver, the CEO that stands with the ACCJC against the faculty
unions or the CEO who is willing to risk the ACCJC wrath on his colleges (which will all be up for
accreditation review this year) by standing up and telling the world how the ACCJC has actually been
behaving.
Save CCSF Coalition Files November 4, 2013 Lawsuit
On November 4, 2013, a lawsuit in Superior Court was filed against the ACCJC by the Save CCSF
Coalition. The Plaintiffs and Petitioners included Madeline Mueller, Wendy Kaufmyn, Leslie Simon,
Vincent Tarikhu Farrar, Monica Collins, Thea Matthews, Shanell Williams, Martin Madrigal, Itzel Calvo
Medina, and Arla Ertz. The Petitioners are a combination of employees and students of CCSF.
The lawsuit contends that the “Community College of San Francisco ("CCSF") is committed to its mission
of providing everyone who is able to learn with open access to education. Its accrediting agency, ACCJC,
contends that the sole purpose of a community college is to serve as a feeder system for four-year
degrees. Because of its disapproval of CCSF's philosophy, and not because of any inherent problems
with CCSF, ACCJC decided to revoke CCSF's accreditation. ACCJC imposed this harsh sanction
arbitrarily, using lawless methods and ignoring the findings of its own review committees to withdraw
CCSF's accreditation.”
“They bring this action seeking a writ of mandate against ACCJC to protect their interest in CCSF's
continued existence. They should prevail because ACCJC's decision-making process was marred by
conflicts of interest, numerous violations of applicable regulations, and sustained disregard of its own
policies. ACCJC abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law, and
mandamus should lie compelling it to forbear from revoking CCSF's accreditation.”
The laws suit notes that the State Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges ("the BOG")
has designated the ACCJC “as the accreditor for California's community colleges, granting them sole and
Page 102
absolute discretion to set standards and make decisions about community college accreditation. ACCJC
therefore wields the power of life and death over all California community colleges.”
The lawsuit notes that: “ACCJC has a history of strongly supporting a shift from the "open access" model
of community colleges to a junior college model of maximizing the rate at which students earn associate's
degrees. The Lumina Foundation, an organization with ties to for-profit colleges and the private student
loan industry, has facilitated this policy through generous donations to ACCJC's parent organization, the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges ("WASC"). Accordingly, the ACCJC strongly supported a
suite of policy changes created by the BOG's Student Success Task Force, which would strip financial aid
from students who take too long to earn a degree, students whose grades dropped below a certain
threshold, and students who did not designate an approved ‘program of study.’ “
The lawsuit also addresses the fight in the legislature over open access in which CCSF and ACCJC were
on opposing sides and then the ACCJC decision to place CCSF on SHOW CAUSE “repeatedly
denounced CCSF's open access mission, and the accompanying report said that the ‘college has not
demonstrated the will to reexamine he scope of the college's mission... there is no process to reduce the
scope of programs and services provided across the service area.’”
The lawsuit notes the Department of Education letter of August 13, 2013 that the ACCJC had not
complied with 34 CFR in various places including the lack of clarity regard “deficiencies” and
“recommendations” as well as appearance of conflict of interest. The members of the subsequent Visiting
Team “were affiliated with organizations that had publicly supported the Task Force recommendations.
Nevertheless, the team concluded that CCSF had met or was on the way to meeting all of ACCJC's
recommendations. The Show Cause Visiting Team's report concluded that, of the 14 recommendations
made by the 2012 Evaluation Team, CCSF had fully addressed four and partially addressed the rest.”
“This degree of progress would have saved any other school with Show Cause status. But ACCJC was
put in a position that gave it the opportunity to punish those who criticized its politics, and it took the
opportunity.”
“Without explanation, ACCJC overruled the team that had actually inspected CCSF, declaring that CCSF
had in fact fully met only two of the recommendations and had partially met only one. For example,
Standard I.B.2 reads, "The institution sets goals to improve its effectiveness consistent with its stated
purposes. The institution articulates its goals and states the objectives derived from them in measurable
terms so that the degree to which they are achieved can be determined and widely discussed. The
institutional members understand these goals and work collaboratively toward their achievement."
“The Visitation Team reviewed CCSF's progress towards meeting Standard 1.B.2 in its Show Cause
Evaluation Report, and found that ‘the revised program review system has strengthened the ability of the
college to use both qualitative and quantitative data, as is evident from the quality of the program reviews
and the use of those reviews to develop prioritized lists of resource requests. Conclusion: The college
meets the standard.’ In its Termination Letter, ACCJC declared that CCSF had failed to meet Standard
1.B.2, without any explanation of its decision or evidence to support its conclusion.”
“ACCJC's Commission overruled its own 2013 evaluation team by adding eleven violations of ACCJC's
non-academic standards not found in the evaluation team's report. ACCJC's rules allow this practice only
when the college is first given written notice and an opportunity to respond to the new charges in writing.
Page 103
The rules also require that the final decision on such added charges to be postponed to the next regular
Commission meeting, currently scheduled for January 2014. ACCJC failed to do so.”
The suit also noted that “CCSF has never before faced any sanction, including the lower ‘Warning’ and
‘Probation’ sanctions that ACCJC had at its disposal. ACCJC took the virtually unprecedented step of
imposing the death sentence against a first offender, motivated primarily by CCSF's actions in publicly
criticizing ACCJC's politics.”
The law suit spells out how “ACCJC committed multiple violations of both its own rules and of
applicable laws and regulations, it has failed its common law due process obligations with regard to both
CCSF and those who are benefitted by CCSF” and that “ACCJC's various improper acts also violate
California Business and Professions Code § 17200, which prohibits any ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent
business act or practices.’”
“Petitioners do not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Petitioners are informed and
believe that there are no available legal procedures to redress the harm they will suffer if their requested
relief is denied. Petitioners are informed and believe that they do not have access to any administrative
procedures to address those harms.” The only recourse open to the faculty, students, and community to
the action of the ACCJC is the kangaroo court of appeal set up by the ACCJC itself discussed elsewhere
in this paper.
In short, the suit’s claim is that the ACCJC has violated law “by engaging in unlawful, unfair, and/or
fraudulent acts, including but not limited to:
Unfairly evaluating CCSF while engaged in a public political fight with it;
Unfairly appointing President Barbara Beno's husband to serve on the 2012 Evaluation Team;
Unfairly filling a voting majority of the 2012 Evaluation Team and the 2013 Show Cause Visiting Team
with individuals affiliated with organizations that endorsed ACCJC's side of its political struggle with
CCSF;
Unlawfully violating 34 CFR § 602.15(a)(3) by failing to ensure reasonable academic representation on
the 2012 and 2013 teams;
Unlawfully violating 34 CFR § 602.15(a)(6) by failing to establish clear and effective controls against
conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest, and by appointing President Beno's
husband to serve on the 2012 Team;
Unlawfully violating 34 CFR § 602.18(e) by failing to inform CCSF which of its recommendations
indicated noncompliance with an accreditation standard, and which presented an opportunity to improve
upon standards with which CCSF already complied.
Unlawfully violating 20 USC §1099b(a)(4)(A) and 34 CFR § 602.18 by applying and enforcing
accreditation standards hostile to, rather than encouraging of, the open access mission encouraged by the
California legislature and embraced by CCSF.
ACCJC's practices, as set forth in this complaint, constitute unfair business practices because they offend
established public policy and cause harm that greatly outweighs any benefits associated with those
practices.”
The petitioners are asking for the following:
“For a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining spondent from taking
any action pursuant to its Decision pending trial.
Page 104
For a declaration that respondent has violated its duty by deciding to de-accredit CSF other than
in the manner required by law, and without substantial evidentiary support.
For a peremptory writ of mandate to be issued under the seal of this Court commanding
respondent ACCJC to vacate and set aside its decision to de-accredit CCSF, and to re-evaluate CCSF's
status in the manner required by all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
For their costs of suit.
For reasonable attorney's fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
For other equitable or legal relief that the Court considers just and proper.”
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Addresses ACCJC
Issues
At its Fall 2013 Plenary Session the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC)
approved a number of resolutions related to the ACCJC. The delegates from the community colleges in
California made clear their interest in changing the current behavior of the Commission.
Role of Academic Senate
First the Senate made clear what they felt the role of the ASCCC and local senates with regard to
accreditation should be. The addressed their role in working with the ACCJC and local college faculty. To
that end they approved the following statement:
“The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) values the peer review process of
self-reflection and improvement known as accreditation. Since local academic senates have Title 5mandated roles within the accreditation process, the ASCCC sees its primary responsibility as helping
colleges to meet the adopted standards for which they will be held accountable and to generate
comprehensive and forthright assessments of progress toward the standards. The ASCCC's main tool for
supporting colleges is the annual Accreditation Institute, through which faculty and other colleagues are
encouraged to learn about and address the standards and recommendations from the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. Additionally, the Academic Senate shares accreditation
information and provides support through local college visits and regional presentations.”
“As a professional matter, in support of the ideal of a fair and meaningful accreditation process, the
ASCCC's secondary responsibility is to recommend and advocate for improvements to the accreditation
standards and processes by providing thoughtful feedback and input to all accreditation participants.”
In short, the ASCCC expects to take a strong role in the consideration of changes to the standards and
processes of the ACCJC.
Faculty Participation
A second resolution noted that the ACCJC has not paid attention to its’ expressed “concerns regarding
faculty participation and representation on the Commission's committees and on on-site evaluation teams
through a variety of means, including resolutions passed by the body, concerns expressed to the
California Community College Chancellor’s Office, and the Board of Governors, and letters sent by the
Academic Senate to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE).”
Page 105
Transparent Operation
The Plenary supported a resolution that noted areas where lack of transparency exist in the ACCJC
process. The approved resolve called "on the ACCJC to implement a policy of transparency in its
proceedings and decision making which includes the opportunity for the public to discuss proposed
sanctions before they are voted on and publishing visiting team recommendations for sanctions and
minutes of ACCJC meetings including a tally record of votes taken."
In addition, the delegates approved the following Resolve: “That the Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges urge the ACCJC to model and exemplify for its member institutions effective and
transparent self-evaluation practices by acknowledging and addressing any areas of non-compliance
identified in evaluations by the USDE’s Accreditation Group and the National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Improvement (NACIQI), and to document and make public what steps it will
take to address any areas of non-compliance.”
Time Line for Rule Changes
The Academic Senate also expressed its concern with rule changes made without their input and with a
time line that was difficult to satisfy: “Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community
Colleges formally request that the ACCJC provide member institutions opportunities for meaningful
input to the ACCJC about any proposed changes to the required annual reports, and that any adopted
changes by ACCJC to annual reports be published at least one year in advance of the effective date of
implementation of the required annual reports.”
Use of the Word “Recommendation”
Another issue discussed was the requirement to make changes to satisfy “recommendations” of the
Commission within two years. They noted in a resolution that “The Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) currently uses the term "recommendation" in two senses when
communicating the Commission's actions, namely, "to meet the standard" or "to improve institutional
effectiveness," and thus it is unclear which of the "recommendations" issued to member institutions by the
ACCJC fall under the Two-Year Rule.” The resolution added that “ACCJC's use of the term
‘recommendation’ in two different ways concerned the Accreditation Group of the United States
Department of Education enough for it to note in its memo to the ACCJC dated August 13, 20132 that
‘what is not clear is how the recommendations are differentiated between the two types and how an
institution, an evaluation team, the Commission, or the public is to know the difference’”
This is one of the issues that arose over the ACCJC decision to decertify CCSF.
The resolution concluded with a resolve that “the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
formally request that the ACCJC adopt and employ two consistent terms: One, such as ‘action required’
for those ACCJC findings of non-compliance that must be addressed under the Two-Year Rule, and a
second term such as ‘recommendation’ used exclusively for Commission suggestions that the institution
may implement at its discretion.”
Page 106
Had this distinction been made years ago we may have experienced fewer sanctions by the ACCJC on the
community colleges of California.
Training and Composition of Visiting Teams
The Senate passed a resolution regarding improvement in training and inter-rater reliability of
Visiting Teams. The resolution noted that “visiting teams that visit institutions completing selfevaluations vary widely in composition and background, resulting in recommendations often more
focused on team members' areas of expertise than a balanced evaluation of all standards;”“ACCJC
standards tend to be subjective, vague and open to interpretation allowing for inconsistencies from one
visiting team to another;” and “ACCJC does not appear to evaluate its own processes to determine if
standards are being applied fairly and consistently across institutions.” The resolution went on to “urge
the ACCJC to include training to promote inter-rater reliability in and among visiting teams sent to
institutions under review;” and
“urge that ACCJC conduct evaluations to determine if standards are being consistently applied across
institutions and that their findings be reported to all colleges.”
CCSF Accreditation
Another resolution that was approved by the body involved the removal of accreditation of CCSF by July
1, 2014. Noting that the disaccreditation “is being contested legally by at least three pending lawsuits, an
unprecedented situation which has never been faced by colleges on accreditation sanction” and the
difficulty implementing changes in this atmosphere, the ASCCC called on the ACCJC to “extend the
deadline by one year for CCSF to meet accreditation compliance based on CCSF's ongoing efforts to
meet the accreditation standards.” There was much discussion and agreement regarding the various
violations that the ACCJC has made in the accreditation process as well as the unusual number of
sanctions levied but the body was unwilling to put those into the resolutions themselves for fear of
complications that might develop in the working relationships between the ACCJC and the Senate - both
statewide and locally.
Draft of Proposed Changes in Standards
A number of resolutions involved a draft of new proposed accreditation standards that were revealed by
representatives from the ACCJC at lunch meeting. Delegates were surprised at some of the changes that
were not made clear by the presenters from ACCJC. One resolution was in response to the proposed
movement toward “adopting standards with less focus on the diversity and equity.” This concern
included the fact that the draft removes the language from Standard II.A.1.a. that states “The institution
identifies and seeks to meet the varied educational needs of its students through programs consistent with
their educational preparation and the diversity, demographics, and economy of its communities.” It
makes this removal “without replacement.”
The draft also removes language from Standard II.B ( “The institution recruits and admits diverse
students who are able to benefit from its programs, consistent with its mission”) without replacement as
well as language from Standard II.B.3.d (The institution designs and maintains appropriate programs,
practices, and services that support and enhance student understanding and appreciation of diversity).”
As a consequence the Senate passed a resolution “Affirming Support for Diversity and Equity in
Accreditation Standards.”
Page 107
“Resolved, That Academic Senate for California Community Colleges strongly urge the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges to retain requirements in the standards for colleges to
actualize the principles of student equity and foster respect for diversity including a standard that
institutions recruit and admit diverse students who are able to benefit from their programs, consistent
with their mission; and
Resolved, That Academic Senate for California Community Colleges strongly urge ACCJC to include a
standard that institutions demonstrate commitment to hiring and maintaining personnel of diverse
backgrounds, recognizing the significant educational role such diversity plays in the education of all
students.”
Libraries and Learning Support Services
Another area of concern in the draft of proposed changes had to do with Libraries and Learning Support
Services. The new standards were drafted “to replace the 2001 Standards without incorporating
proposals given to the Commission from the Council of Chief Librarians, a group that represents
librarians in the California Community Colleges, to strengthen the coordination of student learning
among librarians, learning support staff, and discipline faculty.”
“The ACCJC draft Standards weaken, to the detriment of student learning, the criteria used in the 2002
Standards in regard to information competency and access to library materials and services regardless of
location or means of delivery” and “eliminate all reference to institutions ‘providing personnel
responsible for student learning programs’ and eliminate the current Substandard II.C.2 entitled ‘Library
and Learning Support Services’ and places the standards now in that section under Standard IIB (Student
Services).”
The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges then resolved to “advocate for the concerns of
library faculty and advocates for reconsideration of the draft Standards by the ACCJC at the January
2014 meeting of the ACCJC.”
Part-Time Faculty
Noting that California Education Code §87482.8(d) states that “Part-time faculty should be considered to
be an integral part of their departments and given all the rights normally afforded to full-time faculty in
the areas of book selection, participation in department activities, and the use of college resources,
including but not necessarily limited to telephones, copy machines, supplies, office space, mail boxes,
clerical staff, library, and professional development.”
The Academic Senate for California Community recommended “that the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges add to II.A.8 or another appropriate location in the accreditation
standards, language that reflects the expectation that colleges will provide equitable access to college
infrastructure and resources to all faculty members so that the teaching mission of the college may be
more effectively attained.”
Visiting Team Reports and Privacy
ACCJC Visiting teams are given one day of training and then sent out to a college to do an evaluation.
Page 108
The training is seen by many to be inadequate to the task involved. Team leaders are also not well
educated on how to write a report and how far they are allowed to go with recommendations that are
overly micro-managing in nature. The lack of adequate training violates 34 CFR 602.15(a)(2)”.
The Visiting Team compositions are often at odds with federal requirements. This was specifically
pointed out in the letter of August 13, 2013 from the Accreditation Group in the Office of Postsecondary
Education with regard to the lack of adequate faculty representation on the Visiting Team for City College
of San Francisco. I have noted other colleges that have had a similar problem. This practice of under
representation by college faculty was cited as one of the violations that the ACCJC had committed in
regard to its action against CCSF. They found that, among other violations, the lack of faculty on teams
represented a violation of 34 CFR 602.15(a)(3).
College representatives that met with visiting teams have often been surprised by the harshness of some
of the sanctions imposed by the Commission. Many of the visiting team members assured the local
college that their accreditation would go smoothly only to find that the college was put on Warning,
Probation, or Show Cause. Members of the college accreditation team are left to wonder what happened.
In addition, several team members on college visits have confidentially disclosed that their team’s
recommendations regarding their team’s recommended level of sanctions were changed to more harsh
sanctions by the Commission. The RP Group report (discussed later in this paper) supports this
conclusion.
There is no public record of what the teams recommended with regard to the level of sanctions but
it appears that since each team is assigned an ACCJC staff member who “helps” the chair of the visiting
team write the final report, the actual sanctions are often based on the current demands of the staff
member and Barbara Beno rather than on the recommendation of the Visiting Team. The teams tend to
deal with the way the college is operating today whereas the ACCJC itself appears to be also interested in
the long-term compliance of the college and will make sanctions harsher when it feels that the college
has not been adequately responsive to the demands of the ACCJC or the recommendations of the visiting
team – even when those recommended changes did not reach the level of requiring a sanction be
imposed.
It is very difficult to find out what happens from the time the visiting team report is submitted and the
final judgment by the Commission is made. It does appear to be true that the ACCJC commissioners
themselves actually vote on the sanctions to be imposed (although no official record of voting is available
to the public or to the colleges sanctioned). It is clear from all information that I have uncovered that
Barbara Beno plays a heavy hand in discussions. Her approach is identified as a “my way or the highway”
approach.
One cause of the secrecy in the ACCJC process results from ACCJC rules on confidentiality. In one part
it reads: “In order to assure the accuracy and appropriateness of institutional information which is made
public, the Commission expects evaluation team members to keep confidential all institutional
information read or heard before, during, and after the evaluation visit. Except in the context of
Commission work, evaluation team members are expected to refrain from discussing information
obtained in the course of service as an evaluation team member. Sources of information that should
remain confidential include the current Institutional Self Evaluation Report; previous External Evaluation
Reports; interviews and written communication with campus personnel, students, governing board
members, and community members; evidentiary documents, and evaluation team discussions.”
Page 109
“The institutional file in the Commission office is part of the private relationship with the institution and
is therefore not available to the public. Correspondence and verbal communication with the institution or
its members can remain confidential at the discretion of the ACCJC President. The Commission will
consider institutional requests for confidentiality in communications with the Commission in the context
of this policy.”
In addition, the work of the Commission in determining the sanctions is done in private. The public is
thus unable to determine if the final determinations are the work of one person, come after a vote of
the Commission members, or are determined by some method of consensus. Actual votes are never
published. There is a virtual cone of silence imposed on the proceedings.
Commission Composition
The ACCJC Commissioners are not representative of the diversity in the California community colleges.
The large urban districts such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose - Evergreen, and Long
Beach are not represented on the Commission whereas Riverside City College has two member of the
Commission. The faculty of the California Community Colleges are represented by only four of the
members of the Commission. The Commission also includes a number of members who were not well
respected as administrators at their home campus. The Commission also does not reflect the diversity of
California’s population.
Many of the present and past ACCJC Commissioners have served as members of college visiting teams. It
is not clear if they voted when those college accreditations came up for a vote before the Commission.
The votes on the levels of sanctions imposed are not made public.
Dr. Sherrill Amador | Chair
Dr. Amador serves as a public member of the Commission. Dr. Amador began her service on the
Commission July 1, 2004. She was a very unpopular college president at Palomar College where she
received several votes of non-confidence.
Dr. Steven Kinsella | Vice Chair
Dr. Kinsella serves as an administrative member of the Commission. He serves as Gavilan College’s
Superintendent/President where his total compensation is currently in excess of $255,000 per year . Dr.
Kinsella began his service on the Commission in January 2010. Politically he serves as an Advisory
Board Member of The Campaign for College Opportunity. The Campaign for College Opportunity is a
California non-profit organization. It was founded by a group including the Community College League
of California, the California Business Roundtable, and the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund. It has
been active in lobbying the state legislature on bills of interest to the community colleges.
Kinsella had also served as the chairperson of the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of the Community
College League of California (CCLC) about a year before becoming a Commissioner. The JPA is
designed to help districts comply with GASB 45 (funding employee health retirement) with the
establishment of an Investment Trust under the control of the JPA. Gavilan College has joined the JPA
and pays money into the CCLC JPA. The District also contracts with the CCLC to help develop its
policies. Dr. Kinsella has served on a number of ACCJC college/district visiting teams in which he
Page 110
participated in looking at the college’s pre-funding of GASB 45. He also served on an ACCJC task force
that helped to create what are called “Required Evidentiary Documents” that are used to evaluate
institutional financial services to reflect “accounting requirements for other post-employment benefits and
liabilities ..” In short, Kinsella helped develop the CCLC JPA, then helped the ACCJC to develop a
standard directed at funding GASB 45, participated in teams looking at GASB 45 funding, and finally
voted as part ot the Commission on college sanctions. Kinsella is a former marine.
Dr. Joseph Bielanski, Jr.
Dr. Bielanski serves as a faculty member of the Commission. He serves as the Institutional Effectiveness
Coordinator and Articulation Officer Berkeley City College (where Commission President Barbara Beno
served as a college president). Dr. Bielanski began his service on the Commission July 1, 2010. He was
appointed to the California Community College Board of Governors on November 30, 2011. He was
elected to a second three-year term in June of 2013.
Dr. Timothy Brown
Dr. Timothy Brown serves as a faculty member of the Commission. He is the Chair of English and
Speech Communications at Riverside City College. Dr. Brown received his Ed. D. in 1996 from
Pepperdine University where, for his dissertation study, he developed an evaluation model to assess the
effectiveness of reading instruction to adults using the television as the primary delivery mode. Dr. Brown
began his service on July 1, 2011.
Mr. Chris Constantin
Mr. Constantin serves as a public member of the Commission. He serves as Assistant City Auditor for
San Diego. Mr. Constantin began his service on the Commission July 1, 2010. He was elected to a second
term in July of 2013.
Dr. Gary Davis
Dr. Davis represents the Accrediting Commission for Schools of WASC. Dr. Davis began his service on
the Commission July 1, 2010. As of July 1, 2013 he is no longer a member of the Commission.
Dr. Frank Gornick
Dr. Gornick serves as an administrative member of the Commission. He is the Chancellor at West Hills
Community College. Dr. Gornick was active in the CCLC-JPA. He has served on a number of visiting
teams that improperly addressed the GASB 45 issue. Although the voting is made in secret, it is likely
that Gornick voted on the accreditation of colleges that were “dinged” for not funding their GASB 45
projections. A number of administrators who served on visiting teams have also served on the CCLC JPA
board. Chancellor Dr. Gornick began his service on the Commission on July 1, 2009.
Dr. Sharon Loucks
Dr. Sharon Loucks joined the Commision on July 1, 2013. She is retired from education. She served as an
Adminstrative Assistant in the Department of Sociology at Ithaca College in New York. She is a member
of the Ready Springs Union Elementary School District Board of Education in Penn Valley, California.
She was a speaker at the November 2012 California School Boards Association Education Conference.
Ms. Virginia May
Ms. May serves as a faculty member of the Commission. She teaches mathematics at Sacramento City
Page 111
College. Ms. May began her service on the Commission July 1, 2009.
Dr. Richard Mahon
Dr. Mahon serves as a faculty member of the Commission. He teaches Humanities at Riverside City
College. He is the second serving member from Riverside City College. Dr. Mahon began his service on
the Commission July 1, 2012.
Mr. Charles Meng
Mr. Meng serves as a public member of the Commission. He served 14 years as member of the Napa
Valley Board of Trustees. He was once an active member of the Community College League of
California. He served in the U.S Army Corps of Engineers after attending West Point. Mr. Meng began
his service on the Commission January 1, 2011. He was elected to a second term in July of 2013.
Dr. John Morton
Dr. John Morton joined the Commission on July 1, 2013. He is representing the six community colleges
of the University of Hawai’i. He is the University of Hawai’i Vice President for Community Colleges. In
2012 he was quoted as stating that “Workforce development is a critical factor in successful economic
development.” “Producing graduates with the right training for high-growth industries not only supports
the state’s economic goals but also attracts new businesses to setup shop here in Hawai’i.”
Ms. Susan Murata
Ms. Murata serves as a faculty member of the Commission. She is the Library Director at Kapi'olani
Community College. Ms Murata began her service on the Commission July 1, 2010. She was elected to a
second term in July of 2013.
Dr. Raul Rodriguez
Dr. Raul Rodriguez serves as an administrative member of the Commission. He currently serves as
Chancellor in the Rancho Santiago Community College District where his compensated is in excess of
$250,000 per year. Dr. Rodriguez began his service on July 1, 2011.
On March 28, 2009, as college president at Delta College, Dr. Rodriguez issued the following
statement regarding the action of the ACCJC that placed Delta College on probation: “On February 6th I
received notification from the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges that they
have placed Delta College on probation. Additionally, the Commission is asking us to provide a second
report by March 15, 2009.”
“As you know, the college has been on warning status since June of 2008. Since that time, we
have accomplished a great deal toward addressing the recommendations provided to us by the
Commission. We provided evidence of this continuing work to the Commission in the form of a followup report dated October 21, 2008. Being placed on probation was clearly not the result that we hoped for
or expected for our efforts. However, that work did have some positive results. That is, the Commission
has now reduced the number of recommendations on which we have to report from eleven down to six.
Without downplaying the significance of the remaining recommendations, the good news is that we have
been consistently working on these recommendations since we submitted the last report. This does not
mean that there is not work to be done. There is a lot yet to be done and we will have to redouble our
efforts to get it done. We will have to make this our top priority and marshal our resources to make
improvements that remedy our deficiencies and that satisfy the Commission.”
“It is of little solace that we have plenty of company across the state. A number of colleges are
already on warning, probation, or show cause status and a number of others have just been placed into
Page 112
those categories. There is a general consensus across the community colleges that the Commission is
taking a hard line on colleges that deviate from the accreditation standards and recommendations.”
Mr. Michael Rota
Mr. Rota represents the seven community colleges of the University of Hawai`I. Mr. Rota began his
service on the Commission July 1, 2004. Michael Rota is no longer a Commissioner.
Dr. Barry Russell
Dr. Barry Russell represents the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office on the Commission.
Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs. He is a former Vice President of Instruction at College of the
Siskiyous and dean at El Camino College. Dr. Russell began his service on July 1, 2011.
Dr. Eleanor Siebert
Dr. Eleanor Siebert represents the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of
WASC on the Commission. Dr. Siebert began her service on July 1, 2011.
Dr. Marie Smith
Dr. Smith serves as a public member of the Commission. Dr. Smith began her service on the Commission
July 1, 2007.
Dr. Patrick Tellei
Dr. Patrick Tellei represents the Pacific Postsecondary Education Council on the Commission. Dr. Tellei
began his service on the Commission July 1, 2008.
Dr. Ian Walton
Dr. Ian Walton joined the Commission as of July 1, 2013. He is a former state president of the Academic
Senate and Mathematics Professor. He is now retired and serving as a public member of the Commission.
Dr. Sharon Whitehurst-Payne
Dr. Sharon Whitehurst-Payne serves as a public member of the Commission. She is from Cal State
University San Marcos where she serves as the chair of the Education Dept. Dr. Payne began her service
on the Commission July 1, 2008.
Mr. John Zimmerman
Mr. John Zimmerman represents independent institutions on the Commission. He serves as president of
MTI College in Sacramento. MTI is a for-profit college with a very high default rate on student loans.
86% of its students receive financial aid. Mr. Zimmerman began his service on July 1, 2011.
Commission Staff member: Dr. Barbara A. Beno | President
Dr. Beno joined the Commission as President in August 2001. She earns in excess of $257,000 in her
position as President. Each of the five Vice Presidents of the ACCJC currently earn more than $200,000
per year. Since she became President of the Commission she has served on several visiting teams for
colleges in Hawaii. Her husband Peter Crabtree, a Division Dean at Laney College, served on the visiting
team that led to the SHOW CAUSE sanction on CCSF. He has also visited Hawaii as a visiting team
member.
Page 113
Prior to her appointment as President, she served as Commissioner for both the ACCJC and the
Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities, Western Association of Schools and
Colleges. Dr. Beno serves on the Advisory Board of the legislatively active Campaign for College
Opportunity. She served as president of Berkeley City College (formerly Vista Community College) in
the Peralta Community College District for twelve years where she led a losing fight to break Vista free
from the Peralta District. She was also not retained as an administrator at the San Mateo Community
College District.
It is not known to me what role Dr. Beno played in the sanctions against CCSF or the colleges in the
Peralta district as the records are not made public. It is known that Peter Crabtree revealed to Laney
College employees that the Peralta colleges would be sanctioned prior to the meeting of the Commission
in January of 2005 at which the sanctions were voted on by the Commission.
CFT and S.F. City Attorney File for Preliminary Injunction – Nov. 24,
2013
On November 24, 2013 the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and San Francisco City Attorney
Dennis Herrera (on behalf of the City of San Francisco) independently filed a request for a preliminary
injunction against the ACCJC that would block the revocation of CCSF’s accreditation until such time as
their lawsuits are settled in Superior Court. The CFT, City Attorney Herrera, and the Save CCSF have all
filed lawsuits against the ACCJC.
The two preliminary injunction requests were filed in order to prevent further harm to CCSF while the
court cases continue. Already the college has lost more than 10% of its students which could result in
some loss of state funding for the college.
CFT Memorandum of Points
In the words of the CFT request: “Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction enjoining the
disaccreditation of CCSF, to preserve the status quo ante the ACCJC's unlawful revocation of
accreditation. CCSF was fully accredited until the ACCJC committed serious violations of State and
Federal law, and its own policies. Plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges ("ACCJC") from implementing or finalizing its order revoking the
accreditation of City College of San Francisco ("CCSF"), suspend or rescind the orders of Show Cause
and Disaccreditation, and restore CCSF's accredited status pending a trial on the merits.”
It then went on to argue that “Immediate relief is necessary to prevent irreparable and substantial harm to
the educational rights and interests of 80,000 students and 825,000 City residents granted by the
California constitution, and the employment rights of 1,500 professors and 1,000 staff. Plaintiffs filed suit
on behalf of themselves and others under Business and Professions Code section 17200, because
disaccreditation and closure of the college rest on unfair and unlawful business practices, and are
themselves such practices, which consist of many predicate acts and practices.”
Page 114
As is usual for the ACCJC it responded to the two requests for an injunction by closing its eyes to any of
its violations of federal requirements as well as its own procedures. A statement from the Commission
concluded that “This motion by the CFT does not align with the real efforts to assure CCSF's future
accreditation, but rather distracts from those efforts.” Commission Chair Sherrill Amador: “The best way
forward is for the institution, its staff and faculty, to join the college leaders in making needed changes to
improve the quality and secure the future accreditation of the college. “ Each of these statements
completely ignores any decision on the request for review or the appeal request by CCSF of the ACCJC
decision. Of course it makes sense to not take the process seriously since the processes for appeal and
review are based on the ACCJC kangaroo court process discussed elsewhere in this paper. In addition, the
currently established procedure provides no opportunity for ACCJC to look at CCSF and the progress it
has made since their June decision to revoke accreditation on June 30, 2014. Both the review and the
appeal process do not allow any evidence to be considered which was not available when the ACCJC
made its decision in June of 2013. There is also no requirement for ACCJC to once again consider the
accreditation of CCSF. So what is to be made of this talk by Beno, Amador, and even State Chancellor
Brice Harris regarding the continuing effort by CCSF to satisfy the ACCJC’s standards?
Even if the Department of Education in Washington decides in January of 2014 to sanction ACCJC or
even remove the ACCJC as an accreditation agency, the DOE does not have the power to reverse the
ACCJC decision to revoke CCSF’s accreditation.
In light of the above, the court challenges filed by CFT, the S.F. City Attorney, and the Save CCSF
Coalition become even more important.
The CFT request for Injunctive Relief is based on the claim, as stated above, that the plaintiffs in the case
(CCSF students, faculty, staff, and community) will suffer substantial irreparable harm unless the
injunction is issued. CFT also claims, with supporting evidence, that the court case itself has a
“reasonable probability” to result in a favorable decision for the plaintiffs (based on the merits of the
case).
The following point were included in the Memorandum of Points presented by the CFT:
 ACCJC Is subject to California common law Fair Procedure.
 ACCJC failed to make findings to support or justify isaccrediting CCSF. The ACCJC listed what
it considered shortcomings without proof for the allegations.
 The ACCJC did not consider that CCSF's education quality exceeds minimum standards - a goal
of the accreditation process itself.
 The wrongfulness of the 2012 Show Cause Order and its consequences in 2013
 The 2012 Evaluation Team and Commission had conflicts of interest - ACCJC violated Fair
Procedure, its own policy, and Federal law in 34 CFR Part 602.10. In particular, President Beno
placed her husband on the Team, which was supposed to be independent of the Commission. The
Department of Education has found that the ACCJC violated this requirement.
 ACCJC was conflicted due to its support of the Student Success Task Force while CCSF and
others opposed the Task Force. This set up a political conflict between CCSF and ACCJC.
 The 2012 Team included Evaluators from colleges participating in the CCLC JPA Trust; the
Commission and it's Staff were also conflicted in this respect. This has to do with the ACCJC
insistence on pre-funding retirement benefits although not required by law.
 The 2012 Team had only one teacher out of 17 Evaluators violating 34 CFR §602.15(a)(3). This
was one of the violations that the Department of Education found.
Page 115
And ACCJC's decision is void because it is tainted by bias.
The CFT also claims that:
 ACCJC unlawfully shifted the burden of proof to CCSF in 2012, thereby prejudicing the 2012 and
2013 Reviews
 The 2012 Team Report and the Commission decision retroactively re-characterized CCSF as
having deficiencies in 2006, when it had been reaccredited as it met all standards and
requirements. This is another area of Department of Education concern.
 ACCJC applied standards which did not measure the quality of education, and violated State and
Federal Law
 The Commission afforded CCSF no Due Process Hearing.
 ACCJC's Show Cause evaluation and disaccreditation decision was unfair and unlawful.
 The 2013 Evaluation Team was invalid and thus it’s findings should be considered void.
 ACCJC was required to postpone its decision until its next meeting when the Commission listed
more deficiencies for CCSF than those listed by the Visiting Team. It should not have taken action
at its June 2013 meeting.
 ACCJC gave CCSF Just 9.5 months to correct "deficiencies" and by misapplying its 2-Year Rule,
ACCJC acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably.
ACCJC, CFT claims, also:
 sanctioned CCSF for free speech of students and trustees.
 relied on irrelevant financial data and ignored CCSF's balanced budget and reserves that met state
standards.
 retaliated against CCSF in revoking its accreditation.
In short, the issuance of disaccreditation was unlawful and unfair and should be overturned by the court.
S.F. Injunction Information
The injunction request from the City of San Francisco included many of the point made by CFT. It also
spoke to recent history: “The increasingly embattled ACCJC has been a leading policy advocate to
dramatically reshape the mission of California's community colleges through more restrictive policies
focusing on degree completion rather than vocational, remedial and non-credit offerings. The accrediting
body's political agenda - shared by conservative advocacy organizations, for-profit colleges and student
lender interests - represents a significant departure from the abiding "open access" mission repeatedly
affirmed by the California legislature and pursued by San Francisco's Community College District since
it was first established. Herrera's civil action filed on Aug. 22 alleges that the commission acted to
withdraw accreditation in retaliation for City College having embraced and advocated a different vision
for California's community colleges than the ACCJC itself.’”
Herrera's civil suit also points out that ACCJC's used a demonstrable double standard “in evaluating City
College of San Francisco as compared to its treatment of six other California colleges under identical
‘show cause’ sanctions during the preceding five years. Though several of the sanctioned schools failed
to adequately correct their alleged deficiencies, none saw its accreditation terminated. City College had
Page 116
never once been sanctioned previously, Herrera's complaint contends, noting that the ACCJC's
retaliatory bias is evidenced in part by the college's clear educational success by multiple objective
standards. City College boasts a remedial progress rate in English as a Second Language, or ESL, of
52.3 percent—more than double that for California community colleges statewide. Its completion rate of
55.6 percent exceeds the California community college average of 49.2 percent; and its 75.2 percent
overall persistence rate (which gauges student matriculation over consecutive semesters) far outpaces the
system-wide average of 65.8 percent. City College students transferring to the California State University
system achieve a higher grade point average at Cal State than the statewide average for community
college transfers.”
Harris letter to Herrera of January 2, 2014
On January 2, 2014 California Community College Chancellor Brice Harris wrote a letter to San
Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera regarding the City’s lawsuit against ACCJC. This was just prior
to the decision by Judge Karnow to place a preliminary injunction against the ACCJC with regard to the
removal of accreditation of City College of San Francisco. Chancellor Harris was asking for the City
Attorney’s cooperation in not publicizing the Judge’s decision but rather to publicize the “progress” that
CCSF was making toward satisfying ACCJC’s demands.
Chancellor Harris stated that “While neither my office nor City College is a party to these actions, we
have a continuing responsibility to the community and students of San Francisco to ensure that no
additional harm is dealt to the College as a result of the court's decision. One of the greatest threats to
the long-term health of the college is the dramatic decline in its enrollment.” Interestingly the decline in
enrollment was one of the major reasons that Judge Karnow issued his injunction. In most people’s minds
the injunction would help stabilize the enrollment at CCSF. But somehow Harris appeared to consider
that the injunction might actually have a negative effect on enrollment if not communicated well in the
media.
Harris went on to “explain several important facts” to Herrera: “Court intervention is not necessary to
keep City College open. Regardless of the path Judge Karnow takes, City College will remain open and
accredited until the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) makes a
final determination. Students should be encouraged to enroll at City College because their credits will
count for their certificate, degree and transfer goals.” The problem is that as long as the loss of
accreditation is imminent the loss of enrollment would likely continue. The action to grant the injunction
will obviously guarantee a longer life for the college and thus should increase the confidence of students
attending the college.
Harris goes on to make some other claims which are dubious at best: “Characterizations that the cases
before the court are a ‘last-ditch’ effort to ‘save’ City College are inaccurate and will do additional
damage to the college's enrollment. It also detracts from progress the City College community has
achieved in the areas of reform, stability, and accountability.” The ACCJC appeal process is nothing but
a kangaroo court proceeding with all “judges” in the process selected by the ACCJC itself. At the point
that the process is completed, the erosion of students will likely be enormous (except for the positive
effect of the injunction). There is no evidence that the injunction will in any way hinder the college from
moving forward. This claim is just the sort of red herring claim that the ACCJC attempted to make,
without success, before Judge Karnow.
Page 117
Even though there is no required process in place to require the ACCJC to reconsider their decision based
on new evidence, Chancellor Harris claims that “We are doing everything in our power to ensure a
positive outcome regarding accreditation, and I have every expectation that the ACCJC will acknowledge
the college's progress in the coming months. Under the leadership of our Special Trustee, Robert Agrella,
City College has made important strides to secure not only its accreditation, but a stable and productive
future: Dr. Arthur Q. Tyler has been hired as the new, permanent Chancellor. The school has an
accomplished educational leader at its helm who has pledged to stay with CCSF for the long haul.”
It is interesting the Harris does not recognize that Agrella was in place when ACCJC decided to take away
CCSF’s accreditation and Tyler was in place at Compton College when the ACCJC decided to take away
Compton’s accreditation.
Harris concludes his letter with a listing of “accomplishments” in meeting ACCJC demands made to date.
Chancellor Harris was once a Commission Member of ACCJC. On July 3, 2013 Barbara Beno sent an email to Harris and some of his staff stating that “Attached please find the ACCJC’s action letter on CCSF,
as well as its press release on the matter. Both are posted on the ACCJC website; the press release is on
the right of the home page, the action letter is in the Directory of Accredited Institutions. We have posted
the ACE statement on the ACCJC website as well. CCSF has posted the action letter on its website.
Thank you both for the coordinated effort. Let’s keep in touch as needed.” The e-mail concluded with
“Have a nice weekend. Barb.”
In another e-mail from Beno to Harris and his staff on July 3, 2013 Beno wrote concerning what she
called the “Roll-out”: “Dear Brice: Beautiful job. Thanks for your video statement, and for all the rest.
We are staying late, watching the various news accounts. I think generally the news is letting people know
that the college may survive, with the right leadership. I look forward to watching your efforts. Have a
good weekend.”
Given a number of such cozy e-mails sent between Harris and ACCJC President Barbara Beno, it is not
clear whose side Harris is actually on and what kind of deal has been made between Harris and Beno. It is
clear that the “college” (now meaning Agrella as he is in full charge of the college) is not fighting for
CCSF with all the ammunition available. For example, the “college” has not agreed to be a party to any of
the law suits and has not been willing to challenge the ACCJC in the appeal process based on the
numerous violations of federal standards that the ACCJC has been found to have committed in the
evaluation of CCSF. Agrella has even been quoted in support of the process used to dis-accredit CCSF.
The Chancellor has also been a party to these betrayals of the college in its advocacy efforts.
Who are the real friends of CCSF - Harris and Agrella or City Attorney Herrera, numerous state and
national legislators, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the students and community served by the
college, Academic Senates across the state, and the faculty and its AFT affiliated union?
Superior Court Judge Karnow Issues Preliminary Injunction January 2, 2014
On January 2, 2014, Superior Court Judge Karnow issued a preliminary injunction against the ACCJC
which bars “ the Commission from finalizing their dis-accreditation decision pending further order of the
Page 118
court or final adjudication of the merits in this case. That order expressly contemplates that the
Commission will proceed with the current process, for example working with the College to resolve the
Commission's concerns, as well as taking any and all other actions, except to implement a disaccreditation order such as had been scheduled for July 31, 2014. In the meantime it is my intent to
expedite this case and set it for trial at the earliest practicable date.”
The preliminary injunction was based on the motion of the San Francisco City Attorney. The decision
stated that “The City Attorney's motion for preliminary injunction is granted, but solely to the extent of
enjoining the Commission from terminating the College's accreditation until further order of the court
or final judgment in the City Attorney's case; the motion is otherwise denied.” The right for ACCJC to
continue to sanction other colleges is not affected by this ruling.
In this case the judge issued the preliminary injunction without a trial and before the parties to the suit had
the opportunity to present their full cases including the necessary evidence and witnesses. In this case the
judge looked at how strong the San Francisco City Attorney’s case is as opposed to the harm suffered by
either issuing or not issuing the injunction. Judge Karnow came down on the harm done to students,
faculty, and City itself side. He wrote: "There is no question, however, of the harm that will be suffered if
the Commission follows through and terminates accreditation as of July 2014. Those consequences would
be catastrophic. Without accreditation the College would almost certainly close and about 80,000
students would either lose their educational opportunities or hope to transfer elsewhere; and for many of
them, the transfer option is not realistic. The impact on the teachers, faculty, and the City would be
incalculable, in both senses of the term: The impact cannot be calculated, and it would be extreme."
At the same time Judge Karnow denied the ACCJC motions to dismiss the case and to dismiss the CFT’s
lawsuit based on California's Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Anti-SLAPP) statute
(which dismiss cases and actions that intend to chill the valid exercise of First Amendment rights of
freedom of speech and petition). The ACCJC had claimed that the CFT suit was an attempt to stifle
ACCJC’s free speech rights. In short, both of the ACCJC’s motions were denied.
The cases are being considered under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). In the words of the
Court: “The UCL allows a suit against a defendant if the defendant has done anything illegal or unfair, or
fraudulent. The act can be illegal under any law- including the laws and regulations of the federal
government. The acts can be unfair, too, but there can be difficult legal issues in trying to decide if an act
is "unfair" as the UCL uses that word. Although the UCL is a broad statute allowing a wide variety of
claims, the sort of relief one can get after winning a UCL case is quite limited. For example, a successful
plaintiff can't get money damages, as she might in other sorts of cases. The successful UCL plaintiff might
be able to get an order from a judge telling the defendant to do something, or stop doing something, as
well as some other sorts of relief.”
The judge did not grant CFT’s request for an injunction based on a higher standard than that required of
the San Francisco City Attorney’s. In the words of Judge Karnow “Some of the plaintiffs (the union,
teachers and students) have a problem with their case. They have probably shown enough to conclude
that the Commission imposed unfair procedures, but they have not shown that those procedures led to
the Commission's adverse decision. As far as the evidence presented to the court shows, the Commission
might have issued exactly the same decisions with fair procedures. The plaintiffs have argued that they
can win by just showing unfair procedures, and it doesn't matter if the Commission would have done the
same thing or not. But under the UCL, it does matter, at least as far as the union, teachers, and students
Page 119
are concerned. They have at least to show they were harmed by the specific acts they say were unfair or
illegal under the UCL. They didn't do that. It's not good enough to argue that the Commission's ultimate
decisions (for example, threatening to terminate accreditation) causes harm.
The situation is different with respect to the case brought by the City Attorney. As a law enforcement
officer he is empowered, along with other City Attorneys and the state's Attorney General, to enforce the
UCL without showing that any particular person was harmed.”
The CFT and San Francisco City Attorney combined case will now go to trial. With the chance to provide
full evidence, the CFT case could still prevail.
Documentation from the City Attorney’s case can be found at http://www.sfcityattorney.org. The Case
Number is CGC 13-533693.
ACCJC January 13, 2014 Misleading Press Release
ACCJC Press Release, Jan. 13, 2014
ACCJC Press Release
Comments by M. Hittelman
On January 2, 2014, the Honorable Curtis Karnow
ruled on preliminary motions in two related lawsuits
filed against the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges, Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (ACCJC).
The Press Release is just another
attempt to spin-doctor rulings against
them. It contains misleading
interpretations and factual errors.
The judge's decision was to order a preliminary
injunction to delay for a short time, if necessary, the
actual termination of City College of San Francisco,
so that questions by the City Attorney in one of the
lawsuits could be fully explored by the court. The
court indicated that the trial would be scheduled
quickly, so as not to extend the delay beyond a
month or two.
The lawsuits are unusual, in that suits against
accrediting commissions generally are filed by
colleges affected by an accrediting action. Here, the
college was not a part of the lawsuits filed. City
College of San Francisco (CCSF) is not suing the
ACCJC.
Actually both the City Attorney and the
CFT law suits will be heard by the
judge. The judge ruled in favor of the
temporary injunction sought by the
City Attorney. The judge did not state
that it was his intent not to delay the
closure of the college as suggested by
ACCJC.
No suit was filed by the “college” meaning the Special Trustee appointed
by the Community College State
Chancellor did not file a suit. So far, the
Special Trustee has shown no
indication that he will effectively
challenge the ACCJC. In fact, he was
appointed by a State Chancellor who
himself was once a member of the
Commission.
Page 120
In fact, there is no question that the college is
seriously deficient in meeting the accreditation
standards as was found by the ACCJC when it
reviewed the college and made the decision to
terminate the accreditation of CCSF.
There are certainly questions
concerning the findings of the ACCJC
and the methods used to reach that
conclusion. These questions are central
to the law suits filed. In addition,
Complaints have been received from
members of Congress, the State
Legislature, the Superintendent of
Public Instruction, and organizations
across the state as well as the U.S.
Department of Education.
Because of this, the judge questioned whether the
parties bringing the lawsuits could ultimately be
successful. However, in preliminary motions of the
sorts heard in this case, the court is required to take
whatever is said by the plaintiffs at face value, giving
them the benefit of the doubt until the facts can be
brought out in trial.
This statement is factually incorrect.
The judge actually ruled that the City
Attorney’s law suit was likely to be
upheld and issued the temporary
injunction.
While both lawsuits are similar, the court ruled that
even given the benefit of the doubt to plaintiffs, it
was not likely the parties in the suit brought by the
AFT and CFT (faculty labor unions) and related
others could be successful. That is why the request
for a preliminary injunction was denied.
This statement is factually incorrect.
The question, in the AFT case, revolved
around whether the same decision
would have been made by the
Commission if it had correctly followed
its procedures. The judge ruled that
this issue had not been addressed in
the briefings. He did write that the
plaintiffs (the union, teachers and
students) "have probably shown
enough to conclude that the
Commission imposed unfair
procedures." AFT needed to show that
these actions led to the adverse action,
the City Attorney did not need to do
so- and so the judge imposed the
temporary injunction requested by the
City Attorney.
In the second lawsuit, the judge noted that
California statutes allow City Attorneys to file suits
of this nature. Thus, while ultimate success was
questionable, the judge would allow the preliminary
injunction delay.
The judge will take up these issues
during the trial on the basis of
information presented during the
court case.
Page 121
Other more extreme requests by the City Attorney
and the other parties were denied by the judge,
including a request to block the ACCJC from
enforcing standards of academic quality and
institutional effectiveness against colleges who are
deficient in these areas. The request to reverse the
ACCJC decision against CCSF was also denied. In
fact, the court ruling specified that the various steps
that follow a termination decision should continue
to go forward, up to the actual termination
implementation.
The judge actually wrote that “The City
Attorney's motion for preliminary
injunction is granted, but solely to the
extent of enjoining the Commission
from terminating the College's
accreditation until further order of the
court or final judgment in the City
Attorney's case.”
The second motion was to point out various
circumstances that might make the City Attorney's
lawsuit premature or inappropriate at this time. The
points included that the college is not a party to the
lawsuit, that steps preceding actual implementation
of a termination are not completed, and that the
ACCJC is in the process of its regular review by the
U.S. Department of Education, which will likely
answer many of the questions being asked. The
judge decided these issues would not be used to
dismiss the lawsuit at this time, but that they were
issues that would likely impact the ultimate decision
in the lawsuit.
In fact the judge wrote that “plaintiffs'
evidence (setting aside defendants'
evidence and explanations) shows, as a
function of reasonable inferences
which I must draw in AFT's favor, that
the Commission might not have had
reached the results it did in 2012 and
2013 had it (i) staffed the evaluation
teams differently, (ii) allowed the
College more time to respond (as it is
doing now which, as the Commission
now tells me at argument, may {or
may not} result in the withdrawal of
the show cause notice), (iii) found that
the financial management issues such
as the way in which pension funds are
handled do not in fact violate accepted
procedures.
Page 122
In response to these actions, the ACCJC also filed
two preliminary motions. The first was to point out
the lawsuit by AFT and CFT was primarily intended
to block the ACCJC's free speech, and this sort of
lawsuit cannot be brought simply to harass an
organization who is exercising its free speech. The
judge agreed that when an accrediting commission
acts on the accredited status of a college, that
decision and the related opinions released involve
free speech by the accreditor. However, given that
the standard for these types of motions is very low that if there is even some possibility the plaintiff
might win a part of its case, taking what is accused
at face value-then this early motion will not be used
to dismiss the lawsuit.
Accordingly AFT has met its burden
under the second prong of the antiSLAPP law, and so I deny the special
motion to strike.”
ACCJC's purpose is to uphold the quality of
education of its member institutions. Accredited
institutions commit to continuously meet
accreditation standards. The public's confidence in
accreditation as a signal of quality depends on
continued compliance and very swift adjustments
when any noncompliance is found. When the
instructional curriculum and other educational plans
are not up to date, assessments are not being
conducted, when student learning is not tracked
and monitored, when career-technical program
facilities are in disrepair and equipment is extremely
dated, when budget decisions are not connected to
the needs of instructional programs, or when a
college is near financial crisis for its inability to
match revenues with financial obligations, the
ACCJC's concern is raised. When a college exhibits
all of these conditions among others, it is then
essential that ACCJC take action on the institution's
accreditation for the protection of students and for
the community. In that kind of situation, the harm
to the college and its employees that may come
from closing the institution and having other
colleges take its students is far outweighed by the
harm to students who are committing their time,
money, and effort to such an institution.
The ACCJC is just repeating arguments
that were rejected by the judge. The
question is to what degree was this
happening at CCSF and was it enough
to warrant closing the college to the
over 85,000 students who benefit from
the high level education that they
receive at CCSF? The “protection” in
this case was to close the college. Few
would consider eliminating an
educationally effective college
as“protecting” the students being
served.
Page 123
The ACCJC is confident that its decision taken in the
CCSF case will be upheld. At the same time, the
ACCJC urges all individuals and groups connected
with CCSF to focus intensely on correcting the issues
that put academic quality and the sustainability of
the institution at risk.
The ACCJC has still not laid out a
process by which CCSF’s progress will
be evaluated by the Commission. As it
currently stands, there is no procedure
to change the decision to dis-accredit
the college. The review and appeal
process state that no new evidence
can be presented.
Other community colleges in California which have
larger enrollments than CCSF, and other community
colleges which serve the diverse needs of students
with many challenges, are able to meet
accreditation standards when their college
community commits itself to do what is necessary to
achieve the accreditation standards set by the
member colleges of ACCJC- even in the face of
severe economic challenges.
Only about half of the colleges in the
last few years have escaped an ACCJC
sanction. In this respect ACCJC is
totally out of step with the rest of the
accreditation agencies around the
country. The standards are not set by
the colleges but rather by the ACCJC
with little opportunity for input. A look
at the agenda of the January 2014
meeting illustrates the lack of input by
member colleges and their
communities.
The students of CCSF, the people of San Francisco,
and the California taxpayers have the right to expect
the same levels of quality in this community.
And by many measures, CCSF has
performed to provide quality
education to its students. It should not
be allowed to be dis-accredited.
Department of Education Staff Report on ACCJC – November 2013
ACCJC Recognition Compliance Issues
U.S. Department of Education Staff Report to the Senior Department Official on ACCJC Recognition
Compliance Issues
The U.S. Department of Education Staff Report was issued in late November 2013 regarding the
continued recognition of ACCJC as an accreditation agency. The report is an internal recommendation
by staff within the Department of Education. The staff recommended to “Continue the agency's
recognition and require the agency to come into compliance within 12 months, and submit a compliance
report that demonstrates the agency's compliance with all identified issues.” In addition the recommended
included extending “the agency's time for coming into compliance for the previous findings of
noncompliance in Sections 602.15(a)(3), 602.18(e), and 602.20(a) within the August 13, 2013, CFT
Complaint Decision letter, which expires in August 2014. To provide sufficient time for the agency to
Page 124
demonstrate compliance in light of the close timing between the complaint and petition review,
Department staff finds good cause to extend the agency's period for coming into compliance until 12
months of the date of the decision letter on recognition.” The next step in the process is the NACIQI
meeting on December 12-13, 2013. After that it the issue of ACCJC’s ability to be an accreditation
agency goes back to the Department of Education and Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan for a final
decision.
The report also includes a recommendation that ACCJC not be allowed to expand its scope to include
baccalaureate institutions as requested by ACCJC.
The staff found that the ACCJC did not appear to meet the following sections of the Secretary of
Education’s Criteria fo Recognition and “the agency must:
29.
demonstrate that its standards are sufficient to comprehensively evaluate baccalaureate level
degree programs and are comparable to commonly accepted standards for ensuring quality in
baccalaureate degree programs. [§602.12(b)]
30.
demonstrate wide acceptance of the agency's standards, policies, procedures, and decisions to
grant or deny accreditation by educators. [§602.13]
31.
demonstrate that academic personnel, as generally defined by the accrediting agency and wider
higher education community, are represented on its evaluation teams. [§602.15(a)(3)]
32.
demonstrate that it evaluates the appropriateness of the measures of student achievement chosen
by its institutions. [§602.16(a)(1)(I)]
33.
demonstrate that it evaluates an institution on its maintenance of clearly specified educational
objectives that are consistent with its mission and appropriate in light of the credentials awarded, and is
successful in achieving its stated objectives with specific regards to baccalaureate degree programs.
[§602.17(a)]”
The staff found that the agency (ACCJC)
34.
does not meet the requirements of this section based on its requested scope. It must demonstrate
that its standards for accreditation regarding curricula are sufficiently rigorous and comprehensive to
ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the baccalaureate level education
provided by the institutions it accredits. The agency needs to incorporate its substantive change protocol
requirements for baccalaureate degree programs into the agency's curricula standards.
[§602.16(a)(1)(ii)]
35.
does not meet the requirements of this section based on its requested scope. It must demonstrate
that its standards for accreditation regarding faculty are sufficiently rigorous and comprehensive to
ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the baccalaureate level education
provided by the institutions it accredits. [§602.16(a)(1)(iii)]
36.
must provide documentation to demonstrate that it has fully implemented its revised policies to
demonstrate that the agency clearly delineates between areas of non-compliance and areas for
improvement. The agency must also demonstrate that it provides the institution with a detailed written
report that assesses the institution's performance with respect to student achievement. [§602.17(f)]
37.
must provide documentation to demonstrate that it provides the institution with a detailed written
report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution's compliance with the agency's standards.
[§602.18(e)]
38.
must provide information and documentation to demonstrate that it requires additional
information from an institution when student achievement data, or any other key data or indicators do not
meet the agency's standards. [§602.19(b)]
Page 125
39.
must demonstrate that it consistently enforces the time period to return to compliance with the
agency's standards. [§602.20(a)]
40.
must demonstrate that it takes immediate adverse action if an institution does not bring itself into
compliance within the specified period. [§602.20(b)]
41.
must provide documentation that it must complete the standards revision process within a
reasonable period of time. [§602.21( c)]
42.
must provide documentation to demonstrate that it provides written specification of any
deficiencies identified at the institution examined. [§602.25(a-e)]
43.
must demonstrate that it provides written notice of negative decisions to the Secretary and the
other entities required by this section at the same time it notifies the institution of the decision.
[§602.26(b)]”
The report notes that “In late spring of 2013, the Department received a complaint from the California
Federation of Teachers (CFT), as well as other interested parties, about ACCJC. The specific complaint
was provided to ACCJC by the CFT at the same time as submitted to the Department. After ACCJC
concluded its complaint process, the Department investigated the complaint, to include a request for
additional information from ACCJC, and provided its decision in a letter dated August 13, 2013. The
letter instructed ACCJC to take immediate steps to correct the areas of non-compliance identified, and to
provide its response to those areas within its response to the draft staff analysis of the agency's petition
for recognition.”
The report continues: “In conjunction with the current review of the agency for its continued recognition,
Department staff reviewed the agency's petition and supporting documentation, and observed an on-site
evaluation in October 2013. The Department also received over 100 third-party written comments in
connection with the agency's petition for recognition.” All of the 100 third-party were opposed to the
activities of ACCJC.
In more detail the findings were:
§602.13 Acceptance of the agency by others.
The staff found that “the agency has not demonstrated that it has broad acceptance of its standards,
policies, procedures, and accrediting decisions from all of the entities required by the Secretary's Criteria
for Recognition.
As documentation, the agency provided letters from postsecondary institutions and higher education
organizations and associations. However, these letters do not demonstrate broad acceptance of its
standards, policies, procedures, and accrediting decisions, as they are letters of gratitude not letters of
support. In addition, four faculty senates at California institutions, three California-wide faculty
organizations and one national faculty organization provided written comments that indicated their
disagreement with the policies and actions of the agency, and that call into question the wide acceptance
of the agency's standards, policies, procedures, and decisions to grant or deny accreditation by
educators.”
Of course, the ACCJC as usual claimed “that it has broad acceptance of its standards, policies,
procedures, and accrediting decisions from all of the entities required by the Secretary's Criteria for
Recognition.” Counter to what ACCJC claimed the report found that “although the agency indicates
that most of the letters of disagreement previously submitted are in regards to the accreditation actions
Page 126
taken concerning one institution, the contents of the letters are not limited to that action and raise
additional areas of broad disagreement with the agency's standards, policies, and procedures. In
addition, many of the previously-submitted letters of non-support were from educators, whereas only one
letter in support submitted by the agency is from an educator. (The agency labeled four letters as from
educators, but three of those letters are from a retired, long-term administrator; current chancellor; and
current State fiscal advisor; respectively, and cannot be categorized as from ‘educators’.) The agency did
not provide documentation in support of its statements (under this section or Section 602.15(a)(3)) that
a large number of educators serve on its evaluation teams or participate in workshops. Under Section
602.21(a)(b), the agency did provide some documentation of the involvement of educators in the
standards review process. Furthermore, in its response, the agency only commented on two areas of
concern included (in the letter from the State Academic Senate and the national association), but did not
address the additional areas of concern raised by the other faculty organizations at the institutional,
State, and national level except to argue that, as faculty unions, these organizations are supporting the
CCSF's cause. Therefore, the agency has not demonstrated wide acceptance of the agency's standards,
policies, procedures, and decisions to grant or deny accreditation by educators.”
This despite the attempts by Beno and Kinsella to enlist the help of the community college CEOs and
CBOs to convince the Department of Education that they did have wide acceptance.
§602.15 Administrative and fiscal responsibilities
The Staff Report indicated that: “Although the current commission roster states that it meets the
composition requirements of the bylaws, the agency has not provided a policy or other guidance as to
what would qualify a person to be identified as either primarily an academic, or primarily an
administrator, nor did the agency provide any biographical information of the current commissioners to
demonstrate that those individuals meet the qualifications for the category noted.”
The Report noted that “To meet the requirements of this regulation, the Department does not require the
use of any one definition for an academic, but does expect that the agency's definition be comparable with
the generally accepted policies and practices within the accrediting agency and wider higher education
community. Department staff note that the inclusion of student services staff as academic representatives
does not meet the generally accepted definition of such representation within the accrediting agency
community, nor the spirit of the regulation. The agency's definition states that academic representatives
may include deans, department chairs, or other related administrative roles as long as those individuals
have a ‘primary responsibility for instruction or instructional support.’”
“Noting the agency's definition, the use of the term academic for individuals whose primary
responsibilities are administrative and who are not directly engaged in a significant manner in
postsecondary teaching and/or research misrepresents the experience expected for an individual in this
role. Department staff also note that the inclusion of individuals whose principal activities are
administrative limits the number of individuals whose primary activity is classroom instruction as
academic representatives and may affect the evaluation team's ability to adequately review an institution
in the related areas of the agency's standards.”
“Department staff observed an on-site evaluation in October 2013, and noted that the agency listed five
team members as academics, out of a team of 10. Through individual interviews and reviews of
biographical information provided to the institution, Department staff noted that two members of the team
Page 127
were faculty in the classroom, one was an interim academic dean with no teaching responsibilities for
the past few years, one was an academic dean that had not taught in over 10 years, and one was a vice
chancellor for student affairs who had never taught. (Department staff noted that the team assistant was
also listed as an academic, but generally the team assistant is not considered a member of the evaluation
team by the agency. For this review, the team assistant had to fill-in for an absent team member, but the
role he was filling was administrative, which he was able to do as an academic dean.)”
§602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards
The report notes that “the evaluation reports provided in this section do not demonstrate that the
evaluation teams made a judgment about the appropriateness of the measures of student achievement
chosen by the institution nor rigor of the goals” and “the self-studies and evaluation team reports include
a review of job placement rates and State licensing examination pass rates, they do not include
assessment of that data.” “The evaluation reports also include a review of institutionally-established
measures of student achievement, but do not include an assessment by the evaluation team of such
measures. Therefore, the agency has not demonstrated that it makes a judgment about the
appropriateness of the measures of student achievement chosen by an institution.”
§602.17 Application of standards in reaching an accrediting decision.
The report indicates that although the ACCJC makes certain claims about its review and evaluation
process that, in fact, “the examples provided verify the agency's review and evaluation of the mission and
objectives of institutions and determination if they are successful in achieving those objectives, but do not
demonstrate that it adequately assesses qualitative and quantitative program effectiveness and student
outcomes measures” and “what is not clear is that an institution must evaluate its performance as an
institution with respect to those objectives.” In short, the report concludes that the ACCJC “has not
demonstrated that it evaluates an institution on its maintenance of clearly specified educational objectives
that are consistent with its mission and appropriate in light of the credentials awarded, and is successful in
achieving its stated objectives.”
“The agency states that it utilizes both the evaluation team report and the commission action letter to
clearly communicate the assessment of an institution's compliance with the agency's standards, to include
performance with respect to student achievement. The examples provided (in this section and throughout
the petition) document the use of the evaluation team report and the commission action letter to
communicate areas of compliance and non-compliance, however it is not clear that the reports clearly
delineate between areas of non-compliance and areas for improvement, as discussed in Section
602.18(e). In addition, the reports are deficient in providing a detailed assessment of the institution's
performance with respect to student achievement, as detailed in Section 602.16(a)(1)(i).”
The ACCJC responded by stating that it “had revised its evaluation team report and commission action
letter structure to delineate between areas of non-compliance and areas for improvement for separating
those elements in different sections.” These revisions were not approved by the Commission members
(the Commission had not met since June 2013) but rather developed by Beno and her staff and have not
yet been applied. The DOE report concluded that “Although the agency has made changes to its policies
and procedures and provided an example evaluation team report (attached), it did not provide
documentation of complete implementation, to include an example commission action letter to an
institution, to demonstrate that the agency clearly delineates between areas of non-compliance and areas
Page 128
for improvement. Although the evaluation team report (attached) includes an assessment of the
institution's performance with respect to student achievement, the majority of reports provided (in this
section and in Section 602.16(a)(1)(i)) still do not demonstrate a detailed assessment of the institution's
performance with respect to student achievement.” Of course no one has seen such reports as the
Commission will not issue letters until January of 2014. At that point we will see if they continue to
confuse districts as to what is required and what is merely suggested. This finding alone should
convince the ACCJC to reverse its findings on CCSF and other districts and begin a new and
proper procedure.
§602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making
“The agency provides the institution with a detailed written report in response to the on-site evaluation.
The agency also provides commission action letters after a review of the evaluation team report and the
institution's response. However, neither report clearly identifies deficiencies in the institution's
compliance with the agency's standards.
The Department stated in the August 13, 2013 CFT Complaint Decision Letter (attached) that it is not
clear that the agency provides the institution with a detailed written report that clearly identifies any
deficiencies in the institution's compliance with the agency's standards, as the agency uses the term
‘recommendation’ to mean both noncompliance with standards and areas for improvement.” Again,
“Although the agency has made changes to its policies and procedures and provided an example
evaluation team report (attached), it did not provide documentation of complete implementation, to
include an example commission action letter to an institution, to demonstrate that the agency provides
the institution with a detailed written report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution's
compliance with the agency's standards.”
602.19 Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and programs.
Even though the report notes that the ACCJC “staff monitors the institution's annual report responses for
trigger points (such as gross variations from the norm in student achievement numbers, inadequate levels
of student learning outcomes assessment, large increases in headcount enrollment, missing information
or late report filing, etc.) and may request additional information, but the agency has not demonstrated
that it requires additional information from an institution when student achievement data, fiscal
information, or any other key data or indicators do not meet the agency's standards. The agency also
did not provide any review and action taken by the commission as a result of the review of an annual
report.” I expect that the ACCJC will use this statement as an excuse to require even more from local
colleges in the way of data.
“The agency included a ‘Student Learning Outcomes Status Report’ along with a scoring sheet, rubric
and summary, but no narrative information was provided regarding that report or its use by the
commission as a monitoring approach.” “Although the agency provided documentation of its follow-up
with an institution that failed to submit its audited financial statements in a timely manner, the agency did
not provide any information or documentation to demonstrate that it requires additional information
from an institution when student achievement data, or any other key data or indicators do not meet the
agency's standards nor that the institution has failed to provide the information. The agency also did not
provide any review or action taken by the commission as a result of the review of an annual report.”
§602.20 Enforcement of standards
Page 129
The report notes that a violation of the two year rule requires that an agency either initiate immediate
adverse action or allow an institution a time period to come into compliance with its standards and
requirements. “The Department stated in the August 13, 2013 CFT Complaint Decision Letter (attached)
that it is not clear that the agency appropriately implements the requirements of this regulation, as the
agency appears to implement the enforcement time period only after the agency has imposed a sanction
on an institution, not at the point the agency finds the institution out of compliance with a standard.”
The staff then concluded, much as ACCJC concluded in the case of CCSF, “The agency provided
examples of commission action letters of probation (citing the specific time period to return to
compliance). However, as the examples provided did not include the full cycle of the review (i.e. first
determination that the institution was out of compliance to final action), the agency has not demonstrated
that it enforces the required time period.” But just as in the case of CCSF, the time allowed to not allow
for the changes to go “full cycle.” I guess that ACCJC is getting a dose of its own bad medicine.
The ACCJC offered two examples to refute the contention of the Department of Education but “the two
examples that include the full cycle of review are for institutions not placed on sanction, but the initial
letter for one institution (example 1 of full cycle review) does not note the enforcement time period to
return to compliance nor clearly indicate noncompliance in any "recommendation" (as described by
the agency in Section 602.18(e)) included. However, the second letter, issued after review of the
institution's first report, does include a paragraph indicating that the institution is "expected to correct
deficiencies within a two-year period" but does not clearly identify any recommendation as one
addressing a finding of non-compliance. The third letter states that the institution has "resolved
deficiencies" associated with one recommendation and requires more reporting in the other
"recommendation" areas originally noted. This example reflects the same issue noted in the August 13,
2013 CFT Complaint Decision Letter — the lack of clarity in the agency's communications regarding
findings of non-compliance.”
“The agency has not demonstrated that it consistently enforces the time period to return to compliance
with the agency's standards as the agency has provided inconsistent documentation concerning the
implementation of the required enforcement time period required by this section.”
The ACCJC attempted to convince the staff of the U.S. Department of Education that the above is
incorrect but, after looking at the documentation offered, the report concluded that “The additional
documentation provided for the institution that received a good cause extension does not demonstrate
that the institution corrected the deficiencies, as more reporting was required in one of the
‘recommendation’ areas originally noted "in order to fully meet" the standard. This example, therefore,
also does not demonstrate that the agency takes immediate adverse action if the institution does not bring
itself into compliance within the specified period.” It continued: “The example of the institution that did
not bring itself into compliance within the time period is the same one noted in the August 13, 2013 CFT
Complaint Decision Letter (attached), and does not demonstrate that the agency takes immediate adverse
action as the adverse action was taken beyond the enforcement time period (as required in Section
602.20(a)) and there was no good cause extension granted.” In short, adverse action (removal of
accreditation) only took place at CCSF and not against other colleges that were also incorrectly held to be
in violation of the two-year rule..
§602.21 Review of standards
Page 130
The ACCJC provided information on its change of standards procedures but although the process is
described they did not “document that the agency seeks and reviews input from all of its relevant
constituencies and by other interested parties, provides an opportunity to comment, and takes into
account comments received in a timely manner, as the process is in progress.” “The documentation was
not comprehensive to include review and adoption by the commission to verify the standard review
process and to support the agency's application of this requirement.”
The report concluded that “As the comprehensive system of review of standards is in process, the agency
could not yet provide documentation to include review and adoption by the commission to verify the
standard review process occurs within a reasonable period of time.”
§602.25 Due process
“The agency must demonstrate that the procedures it uses throughout the accrediting process satisfy due
process.” The report notes that although the agency’s policies and procedures regarding due process are
adequate with respect of clarity, guidance, specificity, and timelines, that “it is not clear that deficiencies
are specifically identified in the agency's evaluation team reports and/or commission action letters.”
Again the report directs itself at the revised evaluation reports and agency letters policies - none of which
went to the Commission members for consideration as no meeting had occurred since their June 2013
meeting when such changes could have been discussed. Again the report concluded that “Although the
agency has made changes to its policies and procedures and provided an example evaluation team report
(attached), it did not provide documentation of complete implementation, to include an example
commission action letter to an institution, to demonstrate that the agency provides written specification of
any deficiencies identified at the institution examined.”
§602.26 Notification of accrediting decisions
The report found that “The agency's policies and procedures regarding accreditation decisions are not
clear to require the agency to provide written notice of final negative decisions to the Secretary and the
other entities listed in this section at the same time it notifies the institution but no later than 30 days after
the negative decision is made.” The finding is simply that “Although the agency states that it provided
documentation to demonstrate the same time notification to the entities required by this section, the
documents provided do not reflect that the notification occurred at the same time as the notification to the
institution.”
Staff Analysis of 3rd Party Written Comments
“Over 100 written third-party comments were received regarding this agency. All of the comments
recommend against the agency's continued recognition.” “Besides the individual commenters, there
were comments from four faculty senates for California institutions, three California-wide faculty
organizations and two national faculty organizations, which primarily questioned the wide acceptance
of the agency's standards, policies, procedures, and accreditation decisions by faculty. The Department
noted concerns related to this issue in Section 602.13 of this analysis. One of the national faculty
organizations stated that the expansion of scope requested by the agency is not appropriate at this time.”
“Almost all of the comments question whether ACCJC is a reliable authority regarding the quality of
Page 131
education offered by the institutions accredited by them, and many requested that the Department remove
the agency from the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies. Our review of the agency's petition
revealed many areas where the agency does not meet the regulatory requirements; however those areas
do not rise to the level for the Department to recommend denying recognition.” This is a standard of
decision making not followed by the ACCJC. The ACCJC concludes that even one insignificant
“deficiency” is enough to deny a college its accreditation.
“The individual commenters also questioned the agency's compliance with the Secretary's Criteria for
Recognition in areas related to the wide acceptance of the agency's standards, policies, procedures, and
accreditation decisions, "separate and independent" requirements, academic representation, conflict of
interest, retention of records, accreditation standards, commission independent analysis, effective
controls against the inconsistent application of standards, clear notification of deficiencies, standards
review process, publicly available materials, complaint review process, due process, and appeals
process. The Department has noted in this analysis that it has concerns related to these issues in Sections
602.13, 602.14(b), 602.15(a)(3), 602.15(a)(6), 602.15(b), 602.16(a), 602.18(e), 602.21(a)(b)&(c),
602.23(a), 602.23(c), 602.25(a-e), and 602.25(f).”
“Other issues raised regarding the agency include governance requirements, involvement in local and
State politics, compliance with State laws, Lumina Foundation grant money, and sanctioning of
institutions. With regard for governance issues (to include union agreements, board of trustee issues,
etc.), the Department does not review such issues as Federal regulations do not require standards
related to governance. The Department cannot find an agency out of compliance with respect to agency
accrediting standards not required by law, and this issue is therefore outside the scope of the review for
continued recognition for the agency.”
This is an example of why going to the courts system is the only way to address these issues.
“With regard for compliance with State laws, it is not the role of the Department to interpret State laws
or enforce them. As an independent, voluntary, membership organization, the agency makes its own
standards, as approved by its members. In addition, the HEA allows for ACCJC to adopt standards not
provided for in the Federal law.” Again, the only appeal to the ACCJC decision on this basis lies with
the courts. Also, the report does not disclose the hoax of an “voluntary” organization when the California
Board of Governors has required that colleges use ACCJC for accreditation.
January 28, 2014 Letter to Beno from Department of Education
Barbara A. Beno
President
Western Association of Schools and Colleges,
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
10 Commercial Boulevard, Suite 204
Novato, California 94949
Dear Dr. Beno:
I am writing to inform you of my decision on the renewal of the recognition of the Western Association of
Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC).
Page 132
Department of Education staff and the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and
Integrity (NACIQI) have each made recommendations to me. These recommendations were made under
Sections 114 and 496 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended, and pursuant to relevant
statutory and regulatory provisions.
Both the staff and the NACIQI recommended that I continue ACCJC's recognition as a nationally
recognized accrediting agency at this time, and require the agency to come into compliance within 12
months of the date of this letter with the criteria listed below', and submit a compliance report due 30
days thereafter that demonstrates the agency's compliance. They further recommended that ACCJC be
granted an extension of scope to include correspondence education and the granting of accreditation for
the first baccalaureate degree offered by means of a substantive change review offered by institutions that
are already accredited by the agency.
§602.12(b)
§602.16(a)(1)(ii)
§602.18(e)
§602.21(c)
§602.13
§602.16(a)(1)(iii)
§602.19(b)
§602.25(a-e)
§602.15(a)(3)
§602.17(a)
§602.20(a)
§602.26
§602.16(a)(1)(i)
§602.17(f)
§602.20(b)
In making my decision, I carefully reviewed the record, and also your letter dated December 20, 2013, in
which you request that I find ACCJC in compliance with two of the criteria cited in the staff report. I did
not find anything in the record to warrant my discounting the recommendations made by the staff
and the NACIQI. I am satisfied that accreditation by ACCJC is a required element in enabling the
institutions the agency accredits to establish eligibility to participate in programs administered by the U.S.
Department of Education under the HEA.
Accordingly, I continue the Department's recognition of ACCJC as a nationally recognized accrediting
agency with the scope of recognition as detailed below, for the time necessary to permit ACCJC 12
months from the date of this letter to achieve compliance, and to submit a compliance report within 30
days thereafter documenting compliance, and to permit the Department to review and make a final
recognition decision in light of the compliance report under the procedures set forth in 34 C.F.R. Part 602,
Subpart C.
Scope of recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation ("Candidate for Accreditation") of
community and other colleges with a primarily pre-baccalaureate mission located in California, Hawaii,
the United States territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, which offer certificates, associate degrees, and the first baccalaureate degree by means of a
substantive change review offered by institutions that are already accredited by the agency, and such
programs offered via distance education and correspondence education at these colleges. This recognition
also extends to the Committee on Substantive Change of the Commission, for decisions on substantive
changes, and the Appeals Panel.
You should submit your compliance report using the Department's electronic submission system. The
system can be accessed at:
http://opeweb.ed.gov/aslweb/
Material that cannot be submitted electronically may be forwarded in hard copy. Please submit four
Page 133
copies of any hard copy material to the Accreditation Group, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K
Street, NW, #8065, Washington, DC 20006-K-OPE-8-8065
I am confident that ACCJC will be able to come into full compliance with all the criteria cited above by
the deadline, and document compliance in its compliance report within 30 days thereafter. However, I
wish to remind you that if ACCJC does not, the Department may be compelled to limit, suspend or
terminate ACCJC's recognition. Such action is required because of the provision in the Higher
Education Amendments of 1998 that requires the limitation, suspension, or termination of the recognition
of any agency found to be either in noncompliance with the criteria for recognition or ineffective in its
performance with respect to those criteria. Alternatively, the law allows the agency to be given up to 12
months to come into compliance. If the agency fails to come into compliance within the specified time
frame, the law requires termination of the agency's recognition, unless it is determined that the time frame
for coming into compliance should be extended for good cause. Senate Report, No. 105-181 (May 4,
1998), on the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998, 10511 Congress, 2d Session indicates there is
an expectation on the part of Congress that extensions will be granted only rarely and only upon a
showing of good cause by the agency. The period the Department is providing in this letter for achieving
compliance with the criteria cited above constitutes the maximum time frame (12 months) the law allows
you to correct the deficiencies noted in the Department staff analysis.
Please convey my appreciation to the members of ACCJC for their continuing efforts to improve the
quality of postsecondary education in the United States. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Brenda Dann-Messier
Acting Assistant Secretary
Sections Violated by ACCJC as noted in letter and [remarks by Dept. of Education staff]
§602.12(b) The agency must demonstrate that its standards are sufficient to comprehensively evaluate
baccalaureate level degree programs and are comparable to commonly accepted standards for ensuring
quality in baccalaureate degree programs.
§602.13 Acceptance of the agency by others.
The agency must demonstrate that its standards, policies, procedures, and decisions to grant or deny
accreditation are widely accepted in the United States by (a) Educators and educational institutions; and
(b) Licensing bodies, practitioners, and employers in the professional or vocational fields for which the
educational institutions or programs within the agency's jurisdiction prepare their students.
[The agency must demonstrate wide acceptance of the agency's standards, policies, procedures, and
decisions to grant or deny accreditation by educators.]
§ 602.15 Administrative and fiscal responsibilities.
The agency must have the administrative and fiscal capability to carry out its accreditation activities in
light of its requested scope of recognition. The agency meets this requirement if the agency demonstrates
that Page 134
(a) The agency has (3) Academic and administrative personnel on its evaluation, policy, and
decision-making bodies, if the agency accredits institutions;
[The agency must demonstrate that academic personnel, as generally defined by the accrediting agency
and wider higher education community, are represented on its evaluation teams.]
§602.16(a)(1)(i) The agency must demonstrate that it evaluates the appropriateness of the measures of
student achievement chose by its institutions.
§602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards.
(a) The agency must demonstrate that it has standards for accreditation, and preaccreditation, if offered,
that are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the
education or training provided by the institutions or programs it accredits. The agency meets this
requirement if -(1) The agency's accreditation standards effectively address the quality of the institution or program in the
following areas:
(i) Success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution's mission, which may include
different standards for different institutions or programs, as established by the institution, including, as
appropriate, consideration of course completion, State licensing examination, and job placement rates.
§602.16(a)(1) The agency's accreditation standards effectively address the quality of the institution or
program in the following areas:
(ii) Curricula.
[The agency does not meet the requirements of this section based on its requested scope. It must
demonstrate that its standards for accreditation regarding curricula are sufficiently rigorous and
comprehensive to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the baccalaureate
level education provided by the institutions it accredits. The agency needs to incorporate its substantive
change protocol requirements for baccalaureate degree programs into the agency's curricula standards.]
§602.16(a)(1) The agency's accreditation standards effectively address the quality of the institution or
program in the following areas:
(iii) Faculty.
[The agency does not meet the requirements of this section based on its requested scope. It must
demonstrate that its standards for accreditation regarding faculty are sufficiently rigorous and
comprehensive to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the baccalaureate
level education provided by the institutions it accredits.]
§602.17 § 602.17 Application of standards in reaching an accrediting decision.
The agency must have effective mechanisms for evaluating an institution's or program's compliance with
the agency's standards before reaching a decision to accredit or preaccredit the institution or program. The
agency meets this requirement if the agency demonstrates that it §602.17(a) Evaluates whether an institution or program (1) Maintains clearly specified educational objectives that are consistent with its mission and
appropriate in light of the degrees or certificates awarded;
(2) Is successful in achieving its stated objectives; and
(3) Maintains degree and certificate requirements that at least conform to commonly accepted
standards;
[The agency must demonstrate that it evaluates an institution on its maintenance of clearly specified
Page 135
educational objectives that are consistent with its mission and appropriate in light of the credentials
awarded, and is successful in achieving its stated objectives with specific regards to baccalaureate degree
programs.]
§602.17(f) Provides the institution or program with a detailed written report that assesses—
(1) The institution's or program's compliance with the agency's standards, including areas needing
improvement; and
(2) The institution's or program's performance with respect to student achievement; and
[The agency must provide documentation to demonstrate that it has fully implemented its revised policies
to demonstrate that the agency clearly delineates between areas of non-compliance and areas for
improvement. The agency must also demonstrate that it provides the institution with a detailed written
report that assesses the institution's performance with respect to student achievement.]
§ 602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making.
The agency must consistently apply and enforce standards that respect the stated mission of the
institution, including religious mission, and that ensure that the education or training offered by an
institution or program, including any offered through distance education or correspondence education, is
of sufficient quality to achieve its stated objective for the duration of any accreditation or preaccreditation
period granted by the agency. The agency meets this requirement if the agency—
§602.18(e) Provides the institution or program with a detailed written report that clearly identifies any
deficiencies in the institution's or program's compliance with the agency's standards.
[The agency must provide documentation to demonstrate that it provides the institution with a detailed
written report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution's compliance with the agency's
standards.]
§602.19(b) The agency must demonstrate it has, and effectively applies, a set of monitoring and
evaluation approaches that enables the agency to identify problems with an institution's or program's
continued compliance with agency standards and that takes into account institutional or program strengths
and stability. These approaches must include periodic reports, and collection and analysis of key data and
indicators, identified by the agency, including, but not limited to, fiscal information and measures of
student achievement, consistent with the provisions of §602.16(f). This provision does not require
institutions or programs to provide annual reports on each specific accreditation criterion.
[The agency must provide information and documentation to demonstrate that it requires additional
information from an institution when student achievement data, or any other key data or indicators do not
meet the agency's standards.]
§602.20 Enforcement of standards.
(a) If the agency's review of an institution or program under any standard indicates that the institution or
program is not in compliance with that standard, the agency must—
(1) Immediately initiate adverse action against the institution or program; or
(2) Require the institution or program to take appropriate action to bring itself into compliance
with the agency's standards within a time period that must not exceed—
(i) Twelve months, if the program, or the longest program offered by the institution, is less
than one year in length;
(ii) Eighteen months, if the program, or the longest program offered by the institution, is at
least one year, but less than two years, in length; or
Page 136
(iii) Two years, if the program, or the longest program offered by the institution, is at least
two years in length.
[The agency must demonstrate that it consistently enforces the time period to return to compliance with
the agency's standards.]
(b) If the institution or program does not bring itself into compliance within the specified period, the
agency must take immediate adverse action unless the agency, for good cause, extends the period for
achieving compliance.
[The agency must demonstrate that it takes immediate adverse action if an institution does not bring itself
into compliance within the specified period.]
§ 602.21 Review of standards.
§602.21(c) If the agency determines, at any point during its systematic program of review, that it needs to
make changes to its standards, the agency must initiate action within 12 months to make the changes and
must complete that action within a reasonable period of time. Before finalizing any changes to its
standards, the agency must (1) Provide notice to all of the agency's relevant constituencies, and other parties who have made
their interest known to the agency, of the changes the agency proposes to make;
(2) Give the constituencies and other interested parties adequate opportunity to comment on the
proposed changes; and
(3) Take into account any comments on the proposed changes submitted timely by the relevant
constituencies and by other interested parties.
[The agency must provide documentation that it must complete the standards revision process within a
reasonable period of time.]
§ 602.25 Due process.
The agency must demonstrate that the procedures it uses throughout the accrediting process satisfy due
process. The agency meets this requirement if the agency does the following:
(a) Provides adequate written specification of its requirements, including clear standards, for an
institution or program to be accredited or preaccredited.
(b) Uses procedures that afford an institution or program a reasonable period of time to comply
with the agency's requests for information and documents.
(c) Provides written specification of any deficiencies identified at the institution or program
examined.
(d) Provides sufficient opportunity for a written response by an institution or program regarding
any deficiencies identified by the agency, to be considered by the agency within a timeframe determined
by the agency, and before any adverse action is taken.
(e) Notifies the institution or program in writing of any adverse accrediting action or an action to
place the institution or program on probation or show cause. The notice describes the basis for the action.
[The agency must provide documentation to demonstrate that it provides written specification of any
deficiencies identified at the institution examined.]
§ 602.26 Notification of accrediting decisions.
The agency must demonstrate that it has established and follows written procedures requiring it to provide
written notice of its accrediting decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing
agency, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public. The agency meets this requirement if the
agency, following its written procedures—
Page 137
(a) Provides written notice of the following types of decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate
State licensing or authorizing agency, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public no later than 30
days after it makes the decision:
(1) A decision to award initial accreditation or preaccreditation to an institution or
program.
(2) A decision to renew an institution's or program's accreditation or preaccreditation;
(b) Provides written notice of the following types of decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate
State licensing or authorizing agency, and the appropriate accrediting agencies at the same time it notifies
the institution or program of the decision, but no later than 30 days after it reaches the decision:
(1) A final decision to place an institution or program on probation or an equivalent status.
(2) A final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or terminate the accreditation or
preaccreditation of an institution or program.
(3) A final decision to take any other adverse action, as defined by the agency, not listed in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
(c) Provides written notice to the public of the decisions listed in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and
(b)(3) of this section within 24 hours of its notice to the institution or program;
(d) For any decision listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, makes available to the Secretary, the
appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, and the public, no later than 60 days after the decision,
a brief statement summarizing the reasons for the agency's decision and the official comments that the
affected institution or program may wish to make with regard to that decision, or evidence that the
affected institution has been offered the opportunity to provide official comment;
(e) Notifies the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, the appropriate
accrediting agencies, and, upon request, the public if an accredited or preaccredited institution or
program—
(1) Decides to withdraw voluntarily from accreditation or preaccreditation, within 30 days
of receiving notification from the institution or program that it is withdrawing voluntarily from
accreditation or preaccreditation; or
(2) Lets its accreditation or preaccreditation lapse, within 30 days of the date on which
accreditation or preaccreditation lapses.
[The agency must demonstrate that it provides written notice of negative decisions to the Secretary and
the other entities required by this section at the same time it notifies the institution of the decision.]
January 2014 Meeting of the ACCJC
The ACCJC met on January 8-10, 2014 in Sacramento. The preliminary agenda for the meeting made
clear that only 20 members of the public would be allowed into the January 10th “Open” meeting and
speakers would only be allowed a total of 15 minutes to make comments. The items being acted on in the
public portion of their three-day meeting were not available to the public prior to the meeting. As a result
of these restrictions less than 20 members of the public attended the meeting. I was one of those who saw
little point in attempting to address the Commission for three minutes.
The final agenda, first made available at the meeting itself, contained a list of the items under
consideration. These items included “Approval of Policies for First and Second Reading, Approval of
Operational Policies, and Report on Policy Actions taken since June 2013.”
The Policies being considered at First Reading included:
Page 138
a.
Policy and Procedures for the Evaluation of Institutions in Multi-College/Multi-Unit Districts or
Systems
b.
Policy on Institutional Degrees and Credits
c.
Policy on Complaints Against the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
d.
Policy on Closing an Institution
e.
Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions
Those approved on First Reading are then supposed to be sent out for public comment. The problem is
that public comment suggestions for change are rarely adopted by the Commission on Second Reading.
The Second Reading Policies included:
a.
Policy on Monitoring Institutional Performance
b.
Policy on Direct Assessment of Learning (formerly Policy on Credit for Prior Learning in
Undergraduate Programs)
c.
Policy on Rights and Responsibilities of the Commission and Member Institutions
Operational Policies included
a.
Policy on Access to Commission Meetings
Amendment to Bylaws
a.
ACCJC Bylaws
Report on Policies Revised by Electronic Vote in October 2013 for USDE Compliance. These policies
have been approved without public input and were just being reported out to the public.
a.
Policy on Commission Good Practice in Relations with Member Institutions
b.
Policy on Public Disclosure and Confidentiality in the Accreditation Process
c.
Policy on Relations with Government Agencies
d.
Policy on Relations with Accrediting Agencies
e.
Policy on Conflict of Interest for Commissioners, Evaluation Team Members, Consultants,
Administrative Staff, and other Commission Representatives
f.
Policy on Substantive Change
Report on Policies Eliminated by Electronic Vote in October 2013 for USDE Compliance
a.
Policies and Procedures for Joint Accreditation Process between ACCJC and ACSCU of WASC
b.
Policies and Procedures for Joint Accreditation Process between ACCJC and ACS of WASC
c.
Coordinating Guidelines for the WASC Accrediting Commission
An explanation of the process used by ACCJC was provided: “Through Commission processes, the Policy
Committee oversees the development of new policies and changes to existing policies. Commission
procedures require that proposed institutional policy changes and/or new policies be considered by the
Commission in a two-meeting process. At the first meeting, new policies/policy changes are discussed
and modifications are made as appropriate (i.e., "First Reading"). These policies are then circulated to
ACCJC accredited institutions and other interested parties for review and comment before presentation at
the next Commission meeting for second reading and adoption.”
“When changes are needed in order to align with federal regulations or guidelines, these changes can
be made by the Commission without the normal First Reading/Second Reading process. If these
Page 139
changes are made by Commission action between regular meetings, then the changes are reported to the
field at the next Commission meeting.”
“The Policy Committee met on October 8 and 11, 2013 by conference call, and in-person on November
15, 2013 to review institutional policies for first reading and second reading. Operational policies and
documents were also reviewed for presentation to the Commission, along with edits to policies.”
A summary of changes was provided as follows:
Policy and Procedures for Evaluation of Institutions in Multi-College/Multi-Unit Districts or
Systems
“The proposed revision is to eliminate a section related to team reports and recommendations that is
more accurately addressed elsewhere in policy and procedure.”
Policy on Institutional Degrees and Credits
“The work on this policy was primarily to move regulations citations to footnotes, to increase readability
of the policy. The Policy on Institutional Degrees and Credits contains a definition of ‘program,’ which is
clarified in the proposed revision. The proposed revision also specifies that general education and, if
offered, pre-collegiate preparatory courses of study are defined as programs of the institution, There
were some additional changes made in October 2013, to include references for baccalaureate degrees.”
Policy on Complaints Against the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
“Whereas there had been no recent application of this policy prior to 2013, during the past year there
were two complaints against the ACCJC under this policy. During the processing of those complaints, it
was determined the policy would be enhanced by a fuller explanation of the complaint process. The
policies of other regional accreditors were used as reference points in revising the Commission's policy.
The Policy Committee also felt it would benefit readers to know of other processes available to raise
questions or concerns related to the accreditation standards, processes, or actions on institutions.”
Policy on Closing an Institution
“This policy was revised to provide for flexibility in the requirement of a Closure Report for all
institutions placed on the sanction of Show Cause. With the revision, institutions ordered on Show Cause
may also be required to complete a Closure Plan, develop a preliminary closure plan, or make other
preparations for closure. Other revisions were made to the policy in October, to clarify language and
provide that Closure Plans are reviewed as substantive changes by the Committee on Substantive
Change.”
Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions
“This policy was revised to eliminate the requirement for a two-year period of time to pass before an
institution can proceed with seeking accreditation upon denial of candidacy or initial accreditation.
Instead, the requirement before reapplying is now specified as completion of a new self evaluation
process and submittal of an Institutional Self Evaluation Report. Additional revisions made in October
clarified language concerning the application of the two-year rule in relation to Commission actions on
institutions.”
The “institutional policies” approved on Second Reading included:
Page 140
Policy on Monitoring Institutional Performance
“The new Policy on Monitoring Institutional Performance highlights the periodic (annual) monitoring of
key indicators as required by USDE regulations. This area of accreditation practice and reporting by
colleges will be more transparent to member institutions and interested others with the creation of a
stand-alone policy on the subject. Additional language was added to this policy to align with federal
regulations concerning monitoring activities of accrediting agencies.”
Policy on Direct Assessment of Learning (formerly Policy on Credit for Prior Experiential Learning in
Undergraduate Programs)
“In the course of its ongoing review of Commission policies, the committee determined this policy had
become out of date since its last revision in 2009. There has been a great deal of movement on this subject
over the past several years, and the U.S. Department of Education recently clarified its expectations
related to direct assessment programs, which may include prior experiential learning. The policy has
been renamed and revised with these factors in mind. It should be noted that several other Commission
policies also address direct assessment programs, including the Policy on Substantive Change, Policy on
Award of Credit, and Policy on Institutional Degrees and Credits.”
Policy on the Rights and Responsibilities of the Commission and Member Institutions
“During a regular review of the Policy on Rights and Responsibilities of the Commission and Member
Institutions, it was determined that a separate section on third party comment would be helpful to the
member institutions and to the public. The section pulls materials that were previously found in several
other policies and records them together in this section. Other revisions were made in October to align
with federal regulations and guidelines.”
Commission operational policies were presented to the Commission for review and approval.
“Operational policies are not circulated to the field for comment prior to final approval. Upon approval,
they are included in the Commission's report on Recent Commission Actions on Policy, and are posted
online in the Accreditation Reference Handbook.” These Policies included:
Policy on Access to Commission Meetings
“Revisions to this policy clarify language concerning access to Commission meetings and insert as a part
of the public session a period for public comment.4. The following Commission operational document
was amended in October 2013 and again in January 2014 in accordance with Bylaws.”
ACCJC Bylaws
“The ACCJC Bylaws were amended in October 2013 and again in January 2014 in accordance with the
Bylaws. These amendments were made to align the Bylaws with federal regulations and guidelines:
clarified scope statement for the baccalaureate degree, deletion of representatives on the Commission
from other WASC accrediting agencies, and insertion of the definition of public members. There was also
clean-up of language and terms remaining from an earlier version of the Bylaws.”
“The following policies were revised in October, 2013, in response to USDE analysis in connection with
the ACCJC recognition review. The changes made were to address areas related to: enforcement of the
two-year rule, notifications to other accreditors and to governmental agencies, substantive change,
recommendations to meet standards and to improve effectiveness, language pertaining to the
baccalaureate degree, avoidance of the possibility of conflict appearance, and team make-up.
Policy on Commission Good Practice in Relations with Member Institutions
Page 141
Policy on Public Disclosure and Confidentiality in the Accreditation Process
Policy on Relations with Government Agencies
Policy on Relations with Accrediting Agencies
Policy on Conflict of Interest for Commissioners, Evaluation Team Members, Consultants,
Administrative Staff, and Other Commission Representatives
Policy on Substantive Change”
Lack of Transparency - CFT Letter of January 9, 2014
On January 9, 2014, a letter was sent from the California Federation of Teachers to the ACCJC
complaining about the lack of transparency of the ACCJC in performance of its responsibilities. The letter
began with: “The California Federation of Teachers (CFT) continues to express the greatest concerns
about the persistence of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) in
avoiding transparency in matters of public interest, which impacts the community colleges, their
students, and employees.”
“Regarding the January 2014 meeting of the ACCJC, other than a preliminary agenda, precious little
information is available to the public.”
With the regard to the preliminary agenda (actually just a memo) the CFT continued: “This Memo lists
four policies, which are set for first reading, including the Policy on Closing an Institution and the Policy
on Complaints Against the ACCJC. Both policies are of keen interest to the CFT and its members, yet we
are unaware of any prior posting of copies of the proposed new policies such as would allow comment to
be considered prior to the ACCJC's January 10, 2014 meeting.”
“The Memo lists three policies set for a second reading. The Policy on Rights and Responsibilities of
Commission and Member Institutions was up for a second reading in June 2013 and is now up for
another second reading in January 2014. Again, we are unable to find any notice as to the contents of this
proposal, on the ACCJC website.”
“The Preliminary Agenda mentions an "operational" policy on Access to Commission Meetings. This
policy is also of keen interest, but also appears to have been kept confidential by ACCJC.”
“The Preliminary Agenda notes that in October 2013, the ACCJC revised seven of its policies - but
again, the content of the revised policies is not apparent on the ACCJC website, and we presume these
revised policies were not made available for review by faculty, students and the public, before they were
adopted, or since. If ACCJC adopted revised policies in October 2013, and those proposed revised
policies were not published before adoption, how is the public able to comment on said proposed
policies, which have direct effects on the community colleges and their constituencies?”
“Given the above, the CFT objects to the Commission's consideration of policy changes as to any policy
or revision where the Commission has failed to provide adequate public notice of proposed changes
prior to adoption.”
The CFT noted the limited access allowed at the public session of the Commission and stated its objection
to this “practice”: “the CFT also objects to the ACCJC, which is clothed with governmental authority,
Page 142
limiting access to its public meetings to just 20 members of the public. We note that the room for June
meeting mentioned above had room for dozens if not hundreds of people. Why work to keep out members
of the public seeking to learn about and participate in the Commission's proceedings?”
The CFT letter ends with “it appears that ACCJC's practices continue to emphasize secrecy and lack of
transparency. We call on ACCJC to adhere to a strong policy of transparency.”
The letter was also sent as a cc to Secretary Arne Duncan, U.S. Department of Education; Governor
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., State of California; Chancellor Brice Harris, California Community Colleges;
Superintendent Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction; a number of members of
Congress; the two California United
States Senators; and a number of state legislative representatives.
Report on ACCJC Meeting of January 10, 2013
Karen Saginor, a CCSF Librarian and Academic Senate leader, reported on the January 10th ACCJC
meeting to Academic Senate leaders across California. She noted that “The ‘public’ portion of the ACCJC
on Friday afternoon was comprised of reports, policy changes and a first ‘reading’ of greatly revised
standards. Most significant of the policy changes were a removal of the requirement that changes to
ACCJC Bylaws be considered in public session and extensive changes to the Policy on Complaints
Against the ACCJC narrowing the scope of complaints to which ACCJC must respond, requiring more
information and substantial evidence from the complainant; specifying the form that the complaint
must take (including an original signature) and disallowing the right to appeal the disposition of a
complaint.”
The new standards
“At the beginning of the ACCJC meeting on the afternoon of January 10, Tim Karas, President of the
Council of Chief Librarians, spoke in public comment about the process used by his organization to
provide consensus from the field on standards for libraries. ACCJC has used none of their input. He
asked the group to reconsider merging Standard II.C., concerning libraries, into Standard II.B. Student
Services.”
Saginor spoke to the disjoint between the statements made at the NACIQI meeting in December and the
actual activities of the ACCJC. She noted that the statements made in December “claiming wide vetting
of the new standards and the actual practice, including the withholding of half the standards from the
Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges (ASCCC) and the lack of responsiveness to
input. “
Contradictory Statements
Saginor wrote that “Vice President Krista Johns and others responded to say that the phase for feedback
to the standards was just beginning now -- even the Commission members had just received the new
standards for first reading two days ago -- and there will be a wide process for feedback this Spring.
These statements were contradicted a few hours later when the commission started its discussion of the
standards and John Nixon, speaking for the standards committee, talked about how much input and
feedback they've already had from "experts in the field" including the ASCCC. In the discussion, one of
the commissioners remarked "I just don't want us to leave the impression with the public that this is the
Page 143
first time the Commission is looking at these standards. It is not." I cannot reconcile these various
statements with each other or with the experiences many of us have had in not being able to access the
text of the draft standards and the agency's lack of responsiveness to feedback during a time when the
agency announces it is seeking input. It is also unclear how the January 10th afternoon meeting
qualified as a public presentation of the standards as a first "reading," since these standards were not
provided to members of the public who attended the meeting, nor were they read out loud. There was
some discussion of sections of it by members of the commission (mostly impossible for us public to follow
with no text) but no changes were made before it was unanimously approved. Vice President Krista Johns
estimated that the text as approved may be provided to college CEOs and ALOs by the end of January.”
Some of the Changes
New Policy On Complaints Against ACCJC
The Policy on Complaints was offered for First Reading. It begins with the following changes “The
purpose of this policy is to provide a process whereby individuals who have been aggrieved as a direct
result of acts or omissions by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)
related to its accreditation functions may file a complaint. Complaints against the Commission are limited
to complaints ACCJC may be about the ACCJC's lack of compliance with its own published regarding the
agencies Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, criteria, and Commission policies, with
federal regulations, and with accreditation procedures. Procedures, or actions of staff or any other
Commission representative.”
It is not clear under the new policy what criteria is used to determine if the individual filing the complaint
was “directly aggrieved” as a result of the now more limited scope of application. It must be noted that
Barbara Beno is staff to the ACCJC and as a result, her actions could not be grieved based on this new
policy to be voted on in June by the Commission.
The new policy includes “The ACCJC does not review complaints seeking to substitute Commission or
team judgments related to institutional reviews or raise matters about which a member institution has due
process procedures as a part of accreditation reviews.' An accreditation action not in accord with a
complainant's expectation is not in and of itself cause for review of a complaint against ACCJC. The
ACCJC does not review complaints presented primarily to indicate disagreement with standards, or to
indicate comment concerning the accredited status of a member institution.” This means that in a case
such as that occurring at CCSF where the appointed Special Trustee does not adequately raise issues
under the review and appeal process, the rest of the college community has no avenue of action against
ACCJC within the ACCJC umbrella.
The proposed policy also includes the following new language: “The complaint must be written, and must
state clearly the nature of the complaint and the manner in which the complainant was directly aggrieved
by the acts or omissions. The complainant must be clearly identified and the complaint and it must be
signed contain an original signature. The complaint must identify the Eligibility Requirements,
Accreditation Standard, Commission policy, or procedure in question and include substantial evidence to
support the allegations being made. Should a complaint require Commission consideration and action,
the complainant will be notified of the timing of the Commission's review.”
It also adds the following: “The ACCJC's disposition of complaints under this policy is final.
Page 144
Complainants do not have a right to appeal the disposition of a complaint.” In short, the Commission is
the final judge concerning its failure to comply with its rules.
Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions
The Commission considered the changes to the policy as a First Reading. The main changes reinforces
that a college has up to two years (or less if the Commission so decides) to address deficiencies.
Policy on the Right and Responsibilities of the Commission and Member Institutions
New language includes “Teams will include both academic and administrative representatives. Faculty
members will be included among the academic representatives on comprehensive evaluation teams.”
This language does not seem to adequately address the Department of Education’s demands relative to
what an “academic representative” is nor whether there is a substantial number of faculty on all evaluation
teams.
New language is attempted to address the confusion between what is a requirement and what is simply a
recommendation. The new language would read “The Commission also has the responsibility to
communicate its findings derived from the site visit to the institution; ensure that the External Evaluation
Report of Educational Quality and Institutional Effectiveness (formerly Team Report) identifies and
distinguishes clearly between statements' directly findings, conclusions and recommendations related to
deficiencies in meeting the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards and Commission policies,
and those recommendations representing suggestions for quality improvement; provide the Chief
Executive Officer of the institution with an opportunity to correct all factual errors in the draft External
Evaluation Report; and provide supplemental materials pertinent to the facts and conclusions in the
External Evaluation Report before it takes action on the Institutional Self Evaluation and External
Evaluation Report.”
This same language is later repeated but with respect to the Commission’s decisions. We shall see how
this works out in the future and whether or not the reports to the colleges clearly distinguish between
“recommendations related to deficiencies in meeting the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation
Standards and Commission policies and recommendations representing suggestions for quality
improvement.”
Policy on Access to Commission Meetings
The policy now begins with the following: “The ACCJC holds meetings of the Commission holds its
meeting for two purposes: to decide accredited status of applicant and member institutions and to
consider such organizational informational and policy matters as may come before it. The Commission
meets in Public Session when deliberating or acting upon informational organizational or policy matters.
The Commission meets in Public Session. When deliberating or acting upon matters that concern specific
individuals or the accredited status of institution, the Commission meets in Closed Session to ensure the
confidentiality of those matters, that decisions are based on facts presented in accordance with
accreditation procedures, and to ensure decisions are not improperly influenced.”
I am not sure how a closed session insures that “facts presented in accordance with accreditation
procedures, and to ensure decisions are not improperly influenced” or that improper influence is better
avoided. There is certainly no proof available that working in the public eye makes the proceedings less
based on facts and actual procedures - most people would agree that sunshine is a good antiseptic to
Page 145
various types of poisons.
The second paragraph of the proposed policy states that “The Commission holds public sessions to share
information with the field and to provide transparency to the public. The Commission supports and
encourages the presence of members of the public at its public sessions. Seating, though limited, is made
available for members of the public at each meeting. The Commission also recognizes that it has the
responsibility to consider actions on the accreditation status of institutions and matters such as personnel
actions in a confidential manner.”
The Commission does not encourage the presence of the public and does not provide materials in advance
so that the public can even follow what the Commission is doing. The limiting of attendance to 20 people
in rooms that will hold many more people is just one indication of the desire to exclude the public.
Leaving only 15 minutes for public comment is another example of the drive by the ACCJC to discourage
attendance and participation.
Even in closed sessions, institutions under review are only allowed 15 minutes to make their case before
the Commission acts on their accreditation. Again, an example of the closed book attitude of the
Commission.
Review of CCSF Removal of Accreditation Decision
At the January 8-10, 2014 meeting the Commission reaffirmed its June 2013 decision to terminate
accreditation of CCSF effective July 31, 2014. A letter dated February 7, 2014 stated that “The
Commission examined the report of the Review Committee, the Request for Review Statement of Reasons
submitted by City College of San Francisco, and the evidence provided by the College in support of the
reasons. The Commission found that the four criteria for review outlined in the Policy on Review of
Commission Actions were not met for any of the reasons raised.” No further explanation was provided.
The refusal to reverse itself was no surprise to those who understand the kangaroo court procedure and
operation of the Commission in considering a review of their own decisions.
The letter then went on to state that the college may appeal the decision, and “If the College chooses to
file an appeal, during the pendency of the appeal the institution's status with the Commission shall remain
the same as it was prior to the decision being appealed. During the period of appeal, City College of San
Francisco remains accredited and on Show Cause status.”
The ACCJC Bylaws and ACCJC Appeal Procedures Manual were enclosed in the letter. Without an
explanation of the Commission finding, it may make it more difficult for the college to appeal the
decision. If the new process is as secret as the review process, the public will continue to know nothing
concerning on what basis the college is appealing nor how the decision is reached.
Letter from Saginor to Agrella
On March 4, 2014 Karen Saginor (an active Academic Senate member and Librarian at CCSF) wrote a
letter to Special Trustee Robert Agrella and CCSF Chancellor Arthur Tyler requesting that the appeal
Page 146
document “you submit for this purpose on behalf of City College of San Francisco will fully address the
four appeal criteria relating to errors, bias, or lack of evidence on the part of ACCJC.” She noted that
the review request by Agrella had mostly likely left out many important issues that had been brought up
by the CFT and others suing the ACCJC as Agrella had indicated that he would follow the advice offered
on August 16, 2013 by Dr. Beno: “The rights of CCSF under ACCJC’s standards and policies, including
the institution’s rights under the pending review and appeal process, and also its rights under the
attendant USDE [U.S. Department of Education] regulations, cannot be adopted by or transferred to
third parties. While the Union is free to submit complaints about the ACCJC, just as any other third party,
the Union is not a representative or agent of the institution, and has no authority to represent the
institution in its dealings with the Commission and USDE. Nor should a third party’s complaints be
treated or handled in the process of review requested by a member institution of ACCJC, in this case
CCSF. The public’s and USDE’s response to the Union’s complaints give the appearance that these clear
boundaries are not being respected.”
Saginor expressed the feeling that since the original review request has not been accepted that more was
needed in the appeal. In particular she outlined “a partial list of ACCJC actions that meet one or more of
the four criteria because they demonstrate errors of commission or omission, bias or prejudice, erroneous
evidence or lack of evidence.”







The March 2012 Visiting Team and the April 2013 Show Cause Visiting Team lacked a sufficient
number of faculty, a violation of ACCJC policy.
The March 2012 Visiting Team included Peter Crabtree, husband of Dr. Barbara Beno.
The Commission incorrectly asserted that City College had been found deficient prior to 2012,
basing this error on a mischaracterization of recommendations for improvement that
accompanied the 2006 decision stating that City College met all standards.
The Commission placed City College on Show Cause without giving it a lesser sanction first. This
was out of line with ACCJC practices in sanctioning other colleges – disparate treatment that
demonstrates bias.
In accordance with ACCJC policy, The Show Cause Visiting Team Report was shared in draft
form with College leadership so that the College might have an opportunity to submit corrections
for errors of fact in it before the Commission considered it. However, with the Commission
decision in 2013 came notification that ACCJC was adding many more standards to those
identified as deficient in the Show Cause Visiting Team Report. Contrary to ACCJC policy (and
USDE regulation) the ACCJC did not identify what the deficiencies were for these standards. (For
example, Standard II.A.6 concerning information provided to students about courses, program,
policies, etc. – the Show Cause Visiting Team Report noted that City College met this standard,
the decision letter from the Commission listed this as a standard not met, but did not identify the
deficiency.)
In addition to not identifying the added deficiencies, ACCJC gave no opportunity to City College
to submit corrections for errors of fact, and these improperly noticed, unidentified deficiencies
were part of the basis for the Commission’s 2013 decision to withdraw accreditation.
ACCJC characterized City College as deficient for its level of prefunding of Other Post
Employment Benefits (OPEB) although ACCJC standards did not include requirements for
prefunding of OPEB. Also, ACCJC did not label the same or lower levels of OPEB funding as
deficient at many other colleges.
Page 147



The March 2012 Visiting Team and the April 2013 inappropriately included persons with conflicts
of interest in regards to OPEB prefunding, an ACCJC Vice President, and persons who lobbied
for provisions of the Student Success Task Force that City College strongly opposed.
The 2013 Show Cause Visiting Team identified Recommendations and standards that City College
met partially or did not meet because, while the College had established appropriate practices
and made acceptable progress, there had not been time (in the eight months since the Show Cause
sanction) to complete the cycle of work. The Commission decided to withdraw accreditation
rather than provide even a small amount of additional time for City College to complete the work
and demonstrate progress. This illogical decision demonstrates bias.
The Commission found that City College did not meet several standards concerning Student
Learning Outcomes based on evidence submitted by the college in Spring, 2013. However, the
same evidence was submitted to ACCJC for a feedback report prepared by ACCJC staff. When
ACCJC staff compared colleges, scoring them numerically using a rubric, City College was
scored as meeting requirements. This inconsistency in assessing evidence demonstrates errors and
bias on the part of the Commission.”
March 3, 2014 Save CCSF Answers ACCJC Claims to Dismiss Case
The Save CCSF Coalition responded to the ACCJC request that the court reject their lawsuit against
ACCJC on March 3, 2014. The opposition to what is called a “demurrer” request was summarized by the
Coalition lawyer Dan Siegel. He argued as to how each of the ACCJC claims was incorrect and faulty.
The points he made included:
“1. Improper verification of the petition is no basis for demurrer;
2. Respondent's argument regarding compulsion to exercise discretion in a particular manner is
unrelated to petitioners' case;
3. Petitioners have standing as directly affected persons, beneficially interested citizens, and through
public interest standing;
4. Petitioners do not have access to an administrative review and therefore cannot exhaust it, and CCSFs
administrative review is futile;
5. Petitioners' case is ripe because this Court has established ripeness, CCSF is facing imminent closure,
and injunctive relief is insufficient;
6. This Court has held that CCSF need not be a joined party;
7. Respondent's assertion of privilege does not suffice to make its entire course of conduct unreviewable
by this Court.”
In short ‘All that is required is that plaintiff state facts entitling him to some type of relief, and if a cause
of action for mandamus ... has been stated, the general demurrer should have been overruled.’ ‘Boren v.
State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 638, 234 P.2d 981. Here, petitioners are entitled to pursue
a writ of mandate where they have standing as beneficially interested parties, CCSF is under threat of
closure within the year, and ACCJC's decision to terminate resulted from unlawful, arbitrary and
capricious decision making. The demurrer should be denied and the writ heard on the merits.
By "improper verification" the ACCJC lawyers claimed that Wendy Kaufmyn erred when she verified the
truth of her statements "under penalty of perjury " instead of swearing under oath. Coalition lawyer Siegel
Page 148
noted that "the California Supreme Court established more than a century ago, that a deficient
verification for a petition for a writ of mandate is not a valid basis on which to sustain a demurrer."
On the second point Siegel wrote that ACCJC (the Respondent) had “garbled the law by omitting the
clear, ministerial duty of an agency to proceed as required by law.” He also noted that the Coalition (the
Petitioners) “contend only that ACCJC failed to proceed as required by law, and that mandamus should
lie to compel it to not exceed its legal powers. Petitioners do not claim to say what ACCJC should do,
only that it should conduct its decision making in a lawful manner. That is precisely what traditional
mandate is designed to ensure, and Respondent's puzzling interpretation of California law and
petitioners' arguments is not a valid basis for demurrer.”
On the other points, Siegel pointed out how strong the interests of the parties in the Coalition suit were
and how the internal ACCJC system for appeal of their decisions was only available to Special Trustee
Agrella and was clearly and inadequate appeal system. The procedure has no timeline in order to get a
speedy remedy. The process afforded by ACCJC was futile for anyone that wanted justice in the case.
Siegel pointed out that the Court itself had noted the extreme harm experienced by students, faculty, and
community as a result of the ACCJC decision to terminate CCSF’s accreditation. Siegel noted that “by
continuing to press an argument that this Court has already peremptorily dismissed, Respondent
exemplifies the frivolity of its defense.”
Finally, the “Respondent’s incoherent assertion of privilege does not suffice to make its entire course of
conduct unreviewable by this Court.” The ACCJC lawyers did not even state which communications it
believed was privileged communications.
In conclusion, the Save CCSF’s response states that “the Court can and should evaluate ‘whether in the
past the Commission has or has not...violated extant standards.’ (Order, p.13:13-14, Request for Judicial
Notice, Exh. B.) Based on this Court's ability to do so, and the foregoing, petitioners Save CCSF
respectfully request that the Court overturn ACCJC's illegal, arbitrary, and capricious decision to
destroy the City College of San Francisco.”
January 2014 ACCJC Meeting - Has Anything Really Changed?
The ACCJC met on January 8-10, 2014. It reviewed a large number of colleges and considered a large
number of policy changes. On February 7, 2014 the Commission sent letters out to colleges announcing
the Commission decisions on possible sanctions. The Commission, in a dramatic change of direction in
the severity of the sanctions, issued a total of 4 WATCH sanctions. This was considerably less than the
number of colleges sanctioned at each meeting of the Commission over the past few years. For example,
in January of 2013 the Commission gave 5 WATCH, 4 PROBATION, and 1 SHOW CAUSE sanctions.
In reading the letters to the colleges, it is not clear whether the ACCJC is actually changing its ways
or just using a subtle shift in approach but yet maintaining the continuation of excessive demands on
colleges to go the ACCJC way.
The looming question of course is whether the three lawsuits filed against ACCJC, the Department of
Education demand that the ACCJC clean up its act in one year or lose the ability to accredit colleges, the
California legislative audit of the ACCJC, and the activities of federal legislators to reign in the ACCJC
had an impact on ACCJC.
Page 149
The ACCJC letters to the colleges reflected changes in language that blur rather than clarify the
distinction between “recommendations” which result from failure to meet standards and those that
indicate a direction the college should consider in moving forward but are not required changes in order to
meet full accreditation.
The fight to save City College of San Francisco (CCSF) by the San Francisco community, faculty,
students, and staff may also have had an impact upon the ACCJC. To date no evidence of any change in
position with regard to the closing of CCSF has been made evident. In fact, the Commission announced
that its decision regarding the review of its own proceedings that led to the denial of accreditation was that
there was no reason to reverse their own decision. The next step in this process is for CCSF to file an
appeal of the decision to an ACCJC selected panel. As mentioned elsewhere in ACCJC Gone Wild, the
appeal may not include any information that was not available to the Commission in June of 2013 when it
made its decision to dis-accredit CCSF. All of the work that CCSF faculty, staff, and others have made to
accommodate ACCJC’s demands is not allowed to be considered in the CCSF leadership’s appeal of the
ACCJC’s decision.
One of the concerns cited by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) was the composition of its
Visiting Teams. The DOE requires a substantial number of faculty members on teams but in the past
few years teams have only had a few, if any, faculty members on Visiting Teams. It appears that the
ACCJC has not changed its practice in this area since the DOE first demanded that more faculty members
be included on Visiting Teams. For example, the October 14-17, 2013 twelve member Visiting Team for
Cabrillo College had only one faculty member - an Assistant Professor/Accreditation Coordinator. The
San Mateo College Visiting Team had ten members, only two of whom were faculty members. Some
college Visiting Teams consisted of only two members – neither of whom was a faculty member. The
Solano Community College November 4, 2013 Visiting Team consisted of a President/Superintendent, a
Vice President of Student Services and a College Researcher (who happened also to be an adjunct faculty
member). The Visiting Team for El Camino on November 14, 2013 was a one-person Team composed of
only a College President. The team for the March 4, 2014 visit to Cerritos College has 14 members, only
two of whom are faculty members.
Cuesta College had Rancho Santiago Community College Chancellor and member of the Commission
Raul Rodriguez as the only member of the Visiting Team on November 5, 2013. This raises not only the
issue of lack of faculty but also an apparent conflict of interest. Since the voting on colleges is done
behind closed doors, the possible impropriety of Rodriquez voting on the Cuesta College accreditation is
not available to the public.
The DOE also faulted the ACCJC for not providing a detailed written report to colleges regarding what
they must improve to receive full accreditation and for not clearly delineating “between areas of noncompliance and areas for improvement. “ This was an important issue at CCSF where the line was not
drawn and then CCSF was cited for not making improvements in areas of recommendations beyond
requirements for satisfactory accreditation.
Cabrillo College - Reaffirm Accreditation
Page 150
The letter to Cabrillo College is an example of how the Commission is now handling accreditation. The
“Commission took action to reaffirm accreditation.” The letter went on to state that “Reaffirmation is
granted when the institution substantially meets or exceeds the Eligibility Requirements.” It is not clear
what “substantially meets” means. In the past, a college would either meet or not meet the requirements.
My guess is that “substantially meets” means that it meets the requirements for the most part. The letter
then stated that “The College Recommendations are directed toward strengthening the institution, not
correcting situations where the institution fails to meet the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation
Standards, and Commission policies.” This would seem to indicate that the college will not be held
responsible to make changes based on what the Visiting Team felt might be areas of improvement.
This would seem, at first glance, to indicate a new clarity by the Commission between what is required
and what is just suggested. But later statements muddy the water. For example, in an area entitled
“Improvement of Institutional Effectiveness” the letter states that “Recommendations have been made for
Cabrillo College to improve institutional effectiveness. Recommendations for improvement may be made
to highlight areas for continuing or expanding excellent practices. Recommendations for improvement
may also be made when an institution is currently in compliance with Standards, but additional levels of
effort should be demonstrated in the future. In the Commissions’s experience, these recommendations
may provide indicators of possible future noncompliance if left unattended by the institution. The
College should plan to fully address all improvement recommendations in the Midterm Report.” I have
found the above statement in a number of the February 2014 letters to colleges. It appears now be
boilerplate language. Does this language mean that the colleges will continue to be held accountable for
making changes based on suggestions of the Visiting Team - suggestions which are not required to
achieve full accreditation in the current year? This is contrary to U.S. Department of Education
requirements.
The Recommendations cited in the letter begin with “In order to improve effectiveness, the team
recommends that the College ....” Are colleges now required to “improve effectiveness” above meeting
the requirements for satisfactory accreditation? If “indicators” are not addressed, will a new level of
requirement exist in order to be in compliance with standards earlier met? Or will the measure of meeting
standards be unchanged until new standards with new requirements are approved by the Commission?
One thing that did not change is the final paragraph of the Cabrillo letter: “The recommendations
contained in the External Evaluation Report represent the best advice of the peer evaluation team at the
time of the visit. Institutions are expected to take all action necessary to continuously comply with
Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies. The Commission wishes to
remind you that while an institution may concur or disagree with any part of the Report, Cabrillo College
is expected to use the External Evaluation Report to improve educational programs and services.” Does
this mean that improvement above “meeting the standard” is now required? If so, this is a classic example
of “moving the goalposts.”
San Mateo Community College – Reaffirm Accreditation
The February 7, 2014 letter from the Commission informed the college that the Commission “reviewed
the Institutional Self Evaluation Report and the Report of the External Evaluation Team that visited
College of San Mateo October 21, 2013 through October 24, 2013, and considered the presentation by
College representatives. The Commission took action to reaffirm accreditation with the requirement that
Page 151
the College complete a Follow-Up Report that must be submitted by October 15, 2014. The Report will be
followed by a visit of Commission representatives.”
As with other college letters the Commission explained that “Reaffirmation with a Follow-Up Report is
granted when an institution is found to substantially meet or exceed the Eligibility Requirements,
Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies, but has recommendations on a small number of issues
of some urgency which, if not addressed immediately, may threaten the ability of the institution to
continue to meet the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies. The
Report should demonstrate, and the visiting team will verify, that the institution has addressed the
recommendations noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now meets Eligibility Requirements and
Accreditation Standards.” It is interesting that now a college will need to resolve so-called
“deficiencies” even when the Commission has reaffirmed accreditation.
“The Commission found College of San Mateo deficient in meeting the following Accreditation
Standards: II.A.1.a, c; II.A.2.a,b,c,e,f,h,i; II.A.6; II.A.3.a; and Eligibility Requirement 10. Please note that
under U.S. Department of Education regulations, when an institution is not in compliance with Standards,
the Commission "must immediately initiate adverse action against the institution or require the institution
to take appropriate action to bring itself into compliance with the agency's standards within a time period
that must not exceed...two years." College of San Mateo should fully resolve the noted deficiency by
October 2015.” “Adverse action” in the ACCJC means the removal of accreditation. This means a
college can receive accreditation and less than a year later can be dis-accredited by the ACCJC.
Something is seriously wrong here.
The Standards mentioned above relate to a team recommendation that “To order to meet the Standards,
the team recommends that the College complete and assess SLOs for all courses, programs, certificates
and degrees, linking them to Institutional Learning Outcomes. Further, the team recommends
implementing multiple modes of assessment for certificates and degrees. The College should utilize
multiple modes of assessment for the Learning Centers in order to integrate academic support services
with the instructional programs.”
The letter also contains a number of suggested improvements that are to be made to “increase
effectiveness.” “Recommendations have been made for the College of San Mateo and the San Mateo
Community College District to improve institutional effectiveness. Recommendations for improvement
may be made to highlight areas for continuing or expanding excellent practices. Recommendations for
improvement may also be made when an institution is currently in compliance with Standards, but
additional levels of effort should be demonstrated in the future. In the Commission's experience, these
recommendations may provide indicators of possible future noncompliance if left unattended by the
institution. College should plan to fully address all improvement recommendations in the Midterm
Report.” So they are suggestions for improvement and yet seem to be required to be met. This is not in
compliance with the demands for clarity made by the U.S. Department of Education.
The Visiting Team, in its report, noted that “The College of San Mateo visiting team found the College
administration, faculty, staff, and students will prepared for the visit, with widespread understanding of
the accreditation process evident throughout the college community The accommodations for the team
worked very well, with a conference room at the hotel available for team meetings and equipped with a
computer, printer, overhead projector, and Internet access and a secure team meeting room at the college
proper, fully equipped with all accessories needed to complete work efficiently. The team found the
Page 152
Institutional Self Evaluation Report to be excessively voluminous and challenging to cross reference
evidence documentation. Nonetheless, documentation to support the Self Evaluation Report was well
organized in the team room at the College, and team members were given secure Internet access. The
College provided transportation between the hotel and the college.”
“Although the College and District staff went out of their way to support the on-site evaluation process,
three complications in the visit posed challenges. First, the College self-evaluation,while complete in its
description and presentation of facts, did not include an accessible delineation of plans to address the
needs identified in the document, causing the Team and the District Team to rely more heavily on other
documents and evidence to close the gap between the identified problem and the plan to correct it.
Second, the District Chancellor was off-site for the first two days of the visit and, although available by
telephone, was not available to interact with the District Team and others on-site until the final days of
the visit. Third, the District challenged the interview requests of the District Team, preferring to add
additional individuals in all interviews involving District staff due to stated concerns about the
Accrediting Commission.“
The letter from the Commission to the college addressed the above as follows: “The team report noted
three specific challenges that the evaluation teams experienced during the site visit. First, the District
Chancellor was unavailable to the team for the majority of the visit.Comprehensive evaluation visits are
scheduled well in advance, and the Commission expects top administrators to be available to the team
during the visit.
Second, per a reported directive from the Chancellor, additional staff members were required to attend
scheduled team interviews with district staff members even though these additional individuals were not
invited to participate in the interviews by the members of the evaluation team. Although the evaluation
team overcame this challenge and was able to complete its duties, this is problematic. It made the work of
the team more difficult and created an awkward situation. Evaluation teams are charged with examining
evidence from the college, and one of the methods of gathering or confirming evidence is through the
interview process. By including observers not requested by the team, interviewees may be reluctant to
share information because of a lack of assurance of confidentiality.
Third, the Institutional Self Evaluation Report should, in addition to demonstrating adherence to the
Accreditation Standards, demonstrate ongoing efforts by the college to continually improve its
performance and effectiveness. An important way the Commission expects colleges to carry out this task
is by including actionable improvement plans in the Institutional Self Evaluation Report that contain
future actions to be implemented by the college. The Commission noted that Institutional Self Evaluation
Report for College of San Mateo did not include actionable improvement plans.”
There seems to be a requirement of the Commission that colleges are expected to not only meet the
Standards but also to continually improve (whatever that means). The Standards thus appear to be a
moving target. Does there not exist set criteria that determines when a college meets requirements? The
U.S. Department of Education requires that the ACCJC have policies that guarantee consistency in
application.
Note that the letter from Beno does not go into why a Chancellor may not want to only have Visiting
Team chosen individuals meet with the team. The Chancellor of the San Mateo Community College
District has been outspoken in his criticism of the way that ACCJC has been acting in the past few
Page 153
years. It is no wonder that he wants to be assured of a fair hearing before a Visiting Team. Of course, the
ACCJC would never acknowledge that.
Victor Valley College - Remove Probation, Reaffirm Accreditation
The ACCJC “at its meeting January 8-10, 2014 reviewed the Follow-Up Report submitted by Victor
Valley College, and the report of the evaluation team which visited November 4, 2013. The Commission
took action to remove Probation and reaffirm accreditation with the requirement that the College submit
a Follow-Up Report in conjunction with the College Midterm Report due March 15, 2014. The Report
will be followed by a visit by Commission representatives.” The letter was sent on February 7, 2014. In
short, the Commission reaffirmed accreditation but still required a Midterm Report due in one month
from the time the letter was received. This does not seem to be a reasonable time line. What meaning
does “reaffirm accreditation” mean in a situation like this?
The explanation for the required Midterm Report was: “Reaffirmation with a Follow-Up Report is
granted when an institution is found to substantially meet or exceed the Eligibility Requirements,
Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies, but has recommendations on a small number of
issues of some urgency which, if not addressed immediately, may threaten the ability of the institution to
continue to meet the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies.” This
now appears to be standard language in college letters from the Commission - I found it in several of the
letters to the colleges. This means that a college can satisfy the requirements for accreditation but
still be held to address issues (and required to address the issues within one month). How does this
make any sense?
So what were these issues that had such urgency that they may cause the Commission to determine to
close a college? “The Report should demonstrate, and the visiting team will verify, that the institution has
sustained compliance with the Standards associated with Recommendations 2, 3, and 6.” None of these
Recommendations rise to the level of “emergency.”
Recommendation 2: went back to “recommendations” in 1993, 1999, and 2005 that dealt with
establishing and maintaining “an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialog about the continuous
improvement of student learning and institutional processes.” Talk about academic mumbo-jumbo.
Recommendation 3: went back to the 2005 Accreditation Evaluation Report that stated that “the College
should complete the development of student learning outcomes for all programs and ensure that student
learning outcomes found on course syllabi are the same as the student learning outcomes found on the
approved course outlines of record. The institution must accelerate its efforts to assess all student
learning outcomes for every course, instructional and student support program, and incorporate analysis
of student learning outcomes into course and program improvements. This effort must be accomplished by
fall 2012 as a result of broad-based dialog with administrative, institutional and research support.
Student learning outcomes need to become an integral part of the program review process, including
incorporating detailed documented analysis from SLO assessments and data-based research.
Additionally, faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated
learning outcomes should have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those
learning outcomes.” We see that the ACCJC continues to seek to involve itself in contractual matters
Page 154
that are to be bargained between the faculty union and the district. This is contrary to state law. Nothing
has changed in this area of illegal involvement in the collective bargaining process.
Recommendation 6: “In order to meet the Standards, the College should develop long-term fiscal plans
that support student learning programs and services that will not rely on using unrestricted reserves to
cover deficits. Additionally, the College should provide timely, accurate and comprehensive financial
data and budget projections for review and discussion throughout the institution.” What are college and
district reserves for if not to provide cover in bad fiscal years. Colleges are not established to be banks
to put money away in.
As is happening more and more, “The Commission notified Victor Valley College that it was identified for
additional financial review by the Financial Review Task Force.” “At its meeting of January 8-10, 2014,
the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges acted to direct that Victor Valley
College provide a Special Report to the Commission by March 15, 2014. The purpose of this Special
Report is to provide more current information to the commission about the College's compliance with
Accreditation Standards.” This report is to cover Recommendation 6 above.
“The Commission will consider the College's Special Report at its meeting June 4-6, 2014. If the
conditional warrant, the Commission may act on the accredited status of the College.” This sentence in
contained in many letters and I think the word “conditional” may actually mean “condition.”
It is clear that an ACCJC decision to grant accreditation is only a temporary decision and may be reversed
in less that six months if certain changes are not made or reports are not filed in that time.
Solano College – Remove Warning and Reaffirm Accreditation
The ACCJC, at its January 8-10, 2014 meeting, acted to remove Warning and reaffirm accredition for
Solano College. It used the same “substantially meets or exceeds” the requirements of the ACCJC as in
other letters. The letter notes that “Recommendations are directed toward strengthening the institution not
correcting situations where the institution fails to meet the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation
Standards, and Commission policies.”
The letter then goes on to state that “The Follow-Up Evaluation Team found evidence that Solano
Community College has partially addressed Recommendation 5 and 6 with the development and
integration of the Staff Diversity and Student Equity plans in to the College’s integrated planning cycle. It
has also developed a number of mechanisms and learning support systems so that students enrolled in
distance education courses are achieving stated learning outcomes at a level comparable with students
enrolled in onsite programs and courses. Nevertheless, both of the recommendations remain only
partially resolved because the College has yet to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes. The College
must demonstrate in its upcoming Midterrm Report that these recommendations have been completely
addressed, the Standards fully met, and the processes and plans initiated have been sustained.”
“Solano College is scheduled to submit its Institutional Midterm Report in the fall 2014.” This is less than
one year from the receipt of the letter.
Page 155
Woodland Community College - Continue on Warning
A letter dated February 7, 2014 from the ACCJC stated that “The Accrediting Commission for Community
and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, at its meeting January 8-10, 2014,
reviewed the Follow-Up Report submitted by Woodland Community College and the report of the
evaluation team that visited November 6, 2013. The Commission took action to continue Warning and
require the College to submit a Follow-Up Report by October 15, 2014. The report will be followed by a
visit of Commission representatives. The report should demonstrate full resolution of College
Recommendation 3 and District Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4 noted below.” It is important to
understand that there is one college requirement and four district requirements to be met. In accordance
with their new policy, colleges are being accredited based on district activity - activity that is far removed
from the education that students are receiving.
“Warning is issued when the Commission finds that an institution has pursued a course deviating from the
Commission's Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission policies to an extent that
gives concern to the Commission. The institution is expected to correct its deficiencies in a time specified
by the Commission. “The standard for Warning is “gives concern.” This is a very vague standard of
judgement.
Once again the Commission states, without any evidence, that “The Accreditation Standards, as an
integrated whole, represent indicators of academic quality and institutional effectiveness. Deficiencies in
any Standard will impact quality at an institution, and ultimately the educational environment and
experiences of students.” This is the basis of their argument that colleges should be closed for issues
unrelated to the academic quality of instruction - that everything is directly related to instructional
quality. This claim is untrue on its face and certainly needs some evidence to convince doubters like me.
So what are the Woodland Community College deficit in meeting Accreditation Standards that must be
met within two years or less or lose accreditation? By the way, in this case “Woodland Community
College must fully resolve the noted deficiency by October 2014” not within the allowed two years.
“College Recommendation #3 (Distance Education): In order to fully meet the Standards, the College
should develop mechanisms that ensure participation in ongoing dialog about the continuous
improvement of student learning for distance education (DE) students. All DE courses and programs,
ongoing learning support, and services required by DE students, appropriate staffing levels, and
oversight through the college, resource allocation, and technology training should be regularly and
systematically assessed and that information should be used for continuous quality improvement.”
“District Recommendation 1: To meet the Standards, the teams recommend that the chancellor develop
and implement short term and long term data driven strategic plans. These should be developed in an
inclusive manner, be transparent, clearly communicated and inclusive of the planning at the colleges.” So
the “recommendation” of the team has become a demand of the Commission.
“District Recommendation 2: To meet the Standards, the teams recommend that the District, in
conjunction with the colleges, develop and implement a resource allocation model that is driven by
planning and student success. The model should be developed in an inclusive manner, be transparent and
clearly communicated and evaluated periodically for effectiveness in supporting the district's and
colleges' missions.“ It is certainly ironic that colleges are required to be transparent when the
Page 156
Commission itself operates with very little transparency. For example, my requests for information
concerning ACCJC actions and policies have been summarily rejected with claims of confidentiality.
“District Recommendation 3: To meet the Standards, the teams recommend that the District provide the
following:
Delineation of its functional responsibilities;
Determination of whether current functions provided by the District offices should be centralized
or decentralized to better serve the needs of the students; and
Clarification of the district level process for decision-making and the role of the district in
college planning and decision-making.
The District should clearly identify district committees, perform a regular review of their work, conduct
review of the overall effectiveness of district services to the colleges, and widely disseminate the results of
those reviews.”
“District Recommendation 4: To meet the Standard, the teams recommend human resources planning be
integrated with institutional planning and the District and colleges should systematically assess the
effective use of human resources and use the results of the evaluation as a basis for improvement and
identify needed staff in faculty, classified and management positions. Further, the teams recommend the
systematic evaluation of all personnel at stated intervals with appropriate documentation. For all
employee groups, the District should also follow clearly defined appropriate written evaluative processes
that are in written terms.”
As is usual with the Commission, none of the college or district “problems” are related to the classes
that student’s take or the educational quality of the academic programs. In this respect, nothing
seems to have changed.
College of the Sequoias – SHOW CAUSE to WARNING
“The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, at its meeting January 8-10, 2014 reviewed the Show Cause Report submitted by College of the
Sequoias, the statement by college representatives, and the report of the evaluation team which visited
November 13 and 14, 2014. The purpose of this review was to determine whether College of the Sequoias
meets Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards at a level sufficient to remain accredited,
and whether College of the Sequoias has made changes and improvements required by the Commission
action letter of February 11, 2013, which placed the College on Show Cause. The Commission also
reviewed the College of the Sequoias' Closure Report.”
The Visiting Team had eight members, only one of whom was a faculty member.
“The Commission found that College of the Sequoias has resolved many of the deficiencies that were
identified in the February 11, 1013 action letter but has important areas of non-compliance not yet
resolved. The Commission acted to remove Show Cause, issue Warning, and require the College to
submit a Follow-Up Report by October 15, 2014. The Report will be followed by a visit of Commission
representatives.” The college has less than one year to make the necessary adjustments.
Page 157
“The Commission has found that the College of the Sequoias is still deficient in meeting the following
Accreditation Standards: I.B.3, III.D.1.a, III.D.1.d, III.D.4, and IV.B.2.b.” In order to fully meet or
comply with the standards, the team recommended improvements in the areas of Planning, Research
Capacity, and Evaluation of Processes. The letter notes that under Department of Education regulations,
College of the Sequoias must implement these recommendations by October 2014. The question is what
will happen if they fail to meet one or more of these requirements? Would the ACCJC terminate their
accreditation?
As in other letters to the colleges, the Commission calls on the college to make available to students and
the public the “College's Show Cause Report, the Show Cause Team Report, and this Commission action
letter.” The ACCJC is not held to the same standard with regard to Commission actions to approve
policies and the decision to reject CCSF’s review request.
Cuyamaca College - Reaffirm Accreditation
“The Commission took action to reaffirm accreditation with the requirement that the College complete a
Follow-Up Report that must be submitted by October 15, 2014, addressing recommendations 6, 7 and 8
noted below.
“The Report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives. Reaffirmation with a Follow-Up
Report is granted when an institution is found to substantially meet or exceed the Eligibility
Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies, but has recommendations on a small
number of issues of some urgency which, if not addressed immediately, may threaten the ability of the
institution to continue to meet the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission
policies. The Report should demonstrate, and the visiting team will verify, that the institution has
addressed the recommendation noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now meets Accreditation
Standards.” This new language appears in many of the college letters. So even though the college was
granted accreditation, it still has not met all of the Standards and must resolve “deficiencies”. This appears
to be a change in ACCJC - allowing accreditation even though a college may not meet all requirements. I
guess this may be what is meant by “substantially meets.” I believe that if “substantially meets” means
“generally meets the requirements although some minor specific demands have not been met”, than
I think this is a good direction for the Commission to go in.
Again the letter makes the wild claim that “Deficiencies in any Standard will impact quality at an
institution, and ultimately the educational environment and experiences of students” without any evidence
supporting the claim.
“The Commission found Cuyamaca College deficient in meeting the following Accreditation Standard:
II.A.2.e, III.A.1.c, III.A.2, III.A.4.b, III.A.6, IV.B.3.c. Please note that under U.S. Department of Education
regulations, when an institution is out of compliance with any Standards, the Commission ‘must
immediately initiate adverse action against the institution or require the institution to take appropriate
action to bring itself into compliance with the agency's standards within a time period that must not
exceed...two years.’ Cuyamaca College and the Grossmont/Cuyamaca Community College District
should fully resolve the noted deficiencies by October 2015.” This means that they are given less than
one year to meet ACCJC’s desires. I assume that this is the equivalent of a SHOW CAUSE finding - if
Page 158
not resolved then the college must be dis-accredited. How does this status comport with the idea of
achieving full accreditation?
The Recommendations to the college are:
“Recommendation 6: Curriculum Review. In order to meet the Standards, the team recommends that the
College implement an ongoing, systematic review process of course outlines to ensure currency and
relevancy for all disciplines.”
“Recommendation 7: Staffing Plans. In order to meet the Standards, the team recommends that the
College assess and analyze the level and diversity of its full-time faculty and staff. It further recommends
that the College use the results of that assessment to develop, adopt, fund, and implement long-range
staffing and resource allocation plans that will ensure a sufficient number of qualified, diverse, full-time
faculty and staff to foster the institution's mission and purposes, assure the integrity and quality of its
programs, and maintain services to students.”
The college and district recommendation are:
Recommendation 8: Human Resources. In order to meet the Standards, the team recommends that the
District and the College include, as a required component of the formal evaluations of faculty and
others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated student learning outcomes, a
means to evaluate effectiveness in producing those outcomes. As stated earlier in this paper - this in an
unlawful interference in collective bargaining.
The letter also stated that some recommendations have also been made to improve institutional
effectiveness. The letter states that, in this regard, “Recommendations for improvement may be made to
highlight areas for continuing or expanding excellent practices. Recommendations for improvement may
also be made when an institution is currently in compliance with Standards, but additional levels of effort
should be demonstrated in the future. In the Commission's experience, these recommendations may
provide indicators of possible future noncompliance if left unattended by the institution. The College
should plan to fully address all improvement recommendations in the Midterm Report.” The question
concerning these recommendations is whether the college must follow these suggestions for
improvement in order to continue to satisfy the requirements for accreditation or whether next time
they are accredited they will be held to a higher standard? If the later is true, then the Commission is
clearly in continued violation of lack of clarity between requirements and suggestions. It would also be in
violation of consistent sanction decisions. It appears that although some language has changed, the
ACCJC has not adequately responded to demands for change made by the U.S. Department of
Educations.
The college recommendations made by the Visiting Team “in order to improve effectiveness” include
that:
44.
the College clarify and strengthen the review, assessment, planning, and communication roles
between and among the planning and decision-making entities to better inform the college community
and align the governance decision-making structures with resource allocation decisions
45.
In order to improve effectiveness, the team recommends that student learning outcomes results
and student achievement performance for courses and programs offered in a distance education modality
be regularly and systematically assessed in the Program Review process
Page 159
46.
the College disaggregate Student Learning Outcomes assessment results by instructional modality
to support institutional planning and provide evidence of student achievement of those outcomes
47.
In order to improve effectiveness, the team recommends that the College consistently ensure
student learning outcomes from the institution's officially approved course outlines are clearly identified
on each course syllabus, and are distinguished from course objectives
48.
In order to improve effectiveness, the team recommends that the College provide coordinated
planning and assessment of tutoring and learning support services to ensure adequate access to the
library, tutoring, and other learning support services, regardless of their location or means of delivery
49.
In order to increase effectiveness, the team recommends the District and the Governing Board
regularly evaluate its policies and practices, and revise them as necessary along established timelines
50.
Cuyamaca College conducted an educational quality and institutional effectiveness review as part
of its self evaluation. The Commission suggests that the plans for improvement of the institution included
in its self evaluation efforts be taken into account in the continuing improvement of the College
The letter concludes in the usual way noting that “The recommendations contained in the External
Evaluation Report represent the best advice of the peer evaluation team at the time of the visit, but may
not describe all that is necessary to come into compliance. Institutions are expected to take all action
necessary to comply with Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies.
The Commission wishes to remind you that while an institution may concur or disagree with any part of
the Report, Cuyamaca College is expected to use the External Evaluation Report to improve educational
programs and services and to resolve issues identified by the Commission.” In other words, do not mess
with the Commission.
Grossmont College - Reaffirm Accreditation
As with its sister college (Cuyamaca College) accreditation was reaffirmed at the January 8-10, 2014
meeting of the Commission. Although the action was to affirm accreditation, never-the-less Grossmont
College was ordered to “complete a Follow-Up Report that must be submitted by October 15, 2014,
addressing all six recommendations noted below. The Report will be followed by a visit of Commission
representatives.” The language regarding “substantially meet” and “a small number of issues of some
urgency” are repeated as in other like letters. The letter also includes the unproven claim that a college
related issue with any standard is enough to impact the education of the students attending the
college.
The letter states that “The Report should demonstrate, and the visiting team will verify, that the institution
has addressed the recommendations noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now meets Accreditation
Standards” - this after being adjudged to have met standards to the extent necessary to receive
accreditation without a sanction. What is the effective difference between a demand to “address the
recommendations” and to “resolve the deficiencies?” We are in very murky water here.
Cuesta College - Removed from Warning, Reaffirmed Accreditation
The ACCJC letter dated February 7, 2014 received by Cuesta College stated that Cuesta College had been
removed from Warning and was now in full compliance with accreditation demands. No further demands
are made except that “Cuesta College must demonstrate to the Commission at the time of the next
scheduled report that the recent changes implemented to resolve deficiencies and meet Standards have
Page 160
been sustained. The College is scheduled to submit its Institutional Self Evaluation Report in the fall
2014.
Honolulu Community College – Removed from Warning, Accreditation Reaffirmed
The Commission took action at its January 8-10, 2014 meeting to “remove Warning, reaffirm
accreditation and require the College to submit a Follow-Up Report by October 15, 2014.” “The report
should demonstrate full resolution of the College Recommendations 2 and 6 and System
Recommendations 4 and 5.” “The Commission found Honolulu Community College deficient in meeting
35 different Accreditation Standards “from college and system recommendation” which must be resolved
by October 2014. In spite of all of this, the college’s accreditation was reaffirmed.
El Camino College - Removed from Warning
The El Camino College February 7, 2014 letter from the ACCJC stated that “El Camino College has
provided evidence and the team verified, that it has addressed College Recommendation 2 and now
meets the associated standards. The College has achieved the level of Proficiency as required in the
Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness - Part III Student Leaning Outcomes and now
meets Standards II.A.1.b; II.A.2; II.A.2.a.2; II.A.6; and II.A.7.” I note that the Rubric mentioned
above is not approved by the Commission and is not publically discussed before implemented. I also note
that the Visiting Team only had one member - a college president.
The letter declares that “El Camino College must demonstrate to the Commission at the time of the next
regularly scheduled visit that recent changes implemented to resolve deficiencies and meet Standards
have been sustained. El Camino College is scheduled to submit its Institutional Self Evaluation Report in
the fall 2014.”
The hamsters are never allowed off the treadmill.
January 2014 Revised Standards
In January of 2014 the ACCJC presented for First Reading a revised set of Accreditation Standards. The
document was not available to the public until well after the approval at First Reading. The Second and
final Reading will be approved at the June 2014 meeting of the Commission.
The standards continue to address a requirement for “continuous” evaluation, integration of planning, and
other item for improvement. The term “continuous improvement” is an overused phrase with little real
meaning. Anyone familiar with the phenomenon of improvement is aware that change is never
continuous. Change is often stop and go with plateaus along the way. It is also not always positive
particularly when funding is lacking. The idea of “continuous improvement” does not represent physical
reality.
Of course what “continuous” applications would mean is not laid out in the policy - it is left vague to be
interpreted later. But it is time to move away from vagueness. It is time for different language to be
introduced into the Standards. In fact, in some places the phrase "regularly" is used instead of
Page 161
“continuously.” This is perhaps what is meant by the term "continuous" but "regularly" is still overly
broad. Perhaps approaching the issue in terms of how often a college should return to the same issues for
reevaluation is the proper path. At least with this approach, institutions will understand what is really
expected of them.
Another vague term used in the standards is the word “integrity.” When the word is used it should
include what would constitute “integrity” in that provision.
Most of the Accreditation Standards are vague and thus not very instructive. Until interpreted by
directions given to Visiting Teams and the Commission the standards themselves provide little in the way
of explanation of what is actually required. Not only are the standards of less use to institutions but the
vagueness of the language makes it difficult to discuss changes during the revision process.
Although all of the standards need to be addressed in terms of their actual application, some of the
standards present problems on their face. Here are a few that I believe should raise red flags:
“II.a.1. All instructional programs are offered in fields of study consistent with the institution’s mission,
are appropriate to higher education, and culminate in student attainment of identified programmatic
student learning outcomes, and degrees, certificates, employment, or transfer to other higher education
programs.” The first question concerns how “appropriate to higher education” is determined. Depending
on how it is later interpreted, the resulting evaluation could depend on one narrow version of
appropriateness.
Attainment of “student learning outcomes” (SLOs) is not enough to determine whether the breadth of the
course knowledge has been acquired by a students leaving a class. They are not comprehensive enough.
Grades are better indicators of whether the required knowledge and skills have been attained. SLOs are
not robust enough to play the role suggested in this standard.
“II.A.5. If the institution offers pre-collegiate level curriculum, it distinguishes that curriculum from
college level curriculum and directly supports students in learning the knowledge and skills necessary to
succeed in college level curriculum.” Is this an attempt to change the California Master Plan? The
California Master Plan allows non-credit courses to be offered for their own value - not exclusively to
lead to success in college level work. This is a very serious problem if the goal of the ACCJC is to drive
out non-credit education that is based on the needs of the students who enroll.
“II.A.7. The institution schedules courses in a manner that allows students to complete certificate and
degree programs within a period of time consistent with established expectations in higher education.”
First, there is no “generally recognized” expectation of completion of programs in community colleges.
Given the up and down funding of community colleges, it is very difficult to schedule all of a college’s
classes in such a manner that all needs are met within some period of time. The other problem with this
Standard is that the period of time required is not spelled out but rather left without any direction to the
colleges as to what is actually being demanded.
“II.A.10 The institution awards course credit, degrees and certificates based on student attainment of
learning outcomes.” Again, SLOs are much too narrow to base the awarding of course credit and the rest
on. Learning outcomes, as defined in the procedures, are just not appropriate or up to the level of what a
student should achieve in a class.
Page 162
“Standard III. Resources. The institution effectively uses its human, physical, technology, and financial
resources to achieve its mission and to improve academic quality and institutional effectiveness.
Accredited colleges in multi-college systems may be organized so that responsibility for resources,
allocation of resources and planning rests with the district/system. In such cases, the district/system is
evaluated against the Standards and its performance is reflected in the accredited status of the
institution(s).” What is the measure of “effective use” of resources? The move to evaluating colleges
based on district action needs to be looked at carefully. This is important for districts. Does the policy
mean that a “deficit” at a college is not considered as a problem for the college so long as the district has a
respectable reserve - or that somehow the district loses accreditation if does not provide for colleges with
necessary resources? Is a fail by the district office a fail for all of the colleges - independent of the
academic quality of the programs?
“III.A.7. The institution maintains a sufficient number of qualified faculty, both full-time and part-time,
to assure the fulfillment of faculty responsibilities essential to the quality of educational programs and
services to achieve institutional mission and purposes.” What is a “sufficient number” of full-time
faculty? Will the ACCJC ever look at the college from the point of view that there are not enough fulltime faculty to provide for faculty chairs in each department or that there are not enough full-time faculty
to do the necessary work on curriculum? Or not enough full-time faculty to provide students with the
office hours they deserve?
“III.D.12. The institution plans for and allocates appropriate resources for the payment of liabilities and
future obligations, including Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB), compensated absences, and other
employee related obligations. The actuarial plan to determine Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB)
is current and prepared as required by appropriate accounting standards.” Will this mean that if the
district satisfies their legal reporting requirement, then they have satisfied the ACCJC standards? Or will
the ACCJC continue to attempt to force districts into putting funds aside to offset the accounting liability
(even when doing so is a waste of limited financial resources)? The liabilities are long range and change
dramatically over time. At what point should a college put money aside? In fact, some colleges have met
their obligations for over fifty years on a pay-as-you-go basis.
“III.D.13. On an annual basis, the institution assesses and allocates resources for the repayment of any
locally incurred debt instruments that can affect the financial condition of the institution.” “Can” is not
an appropriate measure. The measure needs to be much more compelling. The “allocates resources”
appears to mean that the district must put funds aside to address the actuarial liability? If so, that is
contrary to the California Community Colleges requirement.
“IV.C.2. The governing board acts as a collective entity. Once the board reaches a decision, all board
members act in support of the decision.” I have heard that this is a national requirement. If so, this must
be changed at the national level. If not true, ACCJC should remove this requirement as in contradicts the
basic rights of elected officials as demonstrated in governing boards, city councils, and the like all across
the country. As Kurt Vonnegut once wrote to a college president that was burning his books: “Have
somebody read the First Amendment to the United States Constitution out loud to you, you God damned
fool.”
“IV.C.13. The governing board delegates full responsibility and authority to the CEO to implement and
administer board policies without board interference and holds the CEO accountable for the operation
Page 163
of the district/system or college, respectively.” What constitutes “full responsibility and authority?” Does
it mean that the governing board is forbidden to step in and tell the CEO to follow the faculty or staff
collective bargaining agreement or do something else that the board sees is not being done correctly?
Boards should be concerned with this provision. It strictly limits their ability to govern.
“IV.D.1. In multi-college districts or systems, the district/system CEO provides primary leadership in
setting and communicating expectations of educational excellence and integrity throughout the
district/system and assures support for the effective operation of the colleges. Working with the colleges,
the district/system CEO establishes clearly defined roles, authority and responsibility between the
colleges and the district/system.” Shouldn’t this be a basic responsibility of the governing board?
“IV.D.3. The district/system has a policy for allocation and reallocation of resources that are adequate to
support the effective operations and sustainability of the colleges and district/system. The district/system
CEO ensures effective control of expenditures.” What if one of the colleges is not receiving adequate
funding? Does this mean that the college will be dinged because the district did not properly distribute
funding? How will this be decided? In addition, the distribution of funds should be a responsibility of the
governing board.
“IV.D.4. The CEO of the district or system delegates full responsibility and authority to the CEOs of the
colleges to implement and administer delegated district/system policies without interference and holds
College CEO's accountable for the operation of the colleges.” So now college presidents will not be
under the direction of the governing board or the district office? Is the governing board not supposed to be
watching what is happening on campus? Is a District Chancellor not allowed to tell a college president to
change what he or she has done? Are they not supposed to act when one of the college president’s is not
following board policy or violating collective bargaining agreements. This standard should cause
concern for governing boards.
The problem with all of the standards is that they are too vague. They are open to many
interpretations. Since the interpretations of the standards do not come until after the Commission approves
the standards, real input on the standards is difficult. Input from colleges and faculty and staff means little
if no input can be made with respect to how the standards will be interpreted - and they all need much
interpretation. Not only that, but the interpretations of the standards do not go through any public
process. As a result, the real meat of the issues is never open to full discussion. No wonder there is so
much discontent with the behavior of the ACCJC.
Sanctions on Colleges – A Picture of Inconsistent Conclusions
Compton College - DENIAL OF ACCREDITATION (2005)
After years of poor fiscal management at Compton College, the State Chancellor’s Office took control of
the Compton Community College and appointed a Special Trustee to oversee and veto any decisions of
the Compton elected Board of Trustees. The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges
Page 164
then voted on August 3, 2004 to suspend, for a period of one year, the authority of the Compton Board of
Trustees. The Board of Governors based their decision on their determination that “the Compton
Community College District is not in compliance with the principles of sound management as delineated
in the Board of Governors’ regulations” and “Compton has failed to maintain fiscal integrity and all
efforts short of intervention have been unsuccessful.”
The State Chancellor appointed the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) to
investigate Compton College’s fiscal status and make recommendations for change. Assembly Bill 1200
created FCMAT in 1991. The mission of FCMAT “is to help California's local educational agencies fulfill
their financial and management responsibilities by providing fiscal advice, management assistance,
training and other related school business services.” FCMAT also “provides management studies for
school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges that request them.”
Following the Board of Governors’ action to appoint a special trustee, the ACCJC decided to send a 3person Special Visiting Team to Compton on July 20 and 21, 2004 to investigate. Dr. Beno (then the
Executive Director) served as the chair, one CEO (Jan Kehoe, then President of Long Beach CC and
Vice-chair of the Commission) was appointed to address the management issue, and one Chief Business
Officer (CBO) was chosen to look at the financial side. It should be noted that Long Beach City College
is a neighboring district to Compton and would profit in increased enrollment if Compton College were to
be closed. The appointment of Kehoe raises issues of conflict of interest but that apparent conflict was
never addressed by the Commission. It was also unusual for the Commission to appoint such a small team
to review a college. The team appointed was clearly not a team of community college “peers”. I am not
aware of what role Beno and Kehoe played in the subsequent actions taken by the ACCJC as the votes
and discussion are done in private sessions.
FCMAT found that of the approximately 170 “Independent Contractors” in 2002-03, all of them were
“likely not qualified to be contractors.” Other improprieties were found including using a college “luxury
cruiser” for non-educational programs including trips to Las Vegas. In short, FCMAT found serious
financial irregularities. One instance of Board of Trustees malfeasance was found, and a board member
pled guilty to criminal charges as a result.
The Special Visiting Team “ confined its examination of the college to governance, institutional integrity,
finance, and human resources issues, although the specific problematic conditions of the college spilled
over to include instructional quality and integrity, technology, and financial aid/student records and
support services. Key among these issues was the fiscal viability of the college; what became evident to
that team was the severity of institutional dysfunctions across all areas of college operations.”
The Special Visiting Team in 2004 noted in their report that the Board of Trustees used institutional credit
cards for personal expenses, it required the College President to purchase five college automobiles for use
by the Board, and outlined other "misuses" of college funds. They felt that the College Business Officer
(CBO) appeared to be incompetent and was not able to make corrections recommended by the District's
external audits. They found that the President of Compton College had no control over the Deputy
Superintendent/Executive Vice President who acted as "the real president."
The Special Visiting Team that visited Compton College on July 20-21 2004 found that the college was
out of compliance in three main categories - “fiscal management and stability of the College, personnel
practices, and College governance.” The fiscal management and stability section dealt with the hiring of a
Page 165
new Business Officer, the implementation of a “strong administrative evaluation systems that will enable
the President to better hold administrative staff responsible for their job performance”, and that the
college should follow the recommendations contained in the FCMAT report, and implement “processes
that ensure fiscal stability and integrity.”
The personnel practices that “needed improvement” included
 reviewing job descriptions,
 making sure employees are qualified,
 establishment and implementation of a code of ethics,
 a proposed restructure of administration so positions would be based on institutional needs and
not the personal qualifications of incumbents, and
 that the college establish professional development programs.
The leadership and governance concerns involved review and revision of governance processes;
 stopping the Board of Trustees from working directly with staff, vendors, and consultants and
“delegate to the President the full responsibility for administration and implementation of policy”;
 implement training for members of the Board of Trustees using the American Association of
Community College Trustees, the ACCJC, and the Association of Governing Boards; “the
governing board, administrators, faculty, and staff demonstrate that they are working for the good
of the institution and its students”;
 “give the President the responsibilities for all operations of the college”; and
 generally assure a strengthened presidency.
The eventual report of the Special Visiting team relied heavily on the FCMAT audit for its findings and
their report became the basis for the Commission's judgment in January of 2005.
As is the custom of the ACCJC, the Special Visiting Team suggested sanction was never made public.
Compton College had no chance to know what was coming at the January meeting of the ACCJC.
On Jan. 1, 2005, Compton College was not and had not for several years been under ACCJC sanction of
any kind. Compton College had not had an ACCJC comprehensive review in 6 years. It was scheduled for
one in April of 2005. As a result of the state intervention, the Commission had notified Compton in the
early fall of 2004 that it would postpone the comprehensive review for one year to April 2006. This April
2006 review never occurred.
The Commission took action to place Compton College on SHOW CAUSE at its meeting of January 1214, 2005 and demanded a Progress Report by March 15, 2005 - effectively giving the college less than
two months to make any changes in their operations. The college compressed its schedule from 18 to 16
weeks to get students in and out faster, it reorganized its financial aid office, and was on its way to its
highest-ever rate of summer enrollment. The state-appointed interim college president, Jamillah Moore,
wrote that Compton College is "in substantial compliance."
Beno and Kehoe and a new CBO (Mike Brady from the Foothill-DeAnza Community College District)
served on the subsequent SHOW CAUSE Visiting Team. The April report of the Visiting Team simply
reviewed progress, or the lack of it, on the findings of its first report. As is its habit, each finding had a
parenthetical reference attached to the applicable standard or eligibility requirement. The presumption in
each case was that the finding showed a shortfall in compliance with that requirement/standard. The
Page 166
conclusion of the report read “the team found that while great progress has been made since the State
Chancellor’s Office assumed control of the College, there is much to be done to repair the damage of
years of poor administration and poor Board governance. Although the original reason for the
Commission’s concern was fiscal instability, there is evidence that the damage is pervasive in the student
services and instructional areas. The team does not want to diminish the efforts of members of the College
to correct the deficiencies, but to point out how much more will have to be accomplished before the
College fully meets the Eligibility Requirements and Standards of Accreditation.”
There was no indication in the visiting team report that the college accreditation would be lifted or that the
college would not have until 2006 to make the necessary adjustment to avoid termination of accreditation.
The visiting team recommended sanction has never been made public.
The Commission then terminated Compton College's accreditation at its June 8-10, 2005 meeting - ten
months before ACCJC’s own rescheduled review. I do not know what role either Beno or Kehoe played
in that decision as the votes and discussions are held in a secret meeting. In any case, in considering the
short timeline allowed for corrections, it was clearly the intent of the Commission to not give the college a
chance to improve but rather its goal all along was to remove accreditation.
Although accreditation was denied by the Committee on Accreditation for Junior and Community
Colleges in June of 2005, the actual withdrawal was held in abeyance pending appeal.
In a letter dated July 25, 2005 Chancellor Darroch F. Young, Chancellor of the Compton College
adjoining Los Angeles Community College District, wrote to Dr. Mark Drummond (California
Community Colleges Chancellor) and Dr. Barbara Beno regarding the accreditation of Compton
Community College. He wrote that “I also believe unequivocally that it is essential to maintain Compton
College and the Compton Community College District as an independent entity.” He noted that “Compton
College is the only community college in the City of Compton. In addition to serving the students from
Compton it serves students from the neighboring communities of Carson, Lynwood, Willowbrook and
South Los Angeles. Because of the important role the college plays in these communities, I hope you will
give Compton College enough time to correct the problems the Commission and the State
Chancellor’s Office have identified so that it can maintain its accreditation without disruption and
continue to educate students from the communities it serves.” He concluded noting “Compton
College’s long and distinguished history” and the “benefit in maintaining Compton College as an
independent, single-campus district.”
The intervention by the California Community College Board of Governors was intended to help
Compton to restore its fiscal integrity. By terminating accreditation, the Commission effectively killed the
patient. As we have seen in other actions by the Commission, the actual quality of the education
received by students was never addressed.
Compton College appealed the decision to the Commission in November, 2005. Compton College argued
that, though it did have a malfunctioning Board in violation of the accreditation standard, the state
intervention effectively provided an interim correction for the deficiency, by way of the state-appointed
Special Trustee who assumed the authority of the Board. The Commission replied that the Special Trustee
is not a board and the elected board is still not functioning. In short, the defining feature of the state
intervention became, not a remedy to preserve accreditation, but, in the Commission's view, a
grounds for terminating accreditation. In a letter from to Jamillah Moore, Interim SuperintendentPage 167
President of Compton College, dated November 18, 2005 the ACCJC explained that “The Commission
does not consider a State appointed trustee, acting under the "direction and supervision" of the
Chancellor as required in the Order, to be the substantive equivalent of an independent policymaking
body.” The existance of a Special Trustee and a non functioning elected board fails to satisfy the ACCJC
Eligibility Requirements for Accreditation which read, in part, “The institution has a functioning
governing board responsible for the quality, integrity, and financial stability of institution and for
ensuring that the institution's mission is being carried out. This board is ultimately responsible for
ensuring that the financial resources of the institution are used to provide a sound educational program “
and “the governing board is an independent policy-making body capable of reflecting constituent and
public interest in board activities and decisions”
The ACCJC took final action to terminate the accreditation of Compton Community College on August
22, 2006.
At the California Community Colleges September 11-12, 2006 meeting of the Board of Governors it was
approved for the facilities of Compton Community College to become an off-campus educational center
of the El Camino Community College District. It continues to exist as an educational center to this day.
In the 2002-03 Fiscal Year, the last academic year before intervention, the Funded Full-Time Equivalent
Students (FTES) stood at 6,150. In the first year of El Camino’s Compton Education Center (2006-07) the
funded FTES was 2,695. This represents a 56.2% decrease. From 2003-04 to 2005-06, Compton College
lost 24.4% of its Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES). During the same period of time the state total
FTES only decreased by 4.7%.
In the Fall Semester of 2006, Compton College had 112 full-time faculty. By 2010 the number had fallen
to 82.
College of the Sequoias – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2013)
At the January 10-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, the College of the Sequoias was placed on SHOW
CAUSE. The October 2012 Visiting Team had eleven members, only three of which were faculty
members. At the time of this action the College of Sequoias had full accreditation status and was under no
sanctions. Even though the college had no outstanding issues as a result of their 2006 accreditation, “The
Commission found that College of the Sequoias was in substantial non-compliance and that it failed to
meet a significant number of Eligiblity Requirements and Accreditation Standards, and failed to address
five recommendations, and resolve associated deficiencies, identified for the institution at the time of its
last comprehensive evaluation in 2006.”
The College was directed to complete a SHOW CAUSE Report by October 15, 2013 which will include a
Closure Report. Action by the ACCJC is scheduled for January 2014.
The complaints against the College of Sequoias from the Commission include
a. Not having fully defined and published student learning outcomes for all programs
b. The visiting teams inability to verify that faculty responsibilities include the required assessment of
learning
Page 168
c. Has not addressed the findings and recommendations in the 2006 comprehensiver evaluation (this
despite the fact that they had received a full accreditation between 2006 and 2013 and had no outstanding
issues prior to the 2013 sanction)
The recommendations from the Evaluation Team include the following:







The college should “integrate, strengthen, and formalize its planning processes, systematically
reviewing and revising them to ensure informed decisions for continuous improvement.”
“In order to be more effective, the team recommends that the college improve the campus climate
by encouraging all constituents to participate in an inclusive dialogue that embodies a culture of
respect, civility, and trust.”
“In order to fully comply with the standards, the team recommends the college increase the
research capacity of the institution in order to compile and provide data to guide institutional
planning and resource allocation, program review and assessment, and decision-making for
institutional effectiveness.”
“To meet the standard, the team recommends that the college advance its progress on student
learning outcomes by regularly assessing those outcomes and using the results to improve student
learning and strengthen institutional effectiveness.”
Improve counseling services for a variety of students
Improve hiring processes for all employees and “establish a clear connection between employee
evaluation and improvement.”
“the team recommends that the college develop and implement a systematic evaluation of its
decision-making and budget development processes and use the results of those evaluations as a
basis for improvement.”
In the Special Edition of the February 2001 ACCJC News it is pointed out that “In achieving and
maintaining its accreditation a higher education institution assures the public that the institution meets
standards of quality, that the education earned there is of value to the students who earn it, and that
employers, trade or professional-related agencies and other colleges and universities can accept a
student’s credentials as legitimate.”
With regard to quality of the educational program and its value to students and others at COS the visiting
team found that:
 “COS degree programs are congruent with its mission, are based on recognized patterns of study,
and are conducted at levels of quality and vigor appropriate to the degrees offered.
 “COS provides a comprehensive set of student services to all students including online students.
 “the instructional program addresses and meets the mission of the institution. It also verified that
the college identifies and meets the educational needs of it student through programs consisten
with their educational preparatiion and the demographics of the community.”
 “students completing vocational certificates and degrees demonstrate technical and professional
competencies that meet employment and other applicable state or national standards.”
 “The college provides quality support services to support student learning.”
 “The college creates an environment that encourages personal and civic responsibility, as well as
intellectual, aesthetic, and personal development for all of its students.”
 “College of the Sequoias has a qualified staff the is supportive of student learning.”
 “Despite the state budget reductions that have inpacted all California Community Colleges, it
Page 169
appears that COS is well run from a financial perspective and is fiscally sound.” It maintains
“reserves that exceed the prudent level of 5% of unrestricted expenditures.”
Once again the SHOW CAUSE sanction was imposed in contradiction to what the visiting team
recommended and based on issues that have to do with inputs such as processes and evaluations but
not on actual student learning or the quality of the programs. Nowhere in the report is their any claim
that the students attending the College of the Sequoias are not receiving an excellent education and the
credits they earn should not be accepted at other higher educational institutions. Quite the contrary as
noted above.
Diablo Valley College – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2009), REMOVE SHOW CAUSE AND
PLACED ON PROBATION (2010), REAFFIRMED ACCREDITATION (2011)
At the ACCJC meeting of January 7-9, 2009, Diablo Valley College was placed on Show Cause. The
Comission letter of February 3, 2009 required that “Diablo Valley College correct the deficiencies noted.
The college is required to complete a Show Cause Report by October 15, 2009. That report will be
followed by a visit of Commission representatives.”
“Diablo Valley College has been placed on Show Cause because four of the five deficiencies identified by
the 2002 comprehensive evaluation team (Recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 5) were not resolved by the
institution and have been again identified as deficiencies. Diablo Valley College must demonstrate that
it is in compliance with the Commission standards and Eligibility Requirements identified in this action
letter by October 15, 2009. The Commission will review this case at its January, 2010 meeting. Under
U.S. Department of Education regulations, institutions out of compliance with standards or on sanction
are expected to correct deficiencies within a maximum two-year period or the Commission must take
action to terminate accreditation.”
The ACCJC violated 34 CFR Section 602.15(a)(3) of the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition. In the
words of the letter to Beno dated August 13, 2013 from Kay Gilcher of the Accreditation Group:“It
requires that if an agency accredits institutions, as the ACCJC does, then it must have academic and
administrative personnel on its evaluation, policy, and decision-making bodies. The criterion expects a
good faith effort by the agency to have both academic and administrative personnel reasonably
represented.” The Visiting Teams in each visit had little or no faculty representation.
Note that there were “four or five deficiencies identified” in the 2002 evaluation team but obviously not
noted in the accreditation at that point. This approach was indicated as violation of federal rules in the
August 13, 2013 letter from Kay Gilcher on behalf of the Accreditation Group:
“Section 602.18(e) of the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition requires that the agency provide the
institution with a detailed written report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution's
compliance with the agency's standards. By using the term recommendation to mean both
noncompliance with standards and areas for improvement, the agency does not meet the regulatory
requirement to provide a detailed written report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution's
compliance with the agency's standards. This lack of clear identification impacts the agency's ability to
provide institutions with adequate due process.”
The letter went on to state: “In order to avoid possible termination of accreditation at the Commission's
Page 170
meeting on January 4-6, 2010, the Show Cause Report of October 15, 2009 must demonstrate the
institution's resolution of the recommendations and Eligibility Requirements as noted below:
Recommendation 1: The team recommends that the college clarify the decision making roles of
constituent groups in the establishment of the campus organizational structure and implement a
participatory process to advance the mission and goals of the institution.
Recommendation 2: The team recommends that the college must develop and implement college wide
planning that is tied to the Strategic Plan, mission, and resource allocation that:
 Integrates all aspects of planning, evaluation, and resource allocation;
 Is well defined, widely disseminated and discussed through reflective college wide dialogue; and
 Includes faculty, staff, students and administration from the Diablo Valley College's main campus
and its San Ramon Campus;
Recommendation 3: The team recommends that Diablo Valley College fully implement
Recommendation 1 in the 2002, Accreditation Evaluation Report which states: "Implementation of a
uniform process of program review which includes direct evidence of student learning and is used to
inform and influence planning and resource allocation and leads to improvements in programs and
services."
District Recommendation 8: In order to improve its resource allocation process, the district should
expedite development of a financial allocation model including the following
 The model as a whole;
 Funding for adjunct faculty in a way that will support the district and college intentions to
increase student enrollment;
 Technology funding.
Finally, the college is hereby notified that if its accreditation is continued after January 2010, the
Commission will set additional deadlines for the institution to fully resolve other recommendations
contained in the 2008 comprehensive evaluation team report; the college is advised to begin the work
necessary to address those recommendations.”
Note that the college was not expected to address all of the recommendations but only the ones mentioned
above. This is in sharp contrast with what happened at City College of San Francisco.
At the January 6-8, 2010 meeting of the ACCJC, Diablo Valley College was removed from Show
Cause and placed on Probation. The Commission required a follow-up report by October 15, 2010 – less
than one year away. The letter from the Commission to the College dated January 29, 2010 stated that
“The Commission notes that Diablo Valley College has completed significant amounts of good work to
address the deficiencies noted in the Commission's action letter of January 2009. The college is
encouraged to continue its work to fully address all deficiencies.” Notice the difference in tone
requiring immediate total improvement as compared to how City College of San Francisco have
been treated.
“The Follow-Up Report of October 15, 2010 should demonstrate the institution's resolution of the
recommendations below:
Recommendation 1: The team recommends that the college clarify the decision making roles of
constituent groups in the establishment of the campus organizational structure acid implement a
participatory process to advance the mission and goals of the institution.
Recommendation 2: The team recommends that the college must develop and implement college wide
Page 171
planning that is tied to the Strategic Plan, mission, and resource allocation that:
 Integrates all aspects of planning„ evaluation, resource allocation;
 Is well defined, widely disseminated and discussed through reflective college wide dialogue; and
 Includes faculty, staff, students and administration from the Diablo Valley College's main campus
and its San Ramon Campus
Recommendation 3: The team recommends that Diablo Valley College fully implement
Recommendation 1 in the 2002, Accreditation Evaluation Report which states; "Implementation of a
uniform process of program review which includes direct evidence of student learning and is used to
inform and influence planning and resource allocation and leads to improvements in programs and
services."
Recommendation 7: The team recommends that the college further improve communication to increase
collaboration across organizational structures by promoting transparent decision making, honest
dialogue and widespread dissemination of internal college documents.
District Recommendation 8: In order to improve its resource allocation process, the district
should expedite development of a financial allocation model including the following
 The model as a whole;
 Funding for adjunct faculty in a way that will support the district and college intentions to
increase student enrollment;
 Technology funding.”
The use of the requirement that the college implement “transparent decision making, honest dialogue
and widespread dissemination of internal college documents” can only be seen as ironic. If only the
ACCJC held itself to that same standard we might be in the mess that we are in.
Finally the letter states that “Diablo Valley College should submit a Focused Midterm Report by October
15, 2011. The Midterm Report describes resolution of any team recommendations made for improvement,
includes a sununary of progress on college-identified plans for improvement as expressed in the Self
Study Report, and forecasts where the college expects to be by the time of the next comprehensive
evaluation. The Focused Midtenn Report should demonstrate that the College has resolved the
recommendations noted below:
Recommendation 9: In order to meet the standard, the district should establish a written code of
professional ethics which includes managers.
Recommendation 10: In order to meet the standard, the district should integrate student learning
outcomes into the evaluation process for those who have a direct responsibility for student prowess
toward achieving student learning outcomes.
Recommendation 11: In order to meet standards, the district should develop a policy and implement
procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the district's administrative organization, the delineation of
responsibilities of the district and the colleges, and the governance and decision making structures. The
results should be widely communicated and used as a basis for improvement.”
In a letter dated January 31, 2011, it was stated that “The Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, at its meeting January 11-13, 2011,
reviewed the Follow-Up Report submitted by the College and the report of the evaluation team which
visited Thursday, November 18, 2010. The Commission acted to remove Probation and reaffirm
accreditation. The Commission is pleased to note that the College has resolved the College
Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 7, and that the College and the District have resolved District
Recommendation 8 (Recommendation 1 for the other two District Colleges), as identified in the
Page 172
Commission's action letter of February 3, 2009.”
The letter continued “Diablo Valley College is required to submit a Focused Midterm Report by October
15, 2011. The College should ensure that its report demonstrates the resolution of District
Recommendations 2, 3 and 4, as per the Commission's February 3, 2009 action letter.
District Recommendation 2: (Recommendation 9 in the DVC Team Report)
District Recommendation 3: (Recommendation 10 in the DVC Team Report)
In order to meet the standard, the district should integrate student learning outcomes into the evaluation
process for those who have a direct responsibility for student progress toward achieving student learning
outcomes.
District Recommendation 4: (Recommendation 11 in the DVC Team Report)
In order to meet standards, the district should develop a policy and implement procedures for evaluating
the effectiveness of the district's administrative organization, the delineation of responsibilities of the
district and the colleges, and the governance and decision making structures. The results should be
widely communicated and used as a basis for improvement.”
Again the difference in the above approach and the approach at other colleges is striking. In the case of
Diablo Valley College the approach is much more reasonable in terms of time allowed than that of
Compton or City College of San Francisco. This inconsistency is an example of the violation by the
Commission of 34 CFR 602.18 (Ensuring consistency in decision-making).
Cuesta College – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2012), PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
At its January 10-12, 2012 meeting the Commission issued a Show Cause sanction on Cuesta College.
Cuesta College had been on Probation since January of 2010. The College, in 2012, was order to prepare
a “Show Cause Report of October 15, 2012" that demonstrates college compliance with Standard 1B
(strategic planning, systematic evaluation process, assessment tools), Standard IIIC (regular and
systematic planning with regard to technology infrastructure), Standard IIID (long range financial and
capital planning strategies), and Eligibility Requirement 19 (Institutional Planning and Evaluation). In
short, Cuesta College is being threatened with closing down if they don’t spend more of their
resources on compliance with Commission imposed reporting and planning processes rather than
on offering more classes and services to students.
It seems clear that the Commission is either unaware or doesn’t take into account the extreme
underfunding of California’s community over the past several years. Given the lack of prior knowledge
that the colleges receive regarding current year or future funding, it would seem that spending extreme
amounts of time on planning rather than on how to get through the current year with any academic
program at all would be a misplacement of priorities. What the community colleges of California do
not need is a Commission demanding that they spend their limited funds on excessive planning and
report making.
At the January 9-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, Cuesta College was moved from SHOW CAUSE
status to Warning. The visiting team recommendations now include:


A recommendation that the college complete the strategic plan, institute an ongoing systematic
evaluation process
The institution should systematically evaluate and make public how well and in what ways it is
Page 173
accomplishing its purposes, including assessment of student learning outcomes.
Again, the recommendations of the ACCJC have little to do with the actual quality of teaching and
learning and the institution. Given that the ACCJC keeps preaching outcomes, ironically their actual
standards criteria only consider data on inputs.
College of the Redwoods - SHOW CAUSE (2012), REMOVE SHOW CAUSE IMPOSE
PROBATION
“The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, at its meeting January 10-12, 2012, reviewed the institutional Self Study Report and the report
of the evaluation team which visited College of the Redwoods Monday, October 17-Thursday, October 20,
2011. The Commission also heard testimony presented by President Utpal Goswami. The Commission
acted to place College of the Redwoods on Show Cause and to require that the College submit a Show
Cause Report by October 15, 2012. The report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.”
The October 2011Visiting Team was composed of thirteen members only four of whom were faculty
members. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.15(a)(3) as described in the August 13, 2013 letter from the
Accreditation Group in the Office of Postsecondary Education.
I have learned from various sources that the Visiting Team had not recommended Show Cause as the
sanction. As often happens, the ACCJC increased the sanction. Because of the secrecy of the
Commission, It is impossible for the public to know why they changed the recommendation of the
Visiting Team.
The letter from the Commission dated February 1, 2012 stated that “Show Cause was ordered for College
of the Redwoods for deficiencies associated with Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 from the 2011
external evaluation team as noted below, and Recommendation 1 from 2008. These 2011evaluation team
recommendations incorporate recommendations from past evaluation teams that the college has not
resolved, including recommendations made by the 2005 comprehensive evaluation team and one
recommendation on planning made by the 1999 comprehensive evaluation team. College of the
Redwoods has not demonstrated an ability to address evaluation team recommendations in a manner that
is timely, complete and sustained, and has not demonstrated consistent and reliable compliance with
Accreditation Standards.”
Just as in the case of City College of San Francisco, College of the Redwoods had not received sanctions
prior to the SHOW CAUSE decision of 2012. Thus just as in the case of CCSF, the ACCJC was in
violation of 34 CFR 602.18(e).
The letter went on to state that “The Show Cause Report of October 15, 2012 should demonstrate the
institution's compliance with all the requirements of Standard IB; Standards IIA, B and C; Standards III
A, B, C and D; and Standard IVB; and Eligibility Requirement 10. The Report should provide explanation
and evidence of how the institution meets the Standards noted above and what it has done to resolve the
recommendations noted below. The failure of the College to demonstrate in its report full compliance
with Commission Standards and Eligibility Requirements will require the Commission, at its January
2013 meeting, to take action to terminate accreditation.”
Page 174
“Recommendation #1 - Student Learning Outcomes
In order to meet the standards and improve institutional effectiveness, the team recommends that the
college: maintain an on-going, sustainable process of assessing student learning outcomes at the course,
program, certificate, and degree levels; promote widespread dialogue on the results of the assessments;
and use assessment results to improve programs and institutional processes including resource
allocations.”
“Recommendation #2 - Strategic Planning
In order to attain sustainable continuous quality improvement in institutional planning, the team
recommends that the college: integrate its component plans into a comprehensive strategic plan to
achieve broad educational purposes and improve institutional effectiveness; establish and assess
measurable, actionable goals to improve institutional effectiveness; include educational effectiveness as a
demonstrated priority in all planning structures and processes; and promote ongoing, robust and
pervasive dialogue about institutional effectiveness;.
Recommendation #3 - Course Syllabi and Catalog
In order to meet the Standards and Eligibility Requirements, the team recommends that the college
ensure that all students receive a course syllabus that specifies student learning outcomes and that
program outcomes are published in the college catalog and other relevant college documents.
Recommendation #4 - Student Records
In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the college complete the imaging of student
records and assure that these records are secure and protected. (Standard IIB.3.f)
Recommendation #5 - Employee Evaluation
In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the college consistently apply its policies on
employee performance evaluation, ensure that all employees are evaluated at intervals stated in the
policies, and include student learning outcomes as a component in evaluation of those working directly
with students.
Recommendation #6 - Strategic Hiring Plan
In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the college develop and implement a strategic
hiring plan which analyzes demographic data to address employee equity and diversity.
Recommendation #7 - Professional Development
In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the college develop a comprehensive
professional development program which is linked with the college mission and the strategic plan and
which encourages opportunities for leadership growth within the college. The program should be
regularly evaluated based on needs assessment data, outcomes, and relationship to mission.
Recommendation #8 - Board Actions and Communication; Holding President Accountable In order to
meet the standard, the team recommends that the governing board act in a manner consistent with its
policies and practices, regularly evaluate its policies and practices (emphasis added) revising them as
necessary, and demonstrate and widely communicate its actions as being within the policy framework
while seeking input on such practices. In addition, the governing board must hold the president
accountable for the successful operation of the college within the Board policy and procedure framework.
Recommendation 1 (2008)
The college should determine a template for student achievement data and related analyses that is to be
included in all program reviews and should use the institutional research staff and others knowledgeable
about data analyses to guide the faculty and ultimately the college in discussions of what these data show
about student success; these discussions should become part of the culture and practice of the
institution.”
Page 175
Once again we see the Commission’s attempt to impose a pencil pushers dream of how a college should
spend its time. Again no negative finding regarding the quality of education provided. And again we
see the improper imposition of the ACCJC in the area of collective bargaining.
According to a letter sent to College of the Redwoods on February 11, 2013; “The Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, at its
meeting January 9-11, 2013, reviewed the Show Cause Report submitted by College of the Redwoods, the
additional material and presentation by college representatives, and the report of the evaluation team
which visited November 5-6, 2012. The purpose of this review was to determine whether College of the
Redwoods meets Accreditation Standards at a level sufficient to remain accredited, and whether College
of the Redwoods has made changes and improvements required by the Commission action letter of
February 1, 2012, which placed the College on Show Cause.
The Commission found that College of the Redwoods has resolved many of the deficiencies that were
identified in the February 1, 2012 action letter, but has important areas of non-compliance not resolved
or fully demonstrated. The Commission acted to remove Show Cause and impose Probation and require
the College of the Redwoods to submit a Follow-Up Report by October 15, 2013. The report will be
followed by a visit of Commission representatives.”
The November 2012 Visiting Team had six members, none of which were faculty members. Once again
we see a violation of 34 CFR 602.18(e).
The letter to the college continued: “The College's deadline for resolving deficiencies and meeting all
Standards has been extended for good cause.”
It is not clear how the Commission decides “good cause” for one college but not another. This is a
violation of 34 CFR 602. The lines are not drawn to interpret when “good cause” exists and the
application has been inconsistent.
“The Follow-Up Report should demonstrate that the institution fully resolved the deficiencies associated
with Recommendations 6 and 7, meets the requirements of Eligibility Requirement 17 and Standards
III.D.1.b and III.D.2.c., has implemented and sustained its new program review, budgeting and planning
processes (Recommendations 1, 2, and 2008 Recommendation 1), and now meets all Accreditation
Standards.” Note the use of the phrase - “and now meets all.”
Among the items listed in the letter, the following are included:
“The institution's Show Cause Report documents the College's partial compliance with Standards
III.D.1.b and III.D.2.c., and notes that the institution is working to develop realistic plans to maintain
financial stability, to increase revenues and reduce expenditures.”
“The College has used the State Chancellor's Office "Sound Fiscal Management Self-Assessment
Checklist" to identify areas of financial management and stability that still need improvement. The
College should complete the work necessary to come into compliance with ER 17, and Standards III.D.1.b
and 2.c.”
“The Commission has determined that the College is now in compliance with Standards I.A, I.B, II.A,
II.B, II.C, III.B, and III.C, portions of III.D, Standards IV.A and IV.B, and Eligibility Requirement 10. The
task will be to sustain the new processes and practices, and demonstrate that the institution's complies
with all of the requirements of accreditation.”
Page 176
It is quite clear that a different (and perhaps better approach) was used in helping College of
Redwoods gain accreditation than the approach used to close down City College of San Francisco. In the
case of CCSF there was clearly a will on the part of ACCJC to see CCSF fail. Perhaps CCSF represented
the kind of community oriented pro-opportunity college that the ACCJC seems to believe is “no longer
realistic.”
Solano Community College – PLACED ON WARNING (2012), PLACED ON
PROBATION (2013)
At its meeting of January 10-12, 2012 the Commission issued a Warning to Solano College. The Visiting
Team had only three members – retired president, an information services specialist, and a director of
institutional research. Solano College had been placed on Probation in June of 2010 but all sanctions were
removed in January of 2011.
The Warning of January 2012 directed the college to
 "modify its mission statement",
 develop "an integrated planning process",
 "accelerate" the completion student leaning outcomes (SLOs)"
 make available the resources and support for institutional research
 "expand its data collection, analysis, and planning"
 assure that "students in distance education are achieving student learning outcomes"
 develop a clear, written code of ethics
The visiting team found that Solano College was "a college that has a dedicated cadre of faculty, staff
and students who believe strongly in their mission and in the value of student learning. Those beliefs
were evident to the team as they observed the daily operation of the College and listened to the comments
and discussions of employees and students."
The team commended "the faculty and staff for maintaining a caring and nurturing educational culture
focused on student learning and success even in the face of organizational turbulence and fiscal crisis."
"The President is to be commended for the vision and energy he has brought to Solano College and for
creating a sense of community on-campus and in the greater community."
The team found no fault with the college degrees, academic credits, or the breadth of general education. It
found that the faculty was properly qualified, that appropriate student services were offered, and sufficient
information and learning resources and services were available to students.
In short, quality education was being offered at Solano College. Nevertheless, the College was given a
WARNING.
Solano College was continued on Probation status at the January 2013 meeting of the Commission.
The reasons for continuing WATCH status included the following team recommendations (note the use of
the word “should” instead of “shall”):
Page 177




the College should “expand its data collection, analysis and planning related to meeting the needs
and fostering the success of an increasingly diverse student population. Student and staff equity
and diversity plans should be fully integrated with the College's planning processes and should
include strategies geared toward attracting a diverse pool of qualified applicants able to contribute
to the success of the College's student population.“
The College should “develop mechanisms and learning support systems to ensure that students
enrolled in distance education courses are achieving stated learning outcomes at a level
comparable with students enrolled in onsite programs and courses.”
the College should “develop and implement appropriate policies and procedures that incorporate
effectiveness in producing student learning outcomes into the evaluation process of faculty and
others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving student learning outcomes.”
the College should “develop a clear, written code of ethics for all its personnel.”
Even though “The Commission has determined that Solano Community College is near having fully
addressed the recommendations noted above, resolving the associated deficiencies, and meeting
Accreditation Standards” and that “The College is using its enhanced data collection on student
demographics to be more attentive to the needs of its diverse student population and improve employee
recruitment.” The ACCJC felt that “the College needs to assess the effectiveness of initiatives aimed at
enhancing the online experience for students. The College needs to continue to make explicit the
connection between the requirement that faculty develop and assess student learning outcomes and the
Standards' requirement that this be part of the evaluation process.” “Finally, the College has reported that
the code of ethics is expected to be approved by the Board of Trustees this spring.”
In conclusion “The Commission took note of the considerable work Solano Community College has
accomplished to address Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 since the comprehensive visit in fall 2011.
The College has completed the process of review and revision of the mission statement and revised its
planning process following assessment of its effectiveness. The College has accelerated its efforts in the
assessment of student learning outcomes at the course, program, and institutional levels and acquired key
personnel and enhanced data reporting tools to develop a culture of evidence-based decision-making.
Finally, the College has improved its library services, improved tutoring at the Vacaville and Vallejo
Centers, and enhanced services for online students.” But the ACCJC expect perfection and continued a
WATCH sanction. This seems inconsistent with what the federal guidelines consider a “holistic”
consideration when addressing accreditation.
Bakersfield College – REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2013)
At the January 9-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, Bakersfield College accreditation was reaffirmed. It
should be noted that the Chancellor of the Kern Community College District (which includes Bakersfield
College) is Sandra Serrano. Serrano was the Chairperson of the visiting team for San Francisco
Community College in the Spring of 2012. I have discovered that the recommendations for sanctions of
that team that visited CCSF were not followed, instead the ACCJC put CCSF on SHOW CAUSE. I am
not able to determine what Chancellor Serrano recommended as that has not been publically disclosed.
The College was ordered to complete a Follow-Up Report to be submitted by October 15, 2013. At that
time the College shall demonstrate that the college “has addressed the recommendations noted below,
Page 178
resolved the deficiencies, and now meets Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards.” It
appears that the ACCJC is using a different standard (and perhaps a better one) than the one they used in
Solano and many other community colleges in California. The College Recommendations included:
a. Develop and Implement Evaluation Processes to Assess Effectiveness of the Full Range of Planning
b. Establish Student Learning Outcomes for Instructional/Academic Programs
c. Include comments on how effectively adjunct faculty members produce student learning outcomes
d. Evaluate effectiveness of professional development programs
e. Human Resources should complete a program review
f. Develop a long-range capital projects planning process that supports and is aligned with institutional
improvement goals of the College
g. Develop an assessment methodology to evaluate how well technology resources support institutional
goals
h.The College President should establish effective communication with communities served by the
College.
The District Recommendations included:




Review and Update Board policies on a Periodic Basis
Board Member Development Program
Evaluate the Board of Trustees Self Evaluation Process
Evaluation of Role Delineation and Decision-Making Processes for Effectiveness
Note. As mentioned elsewhere in this paper, the ACCJC is again attempting to micro-manage at both
the college and district levels.
Merced College – REMOVE WARNING AND REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2013)
At its June 5-7, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC the Commission removed Merced College from Warning and
reaffirmed accreditation. The Commission noted in its July 3, 2013 letter to the college that “The human
resources unit at Merced College now has a director and staff that has enabled it to develop a diversity
plan and evaluate human resources' effectiveness at the College.” This is an example of how ACCJC
sanctions force colleges to increase the administration and staff in order to receive accreditation. The
increased administration and staff is not used to increase the number of classes offered but rather to
develop plans and evaluate effectiveness in the human resources area.
The changes at the college that were highlighted in the successful move from Warning to full
accreditation were “that Merced College has revised its program review and integrated it with the
planning process and has completed the Integrated Planning, Program Review, and Shared Governance
Handbook, which all departments are expected to follow. Data is now pervasive in the decision-making
process, and communication on campus has improved. The Board of Trustees receives training (especially
for new Board members) and appears to understand its role.” The governing board now “understand s
its role” based on the criteria of the Commission. No telling what the voters will do at the next election
cycle.
Page 179
West Hills College District - ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2011)
The two colleges in the West Hills College District had their accreditation reaffirmed in June 2011 with a
requirement for college Follow-Up Reports to be submitted my March 15, 2012. The letters to the West
Hills College Lemoore and West Hills College Coalinga both stated that “The Follow-Up Report should
demonstrate that the institution has addressed the recommendations noted below. These recommendations
have been worded by the Commission and replace the recommendations contained in the team
report.” The Chancellor of the West Hills College District is ACCJC Commissioner Frank Gornick.
Because of the secrecy of the Commission proceedings I have been unable to determine what role Dr.
Gornick might have played in replacing the Visiting Team recommendations with those written by the
Commission.
The Visiting Team for the Coalinga campus had five faculty members on it. The Visiting Team for
Lamoor had four faculty members on it. Perhaps that also influenced why the Commission did not use all
of the recommendations from the Visiting team.
I am not clear how the colleges of West Hills were able to get a full accreditation given the
recommendations of the Commission and the Visiting Teams.
West Hills College Lemoore - ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2011)
The West Hills College Lemoore had the following recommendations contained in the June 30, 2011
letter to the college:
“Commission District Recommendation 1: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission
recommends that the District work with the colleges to clearly delineate responsibility of each District
service with relationship to corresponding College services. The Commission further recommends that
each District service conduct a program review, which should include an outcomes-based assessment of
its services.
Commission District Recommendation 2: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends
that the District work with the colleges to develop evaluation procedures for online faculty and that
evaluation results be incorporated in personnel evaluations for the purpose of improving online learning.
Commission District Recommendation 3: To increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that
the District and the colleges respectively document their facilities planning processes that address
facilities' preventive maintenance and adequate maintenance staffing for all facilities, as well as an
equipment replacement plan that addresses the total cost of ownership for all equipment, including
technology equipment. [The Visiting Team Report stated this in terms of “To meet Standards.”]
Commission District Recommendation 4: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends
that the District review its communication protocols and practices to assure ongoing, transparent,
consistent, and timely communication among District participatory governance committees with
corresponding College participatory committees.
Commission District Recommendation 5: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends
that the District office ensure the District website contains all policies and update them as prescribed in its
own policies. This will keep the colleges better informed of the current District policies and facilitate the
implementation of the District policies at the colleges. [The Visiting Team Report stated this in terms of
"To meet Standards."]
Page 180
Commission District Recommendation 6: The Commission recommends that the District and the
colleges evaluate the district-wide distance education program to assure that the design, staffing,
and operation of the program meet all elements of Accreditation Standards.
This last recommendation was added by the Commission and was not contained in the Visiting Team
report.
The following Visiting Team recommendations were not included in the Commission recommendations:
“College Recommendations for Standard II
College Recommendation 1: Student Learning Outcomes
In order to meet the Standards and to ensure that the Student Learning Outcomes Implementation Plan
advances to the Proficiency stage by fall 2012, the team recommends that the college establish quality
assurance measures in its revision and assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) at the course and
program levels. The team further recommends that the College assess its SLO progress using the ACCJC
rubric and establish ongoing authentic assessment that expands campus dialogue about teaching methods
and tools that improve student learning.
College Recommendation 2: Curriculum Review
The team recommends that the college enforce its five-year course review policy for curriculum review
processes and cycles so that all curricula across the college are reviewed consistently and regularly.
College Recommendation 3: Program Elimination
The team recommends that the college establish clear written policies and procedures regarding program
elimination and significant changes to programs so that students can arrange to complete course
requirements in a timely manner with a minimum of disruption.
College Recommendation 4: Library and Learning Support Services
The team recommends that the college allocate sufficient funds for library materials, resources, and
services to support student learning. The college should ensure that the quantity, currency, depth, and
variety of materials, resources, and services support educational offerings, regardless of location or means
of delivery.
College Recommendation 5: Physical Resources Recommendations
The team recommends that the district and the college develop a Facilities Master Plan and staffing plan
which address facilities maintenance, equipment replacement, technology, and total cost of ownership and
ensure facilities and maintenance staffing is adequate to sustain existing and new facilities.”
The Visiting Team also found that “The college does not fully meet all subsections of Standard II.A” and
that the “college partially meets the requirements” of Standard II.B.
The Visiting Team found that “The decision-making process at the college is clear and transparent;
however, the process and criteria used by the district to make policy decisions that directly impact the
instructional programs and services at the college are not clearly defined or communicated. There is
also the perception by college faculty that the decision making structure is a top down directive by
the district and that decisions, policy and practices are not clearly delineated or communicated.”
Again, I am not sure how a college that has not met all of the standards as described above received
a full accreditation. Could it have to do with the fact that a Commissioner is the Chancellor of the
district?
West Hills College Coalinga - REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2011)
Page 181
In addition to reaffirming accreditation, the Commission also found that “the Commission has determined
that the recommendations made by the 2005 comprehensive evaluation team have been addressed and
the deficiencies resolved by the College.” This pronouncement did not reflect the view of the Visiting
Team.
The Commission made the following college recommendations in its June 30, 2011 letter to the college:
“1: To improve institutional effectiveness, the Commission recommends the College documents its
existing system of integrated planning that clarifies the relationships between the results of program
review, student learning outcomes evaluation, resource allocation, and the achievement of College goals
and priorities. The Commission further recommends that the integrated planning also include systematic
reviews of effectiveness to assure institutional improvement. In addition, the Commission recommends
that the College specifically clarify roles, responsibilities, and priorities of College and District functions
in the integration of planning. [instead of the word “documents” the Visiting Team used the phrase
:”create an integrated planning system that formally articulates and documents the relationships”]
2: The Commission finds that the College made great strides in improving its governance process by
revamping a former process based on constituents' feedback and initiating new councils to provide greater
participation in the governance process to faculty, staff, and students. In order to increase effectiveness,
the Commission recommends that the new process be evaluated and that attendance be more transparent
by recording attendees and absentees to ensure full participation of faculty, staff, and students as
appropriate.”
The Visiting Team had two college recommendations that were not included in the Commission
recommendations. They were:
“2: In order to increase effectiveness, the team recommends that the college - as opposed to the District take full responsibility for administering its instructional online program, including faculty hiring and
evaluation.
3: In order to meet Standards, the team recommends that the college develop a Facilities Master Plan. In
order to promote sustainability of its physical resources, the team further recommends that the college
clearly identify the total cost of ownership.”
The Commission included the following District Recommendation
“1: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District work with the
colleges to clearly delineate responsibility of each District service with relationship to corresponding
College services. The Commission further recommends that each District service conduct a program
review, which should include an outcomes-based assessment of its services.
2: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District work with the colleges
to develop evaluation procedures for online faculty and that evaluation results be incorporated in
personnel evaluations for the purpose of improving online learning.
3: To increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District and the colleges respectively
document their facilities planning processes that address facilities' preventive maintenance and adequate
maintenance staffing for all facilities, as well as an equipment replacement plan that addresses the total
cost of ownership for all equipment, including technology equipment. [The Visiting Team said it was “to
meet the Standards”]
4: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District review its
communication protocols and practices to assure ongoing, transparent, consistent, and timely
Page 182
communication among District participatory governance committees with corresponding College
participatory committees.
5: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District office ensure the
District website contains all policies and update them as prescribed in its own policies. This will keep the
colleges better informed of the current District policies and facilitate the implementation of the District
policies at the colleges.” [The Visiting Team said it was "to meet the Standards"]
The Commission added their own recommendation that:
“6: The Commission recommends that the District and the colleges evaluate the district-wide distance
education program to assure that the design, staffing, and operation of the program meet all elements of
Accreditation Standards.”
The Visiting Team had a number of other recommendations not included by the Commission. They
included:
“6 : In order to fully meet Recommendation 5.1 from 2005, the team recommends that the District clarify
and delineate, in both policy and practice, the roles and responsibilities of the chancellor and the college
president in decision-making which directly affects college operations. The team further recommends the
District fully explains the relationship between the District and the college as it relates to authority to
operate.
7 : To meet Recommendation 5.3 from 2005, the team recommends the District develop and implement a
clearly communicated process for regularly reviewing the appropriateness of the assignment of various
functions and staff to the district office or to the college campuses.
8 : To meet Recommendation 5.5 from 2005 and be fully in compliance with this Standard, the team
recommends that the district regularly evaluate the district strategic planning process.
9 : To be in full compliance with the standards, the team recommends that a more elaborate answer with
evidence be provided; that acknowledges the efforts the district staff and the college are making to keep
everyone informed on many issues. The team further recommends that the District clearly stipulate how
the Board of Trustees adheres to the conflict of interest policy.
Again, it is not clear how the college escaped receiving a sanction, especially in terms of the two-year rule
and the failure to meet recommendations from 2005 brought up by the Visiting Team.
The Commission considered the Follow-Up Report at its June 6-8, 2012 meeting of the Commission. The
Commission stated that the college must demonstrate that the recommendation below has been fully
implemented by the time of the Mid-Term Report due by March 15, 2014.
“In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District work with the colleges
to clearly delineate responsibility of each District service with relationship to corresponding College
services. The Commission further recommends that each District service conduct a program review,
which should include an outcomes-based assessment of its services.”
Oddly enough, given that the Commission wrote the recommendations and not the Visiting Team, the
March 15, 2004 Midterm Report stated that the college should “provide evidence of resolution or
implementation for each recommendation made be the last comprehensive evaluation team.”
Page 183
Los Angeles Mission College – WARNING (2013)
At the June 5-7, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, Los Angeles Pierce College was put on WARNING. The
Visiting Team that visited Los Angeles Mission College had ten members. Only three were faculty
members. The Commission letter of July 3, 2013 stated that “The Commission acted to issue Warning
and require Los Angeles Mission College to correct the deficiencies noted. The College is required to
complete a Follow-Up Report' by March 15, 2014, demonstrating resolution of the deficiencies in
meeting Accreditation Standards noted in College Recommendations 1-14 and Eligibility Requirements
10, 14 and 20. The Report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.” In a similar letter
to Los Angeles Valley College, the college was “asked” to resolve deficiencies. Is being “asked” and
being “required” to make adjustments denote a difference in approach?
The letter went on to state that “The Follow-Up Report of March 2014 should demonstrate that the
institution has fully addressed the recommendations noted below, completely resolved the noted
deficiencies, and now meets all Eligibility Requirements (ERs), Accreditation Standards and
recommendations identified in the External Evaluation Team Report.”
The recommendations that followed illustrate the extent of busy work required by the ACCJC in order
for a college to be fully accredited. It also illustrates why additional research people must be hired by a
college that is under financed by the state and can ill afford to hire such employees while insufficient class
offerings are available. Los Angeles Mission College is a relatively small community college. Where it
will find the personnel to do all of the reporting and changes requested is any one’s guess.
“Recommendation #1
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college develop and institute a formal process utilizing
its established governance and decision making processes for reviewing its mission on a regular basis and
making revisions as necessary.
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college assess the achievement and learning outcomes
for each of the past five years by programs and the college, set standards for student success including
student achievement and student learning, accelerate its efforts to assess outcomes in all courses,
programs, degrees and certificates and assess how findings have led to improved student learning and the
achievement of the college mission, and widely distribute the results so they may be used as the basis for
all constituent groups to engage in self-reflective dialog about the continuous improvement of student
learning and institutional processes. “
“Recommendation #3
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college develop and implement a comprehensive
program of research and evaluation to support the assessment of student, program and institutional
learning outcomes, and program review; support ongoing engagement in a collegial, self-reflective
dialogue about the continuous improvement of student learning and institutional processes; and support
collection and analyses of data related to the needs and goals of its diverse student populations. “
“Recommendation #4
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college develop and implement a plan for Distance
Education that includes an evaluation of Distance Education for alignment with the needs of the college's
intended student population, an assessment of the quality of instruction and compliance with US
Department of Education regulations, infrastructure to support online teaching and learning, and a
systematic assessment of student learning and achievement outcomes in order to ascertain how well
students are learning in distance education courses. Such a plan should be integrated with other college
planning efforts and linked to the resource allocation process. “
Page 184
“Recommendation #5
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college adopt mechanisms for assessing: student
learning styles and needs, the alignment of instructional delivery and pedagogical approaches with student
learning styles and needs, and how instructional delivery and pedagogical approaches are related to
achievement of student learning outcomes.”
Recommendation #6
“To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college develop a set of metrics and performance
standards to better monitor the effectiveness of its planning and resource allocation decisions in achieving
improvements in student learning”
“Recommendation #7
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college undertake an overall assessment of its student
support service offerings to determine the full scope of services it needs to offer to meet the diverse needs
of its students as well as all federal and state requirements. The assessment should also determine the
level of staffing needed to deliver an acceptable level of services based on its budgeted student
enrollment, and develop the resources needed to employ the staff required to deliver the planned services.
“
“ the College has left positions unfilled and allowed serious gaps in student services in the wake of
budget reductions. Student Support Services staffing has not been sufficient to provide services to
students for lengthy periods. Further, the team found a lack of action steps for how to offer services at an
acceptable level as required by the Standards.”
“Recommendation #8
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college develop and make available to visiting teams a
report of student complaints/grievances that details the date of the complaint/ grievance, the name of the
individual filing the complaint/grievance, the nature of the complaint/grievance, the disposition of the
complaint/grievance, and the date of the disposition. The report should cover a five year period and be
updated annually. “
“Recommendation #9
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college ensure that all student support programs,
including counseling for distance education students, are actively engaged in the program review and
outcomes assessment process to determine how they contribute to the institutional student learning
outcomes. All of the student services programs and services should complete a full cycle of review and
assessment which includes gathering of data, analysis of data, implementation of program changes for
improvement and the re-evaluation of implemented improvements.”
“Recommendation #10
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college assess how effective the collegiality efforts have
been in promoting a productive collegial workplace, how it subscribes to, advocates, and demonstrates
integrity in the treatment of all employees, and then implement improvements based on the outcomes of
the assessments. It also should complete the code of conduct approval process, and demonstrate that the
college is upholding its code of conduct. “
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college integrate human resources planning into its
institutional planning in order to maintain a sufficient number of qualified faculty, staff, and
administrators to support the college's mission, purposes and programs.”
“Recommendation #12
Page 185
To improve its established budget development practices, the team recommends the college determine
the cost of maintaining and periodically replacing the technology acquired through grant funding and
factor those costs into their planning and budgeting process. “
“Recommendation #13
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college provide appropriate training to staff on the
proper documentation procedures identified in the audit for: "To Be Arranged" (TBA) courses, eligibility
verification for college categorical programs, and verification of census reporting documents. The college
also must establish internal controls to ensure that audit findings are resolved prior to the subsequent
audit. “
“Recommendation#14
To meet the Standards, the team recommends the college undertake an evaluation of its collegial
governance and decision-making processes, as well as the overall effectiveness of the current
administrative structure, and that it widely communicate the results of these evaluations and uses them as
the basis for improvement. “
As often appears in such letters the letter continues with “I wish to inform you that under U.S.
Department of Education regulations, institutions out of compliance with Standards or on sanction are
expected to correct deficiencies within a two-year period or the Commission must take action to
terminate accreditation. Los Angeles Mission College must correct the deficiencies in meeting
Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards noted in recommendations above no later than
March 15, 2015, or the Commission will be required to take adverse action.”
“The External Evaluation Report provides details of the team's findings with regard to each Eligibility
Requirement and Accreditation Standard and should be read carefully and used to understand the team's
findings. The recommendations contained in the External Evaluation Team Report represent the best
advice of the peer evaluation team at the time of the visit, but may not describe all that is necessary to
come into compliance.” In short, the college is responsible for making changes not noted by either
the ACCJC or the particular Visiting Team.
Los Angeles Pierce College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)
At the June 5-7, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, the accreditation of Los Angeles Pierce College was
reaffirmed. Despite being reaffirmed the ACCJC letter dated July 3, 2013 stated that “The Commission
took action to reaffirm accreditation, with a requirement that the College complete a Follow-Up
Report' by March 15, 2014. Reaffirmation is granted when an institution is found to substantially meet
or exceed the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies, but
recommendations on a number of issues should be addressed. The Report should demonstrate that the
institution has addressed the recommendations noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now meets
Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards.” Given that the ACCJC has said that college must
satisfy all requirements in order to be accredited, how is it that colleges do not meet this standard but
remain fully accredited? I guess some colleges need not be fully in compliance and others must be.
The Recommendations cited in the letter from the ACCJC include:
“Recommendation 1
In order to fully comply with the Standards, the College needs to review, update, and further integrate its
various institutional plans, and formalize the integration among these plans as they contribute and align to
an overarching institutional plan. (I.B.3)
Page 186
Recommendation 2
In order to meet the Standard on student learning outcomes, the team recommends that the College
thoroughly assess its student learning outcomes processes and make necessary modification to ensure
authentic assessments, to demonstrate student achievement, and to provide for widespread institutional
dialogue. (II.A.1.c; II.A.2.i)
Recommendation 3
In order to fully comply with the Standard, the College should fully develop, implement, and assess
internal control mechanisms for the expenditures of grants and specified funds including the Associated
Student Organization trust accounts and the Foundation to ensure these activities align with the mission
and goals of the college. (III.D.2.d; III.D.2.e).”
The letter follows with the statement that “Los Angeles Pierce College must correct the deficiencies noted
in recommendations above no later than March 15, 2015, or the Commission will be required to take
adverse action.”
As in other letters, there is the disclaimer that “The recommendations contained in the External
Evaluation Team Report represent the best advice of the peer evaluation team at the time of the visit, but
may not describe all that is necessary to come into compliance.” And yet the two-year clock is running
on the “best advice” as well as any unknown at this time compliance issues? This is just rediculous.
San Diego Mesa College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2011)
San Diego Mesa College is an example of a college that had its accreditation reaffirmed but still was
required to resolve a list of “deficiencies.” It is also an example of a college that received full
accreditation despite the conclusion of the Commission that it had not satisfied all of the policies of
the Commission. The visiting team was led by now Community College Chancellor Brice Harris. The
letter to the college was sent on January 31, 2011 and yet the Commission required that the college submit
a Follow-up Report by March 15, 2011 that “must demonstrate and provide evidence that the institution
has resolved the recommendations as noted below. The Commission stresses that the report should
provide adequate evidence that the College has resolved the deficiencies noted in the recommendations. ”
The recommendations included:
“Recommendation 1: In order to achieve a sustainable program review, planning and student learning
outcomes process, the college should develop and implement an integrated process that links all
components within program review and ensures that an integrated planning process directs resource
allocation.
The team further recommends that the college:
 develop measurable goals and objectives in order to integrate data on student achievement into the
planning and resource allocation process;
 develop an ongoing and systematic cycle that links program review, planning, resource allocation
and re-evaluation based upon the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data;
 demonstrate that the allocation of resources considers the needs and priorities of the college based
upon its mission and goals;
 demonstrate that resource allocation leads to the improvement of institutional effectiveness, and
Page 187

communicate the results to appropriate constituencies once those results have been measured and
analyzed”
“Recommendation 3: The team recommends that the college improve communication concerning the
process used for technology planning to all campus stakeholders, develop a method to engage non-users
in technology and also secure stable funding sources for technology resources “
“Recommendation 4: The team recommends that the college develop an adequate system for program
review of Administrative Services which integrates planning and resource allocations and assures the
linkage between program review and resource allocation.”
Fullerton College – REMOVE WARNING AND MOVE TO ACCREDITATION (2012)
The ACCJC meeting on June 6-8, 2012 removed Fullerton College’s Warning and reaffirmed accredition.
Even as the ACCJC approved accreditation it still found that “The Commission requires that a Follow-Up
Report be submitted by March 15, 2013. The Follow-Up Report should demonstrate that the institution
has addressed the recommendations noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now meets Accreditation
Standards.” I am not sure how the ACCJC decides to grant either accreditation or a sanction when the
college still has recommendation and “deficiencies” to meet. Their action appears to violate 34 CFR
602.18.
The recommendations made in order to meet the standard or reach Proficiency level are:
 Related to student learning outcomes and timeline. They are directed to “fully address
Recommendation 5 of the previous visiting Team report, the Team recommends that the
institution accelerate the identification and assessment of course and program-level student
learning outcomes, and use the results to make improvements in courses and programs.”
 that “the College fully implement and strengthen its institutional planning process to include: 1)
reporting systematically on an agreed upon set of College wide critical indicators and measures
that clearly assess the progress of College wide goals; 2) closing the planning loop by evaluating
actions taken and then documenting future actions based on the evaluation results; 3) expanding
efforts to engage all relevant constituents in a collaborative inquiry process that is facilitated by a
broad range of College members; 4) building in mechanisms for regularly evaluating the
effectiveness of planning processes; and 5) providing transparency in the institutional planning
process by communicating clearly, broadly, and systematically, and by providing, structured, welldefined, opportunities for broad employee participation.”
Again one wonders how the above recommendations differ from other college’s recommendations which
received less than full accreditation.
College of Marin – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)
The Commission took action to remove Warning and reaffirm the accreditation of College of Marin at
their Junuary 9-11, 2013 meeting. They also told the college that they would need to file a Midterm
Report by October 15, 2013. In the letter the Commission stated that “Midterm Reports indicate
resolution of any team recommendations made for improvement, include a summary of progress on
Page 188
College-identified plans for improvement as expressed in the Institutional Self Evaluation Report, and
demonstrate that the changes and improvements made by the institution have been sustained.”
“In particular, the Midterm Report should demonstrate the college's sustained level of effort and progress
in program review, planning, and resource allocation (note Recommendation 1, and Standards 1.B; I.B.6;
I.B.7; III.D.I.a; III.D.3) and in student learning outcomes assessment and use of the results in program
planning and resource allocation for improvement (note Recommendation 2, and Standards lI.A.I.a;
II.A.l.c; II.A.2.f; II.A.3.a,b; II.B.4; II.C.2) The Report should also forecast where the College expects
to be by the time of the next comprehensive evaluation.”
I don’t understand why a forecast is necessary when the college has already reached satisfaction of ALL
requirements. College of Marin must have reached satisfication of all policies in order to escape any
sanction – at least that is what the Commission has said in numerous statements.
Shasta College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012)
At the January 10-11, 2012 of the ACCJC, the Commission put Shasta College on Probation. The
November 2012 Visiting Team had had no faculty members. Prior to that action, Shasta was under no
sanctions. They had been on Watch status in January of 2009. They were taken off of Watch status in
June of 2009.
In order to receive accreditation the college was told:
 it “must establish an integrated, comprehensive and linked planning process that ensures an
ongoing, systematic, and cyclical process to include evaluation, planning, resource allocation,
implementation, re-evaluation, and one that ties fiscal planning to the college's Strategic Plan and
Educational Master Plan. Critical to this planning process is expediting completion of the
Educational Master Plan.”
 to “identify student learning outcomes for all courses, programs, certificates, and degrees, assess
student attainment of the intended outcomes, use assessment results to plan and implement
course/program/service improvements, and assess student attainment of intended outcomes to
evaluate the effectiveness of those improvements.”
 to “complete the development of its new Program Review process and implement a cycle of
review for all areas of the college in order to adequately assess and improve learning and
achievement, and institutional effectiveness.”
 it “should undertake a review of its governance committee structure and functions and
communicate to all college constituents the results of this review.”
 integrate financial planning with the “other planning activities of the College”
 it should fully integrate institutional planning and assessment so that it is “fully integrated,
comprehensive, or linked.”
 To complete “an Educational Master Plan.”
In short, Shasta College was put on probation for not doing enough planning, review, integration of
planning, and implementing student learning outcomes. The sanction had nothing to do with the actual
education received by students attending the college. This approach to accreditation is being
repeated over and over by the ACCJC.
Page 189
It should be noted that the use of “student learning outcomes” in the manner proposed above requires a
great deal of time and effort and is not well accepted by many, if not most, of the faculty in the California
Community Colleges and is viewed as an unproven method of developing quality instruction. It is
rather seen as unproductive “busy work” being forced down their throats by an outside non-public
Commission.
Although the Commission requirements, for the most part, paralleled those of the visiting team’s
recommendation, it is unclear as to whether the actual level of sanction was recommended by the
visiting team. The process from the filing of the visiting team report and the final ACCJC decision is
shrouded in secrecy. There is no public record of votes taken, the process used to determine the final
decision, or who actually did the work. Reports have been circulating for years of team members who
were shocked at the severity of the sanctions imposed by the ACCJC. The teams will often highly praise
the college in its report for its work with students and the community but this never seems to be
considered in the ACCJC judgments.
In the case of Shasta College, the October 2011 visiting team commended the college for:





“achieving its mission to serve its geographically diverse and expansive district through online
and ITV instruction at the Intermountain, Trinity, and Tehama extended education centers.”
“meeting the growing demands for healthcare workers in the state of California by promoting
increased enrollment, access, and retention through its state-of-the-art Health Sciences
Center.”
“serving its community by targeting regional economic improvement through its Economic &
Workforce Development Division and by providing local access to university-level instruction
through its University Program.”
“positive and collaborative relationship with the campus community and for their innovative
activities that promote student engagement and success.”
providing “faculty with innovative teaching tools for increasing student engagement and
retention.”
Los Angeles Southwest College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012), REMOVED FROM
PROBATION AND PLACED ON WATCH (2013)
Los Angeles Southwest College was placed on Probation by the ACCJC at its June 6-8, 2012 meeting.
LA Southwest College had been on Probation in January of 2009 but all sanctions were removed in June
of 2009.
In the June 2012 action, a follow-up reported was ordered to be delivered by March 15, 2012. The
Commission cited problems associated with the Los Angeles Community College District as well as the
college itself. Actions against districts has been illustrated by recent actions related to the Ventura
County Community College District, the Peralta Community College District, the San JoseEvergreen Community College District, and the State Center Community College District. It is not
clear from the mandate of the ACCJC that its role includes the evaluation of districts. Its role has
traditionally been limited to the accreditation of colleges.
Page 190
In September of 2012 the ACCJC informed Los Angeles Valley College that they had been placed in a
“special category” that would require a “more comprehensive analysis” of the college’s financial
condition. Four reasons were provided to justify this review.
1.
Negative ending balances
2.
Reserve levels of less than 5%
3.
Audit concerns
4.
Concerns in the bond audit conducted by the State Controller
It is not clear how the ACCJC can act without holding a meeting but in any case, a college can not have a
negative ending balance or reserves –these are district issues. The Los Angeles Community College
has a substantial reserve and no negative balance. Concerns about audits are also district issues. This
is just another example of how the ACCJC is attempting base a college accreditation on the district
it is part of. The ACCJC does not accredit districts.
The March 12-15, 2012 visiting team found, for Los Angeles Southwest College that:
“The college leadership and community are commended for their resilience and commitment to student
learning in the face of myriad challenges. The college community's passion to maximize the human
capacity in the lives of its students and its dedication to the college mission is evident and
exemplary.”
The team found Los Angeles Southwest College in compliance with all of the “Eligibility Requirements
established by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges with the exception of
numbers 17 (Financial Resources) and 18 (Financial Accountability).”
It found that:
 LASC “is operational with students actively pursuing degree and certificate programs.”
 “LASC’s offerings are programs that lead to degrees, and a significant portion of its students are
enrolled in them. In fall 2011, over 85% of the courses were degree-applicable and over 80% of
LASC students were enrolled in these degree-applicable courses.”
 “Degree programs are based on recognized fields of study in higher education, are of sufficient
content and length, and are conducted at appropriate levels of rigor.“
 “LASC has a substantial core of qualified faculty with full-time responsibility to the
institution.” This finding seems to contradict the finding that the College “employs 75 full-time
contract faculties and over 200 part-time adjunct faculty.”
 “The size and scope of LASC student services are consistent with the needs of the student
body, the college mission, and support student learning.”
 “LASC provides, through the campus library and learning centers, as well as specific contractual
agreements, long-term access to sufficient information and learning resources and services to
supports its mission and instructional programs. The team finds that information and learning
resources are available in all modes of delivery.”
Three teams for three of the LACCD commended the district for:
 “revising district service outcomes, district wide committee descriptions, and the district wide
functional map to create a user-friendly and clear delineation of College and district functions. The
process of survey, dialog, and district-wide review demonstrates a commitment to providing an
informed understanding of the district's role in governance and service.”
Page 191

“its commitment to planning driven by data and service to the colleges.”
Despite these findings, the ACCJC placed the college on Probation.
The LACCD “deficiencies” cited related to the following non-academic areas:
 construction bond oversight

prevent future audit exceptions

the adoption and implementation of an “allocation model for its constituent colleges that addresses
the size, economies of scale, and the stated mission of the individual colleges.”It should be noted
that the March 12-15, 2012 visiting team found that “the district has conducted a review of its
allocation model and crafted a recommendation for a revision to address the concerns of the
constituent college. This recommendation has been met.”
The Southwest college “deficiencies” cited by the ACCJC included:
 a need to formally assess “the effectiveness” of the planning model with “qualitative and
quantitative data.”
 a need to maintain a functioning website




a need to “review the parity of services provided to students in distance education”
the need for the library to “regularly update its print and online collections”
the need to “review all aspects of professional development”
the need to fully utilize the established consultative committee structure by documenting actions
and recommendations in agendas, minutes ..” and communicate the dialogues and decisions
“widely and clearly across the campus constituencies.”
Again, no questions were raised relative to the outstanding educational experience of the students
attending the college.
At the June 5-7, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, LA Southwest College was removed from PROBATION
and placed on WATCH.
Los Angeles Valley College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
At its June 5-7, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, LA Valley College was placed on WARNING.
The ACCJC Visiting Team included two faculty members out of the ten members of the team. One
faculty member had previously been a college president and the other is from Early Childhood Education.
I have heard from faculty members at LA Valley College that, on the whole, the Visiting Team was not
well prepared nor were they well trained for the visit. Because of the secrecy involved in the process, I am
not aware of what recommendation on the level of sanction was forwarded to the Commission.
The Commission letter to the college dated July 3, 2013 stated that the “Commission acted to issue
WARNING and ask that Los Angeles Valley College correct the deficiencies noted. The College is
Page 192
required to complete a Follow-Up Reports by March 15, 2014, demonstrating resolution of the
deficiencies in meeting Accreditation Standards noted in College Recommendations 1-8 and District
Recommendation 1. The Report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.”
The Commission letter claimed that “Warning is issued when the Commission finds that an institution has
pursued a course deviating from the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards or Commission
policies to an extent that gives concern to the Commission. The Commission may require an institution
to correct its deficiencies, refrain from certain activities, or initiate certain activities. The Commission will
specify the time within which the institution must resolve deficiencies, and may require additional reports
and evaluation visits.”
How is the policy to give a WARNING SANCTION when a deficiency rises to “an extent that gives
concern to the Commission” consistently applied across colleges. This standard for decision making is
clearly vague and thus violates federal requirements.
“The Follow-Up Report of March 2014 should demonstrate that the institution has fully addressed the
recommendations noted below, completely resolved the noted deficiencies, and now meets all
Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and recommendations identified in the External
Evaluation Team Report.” This means that the entire External Evaluation Team Report is now
incorporated into the demands of the ACCJC. This seems to contradict the statement by the ACCJC
regarding my complaint that “Evaluation teams complete a confidential recommendation regarding
institutions prior to the completion of their on-site visit. It is made clear to evaluation teams that this is a
recommendation only, from team to Commission; it does not carry any decisional weight. The decision
on the accredited status of a college is made by the Commission.”
The recommendations contained in the letter include:
“College Recommendation 1:
In order to achieve sustainable continuous quality improvement, the team recommends that the college
use ongoing and systematic evaluation and planning to refine its key processes and improve student
learning. The team recommends that the processes:
Provide learning and achievement data on students enrolled in all delivery formats.
Fully evaluate indicators of effectiveness and make improvement based on fmdings.
Assure systematic analysis of data to inform decisions.”
“College Recommendation 2:
The team recommends that the college evaluate its institutional planning process, including hiring
decisions, and ensure planning practices are integrated and aligned with resources “
“College Recommendation 3:
In order to fully meet the Standards, the college must assess and align SLOs at the course, program,
and institutional levels and use the results to improve student learning and institutional effectiveness “
“College Recommendation 4:
The team recommends that the college develop a formal definition of correspondence education that
aligns with the U.S. Department of Education regulations and Commission policy and a process for
determining the differences in practice between correspondence education and distance education “
“College Recommendation 5:
To fully meet the Standards, the college should ensure that records of complaints are routinely
maintained as required by the Policy on Student and Public Complaints Against Institutions “
Page 193
“College Recommendation 6:
To fully meet the Standards, the college should ensure that all employee performance evaluations are
conducted in a timely basis in accordance with the employee contracts “
College Recommendation 7:
The team recommends that the college, in collaboration with the district, put measures in place to ensure
the effective control and implementation of the bond program and that decisions related to facilities are
aligned with institutional).”
“College Recommendation 8:
To fully meet the Standards, the college should establish appropriate management and control
mechanisms needed for sound fmancial decision-making. The institution should ensure that it has
sufficient cash flow and reserves to maintain stability with realistic plans to meet fmancial emergencies
and unforeseen occurrences and to ensure long-term financial stability. The team recommends that the
President effectively control budget and expenditures “
“With regard to College Recommendation 8, the Follow-up Report should also address the concerns of
the Financial Reviewers regarding efforts the College is taking to reduce deficit spending and improve
internal fmancial controls.”
“District Recommendation 1:
In order to meet the Standards, the team recommends that the Chancellor and Board put accountability
measures into place to ensure the long-term fiscal stability and fmancial integrity of the college”
It is not clear to me what the distinction between “should”, “recommends” and “to fully meet the
Standards” is. Are “shoulds” and recommendations required to be addressed in order to receive
accreditation?
Copper Mountain College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)
“The Commission took action to reaffirm accreditation, with a requirement that the College complete a
Follow-Up Report by March 15, 2014. Reaffirmation is granted when an institution is found to
substantially meet or exceed the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission
policies, but recommendations on a number of issues should be addressed. The Report should
demonstrate that the institution has addressed the recommendation noted below, resolved the
deficiencies, and now meets Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards.” This statement
seems to be at odds with the often repeated statement that colleges are required to meet all Eligibility
Requirements and Accreditation Standards.
Again a disclaimer was included in the letter to the college which stated that “The recommendations
contained in the Evaluation Report represent the best advice of the peer evaluation team at the time of the
visit, but may not describe all that is necessary to come into compliance. Institutions are expected to
take all action necessary to comply with Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and
Commission policies.” This lack of specificity is a violation of both federal and Commission standards
and policy.
Woodland Community College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
Page 194
At its January 9-11 meeting, the ACCJC placed Woodland Community College on WARNING. The letter
to the college stated: “The College is required to complete a Follow-Up Report' by October 15, 2013,
demonstrating resolution of the deficiencies noted in the 2012 External Evaluation Report. The report will
be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.”
“Warning is issued when the Commission finds that an institution has pursued a course deviating from the
Commission's Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, or Commission policies to an extent that
gives concern to the Commission.” What consistent measure does the Commission use to determine
whether the deviations are considered to have “given concern” to the Commission? This speaks to the
issue of consistent application of standards.
The Commission letter also noted that “The Commission notes that the College has not yet progressed to
the Proficiency level on the Commission's Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness Part III:
Student Learning Outcomes, and the College timeline has set two years before the College will be fully
compliant. This exceeds the Commission's expectation of Proficiency by Fall 2012.” At least in this
letter they noted which proficiency levels they were speaking to rather than anything mentioned as
a recommendation by a visiting team.
By October 2014 the college is expected to “demonstrate that the institution has fully addressed the
recommendations noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now meets all Eligibility Requirements and
Accreditation Standards identified in the External Evaluation Team Reportand the recommendations.” I
am not sure if the College understands that the Follow-Up Report that is due by October 15, 2013 with
resolution of all deficiencies and the October 2014 date at which the college “must correct the
deficiencies” are different timelines at what is required on each timeline. The Commission letter is
certainly unclear on this point. This is clearly a violation of 34 CFR 602.18.
“District Recommendation 1:
To meet the Standards, the teams recommend that the chancellor develop and implement short term and
long term data driven strategic plans. These should be developed in an inclusive manner, be transparent,
clearly communicated and inclusive of the planning at the colleges. Particular focus should be in the
development, implementation, assessment, and evaluation of the following:
A strategic plan guiding the District in integrating its planning processes that result in
the district meeting its goals set forth and in line with their vision and mission;
A planning structure driving allocation of district resources for the District, the
colleges, and the off-campus centers; and
A planning calendar including timelines that are delineated with parties/positions responsible.”
“District Recommendation 2:
To meet the Standards, the teams recommend that the District, in conjunction with the colleges,develop
and implement a resource allocation model that is driven by planning and student success. The model
should be developed in an inclusive manner, be transparent and clearly communicated and evaluated
periodically for effectiveness in supporting the district's and colleges' missions. “
“District Recommendation 3:
To meet the Standards, the teams recommend that the District provide the following:
Delineation of its functional responsibilities;
Determination of whether current functions provided by the District office should be
Page 195
centralized or decentralized to better serve the needs of the students; and
Clarification of the district level process for decision-making and the role of the
district in college planning and decision-making.
The District should clearly identify district committees, perform a regular review of their work,conduct
review of the overall effectiveness of district services to the colleges, and widely disseminate the results
of those reviews. “
“District Recommendation 4:
To meet the Standard, the teams recommend human resources planning be integrated with institutional
planning and the District and colleges should systematically assess the effective use of human resources
and use the results of the evaluation as a basis for improvement and identify needed staff in faculty,
classified, and management positions. Further, the teams recommend the systematic evaluation of all
personnel at stated intervals with appropriate documentation. For all employee groups, the District should
also follow clearly defined appropriate written evaluative processes that are in written terms. “
“District Recommendation 5:
In order to fully meet the Standard, the teams recommend the District develop policies and procedures
that clearly define and follow the process for hiring and evaluating the college presidents.”
“College Recommendation 1 (Integrated planning):
In order to fully meet the Standards, the College needs to complete a full cycle of planning, assess the
effectiveness of the planning processes, and modify the process, timing, and committee structures as
needed. The planning process at the College and the District should integrate technology planning and
assessment as well as human resource planning and grant planning. These processes and information
about how the college mission is central to all decision-making should be communicated broadly to all
college constituencies. The College should identify and broadly communicate measurable college wide
goals and use data to analyzeprogress towards achievement of these goals. “
“College Recommendation 2 (Student Learning Outcomes):
In order to fully meet the Standards, the College should identify Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) in all
courses, programs (including all service and administrative areas), and progress through an entire cycle of
assessment. The College should reflect on results to focus on improving student learning. This must
become an integral and iterative part of continuous improvement plans. Additionally, the College and
District must work together to include effectiveness in producing learning outcomes in the evaluations of
faculty and others directly responsible for student progress towards achieving student learning outcomes.
“
“College Recommendation 3 (Distance Education):
In order to fully meet the Standards, the College should develop mechanisms that ensure participation in
ongoing dialog about the continuous improvement of student learning for distance education (DE)
students. All DE courses and programs, ongoing learning support, and services required by DE students,
appropriate staffing levels, and oversight through the college, resource allocation, and technology training
should be regularly and systematically assessed andthat information should be used for continuous quality
improvement. “
“College Recommendation 4 (Professional development and training):
Page 196
In order to fully meet the Standards, the College must develop and implement comprehensive technology
training for faculty, staff and students in order to increase effectiveness, as well as student learning and
success. Additionally, the effectiveness of current professional development offerings for faculty, staff,
and administrators on campus should be assessed to support continuous improvement. “
Yuba College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
At its meeting of January 9-11, 2013 the Commission place Yuba College on PROBATION. Yuba
College and Woodland Community College are in the same district. The recommendation for district
action is the same for both colleges. The college recommendations are different due to the newness of the
Woodland Community College as a college.
The letter of February 11, 2013 called on the college “to complete a Follow-Up Reports by October 15,
2013 demonstrating resolution of the deficiencies noted in the 2012 External Evaluation Report. The
report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.” The letter went on to site the vague
finding that the “institution deviates significantly from the Commission's Eligibility Requirements,
Accreditation Standards, or policies or fails to respond to conditions imposed upon it by the Commission.
“ They did not include the phrase “in the Commission’s opinion.”
The letter went on the state that “The College's deadline for resolving deficiencies and meeting all
Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards is October 15, 2014.” Again we see the
confusion between the 2013 and 2014 dates. Another violation of 34 CFR 602.18.
“The Follow-Up Report should demonstrate that the institution fully addressed the recommendations
noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now meets all Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation
Standards identified in the External Evaluation Team Report and recommendations.”
The list of recommendations is long. The recommendations are centered in the areas of integrated
planning, developing procedures and policies, review of mission, use of data, and student learning
outcomes (SLOs). There is also the demand that slo results be part of a faculty member’s evaluation. As I
have noted before, this demand is contrary to California Collective Bargaining law.
Again there is no indication in the report that the teaching is anything but acceptable or that the education
that a student receives is not acceptable.
The District Recommendations are the same as those for Woodland Community College.
College Recommendation 1:
To meet the Standard, the team recommends that the college develop and follow a process and schedule
for reviewing/revising, applying and evaluating its mission statement.
College Recommendation 2:
To meet the Standard, the team recommends that the college regularly set college wide goals, identify
measurable objectives, and evaluate progress in achieving those goals.
College Recommendation 3:
As recommended in 2005, to meet the Standard, the team recommends, again, that the college strengthen
program review to include a comprehensive and meaningful analysis of data with emphasis on
Page 197
disaggregated enrollment, program completion, success trends and instructional delivery mode. Analysis
should integrate the achievement of student learning outcomes.
College Recommendation 4:
As cited in the 2005 evaluation report and to meet the Standard, the team recommends that the college
develop and fully implement a systematic evaluation cycle for its institutional effectiveness, decisionmaking, and governance processes in order to assess their efficacy, including:
Planning
Program review
Student learning outcomes
Committees (practice, procedures and decision-making)
Results of these analyses and findings should be broadly communicated across the college and
used as a basis for improvement.
College Recommendation 5:
To meet the Standard, the team recommends that the college implement, evaluate and broadly
communicate an integrated planning model that strengthens the linkages among the program review,
planning and resource allocation processes, and clearly delineates between college and district
responsibilities, with institutional stakeholders made more aware of the criteria for prioritization and the
procedures employed.
College Recommendation 6:
To meet the Standard, the team recommends that the college fully develop Student Learning Outcomes in
courses, programs, support services, certificates and degrees; assess the results, evaluate the processes on
a cyclical basis; and incorporate results in to planning, resource allocation and decision making.
College Recommendation 7:
In order to improve, the team recommends the college identify the learning support and
counseling/advising needs of its student population and provide appropriate services to address these
needs to support student development and success.
College Recommendation 8:
As recommended in 2005, to meet the Standard, the team again recommends, "the College should ensure
that faculty and others directly responsible for progress toward achieving Student Learning Outcomes
have, as a component in their evaluations, effectiveness in producing those learning outcomes." Further,
the team recommends the college ensure that faculty and others directly responsible for progress toward
achieving Student Learning Outcomes have, as a stated component in their evaluations, effectiveness in
assessing those learning outcomes for continuous quality improvement.
College Recommendation 9:
To meet the Standard, the team recommends the college develop and implement a comprehensive and
coordinated professional development plan for all employees and systematically evaluate professional
development activities.
College Recommendation 10:
As recommended in the 1999 and 2005 evaluation reports and to meet the Standard, the team
recommends that the college ensure that custodial, maintenance and grounds staff are adequate to support
the existing facilities including the new facilities at Sutter County and Clear Lake Centers and develop a
plan to address ongoing staffing needs.
College Recommendation 11:
As recommended in the 2005 evaluation report and to meet the Standard, the team recommends the
college ensure that local processes for evaluation, dialogue, and planning of technology needs be
designed, developed and implemented to interact with integrated planning at both the college and district
level for resource allocation and professional development. “
Page 198
And now comes the hammer!! “I wish to inform you that under U.S. Department of Education
regulations, institutions out of compliance with Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards are
expected to correct deficiencies within a two-year period or the Commission must take action to terminate
accreditation. Yuba College has exceeded the deadline for resolution of deficiencies noted in
Recommendations 3, 4, 8, 10, and 11 above and must correct the deficiencies noted in the
recommendations above no later than October 15, 2013, or the Commission will be compelled to
act. In its Follow-Up Report, Yuba College must demonstrate that the institution has fully addressed the
recommendations noted above, resolved each of the related deficiencies, and now meets all Eligibility
Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and recommendations identified in the External Evaluation Team
Report.”
October 15, 2013 seems to be the day of reckoning for a number of California’s community colleges
unless the assault by the ACCJC on the colleges is curtailed.
Barstow Community College – CONTINUED ON WARNING (2013)
At its June 5-7 meeting of the ACCJC Barstow Community College was continued on WARNING. In
addition the Commission took action to “require the College to submit a Follow-Up Report by March
15, 2014.” The follow-Up Report included the usual ACCJC list of demanded documentation
reports, changes in processes, evaluation of processes, and performance of student learning
outcome procedures.
The letter to the college dated July 3, 2013 stated that “The Follow-Up Report should demonstrate that
the institution has fully addressed all of the recommendations noted below, fully resolved the deficiencies,
and meets Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies.” I guess this
means whether or not mentioned, such demonstration requirement must be met by March 15, 2014.
“Recommendation 2: In order to fully meet the Standards and address the previous recommendation, and
to meet U.S.D.E. regulatory requirements for distance education, the team recommends that the College
move towards a fully interactive distance education platform that includes regular and effective instructor
contact, and documentation of that contact. “
“Recommendation 3: In order to meet the Standards...the team recommends the College must act
immediately to:
Complete and document all student learning outcomes (SLOs) for all courses and programs
Distribute the student learning outcomes (SLOs) to students
Distribute the student learning outcomes (SLOs) to adjunct faculty
Document assessment at all levels of outcomes, including course, program, core competencies
Document improvement in student learning
Link evidence of student learning outcome (SLO) assessment to planning and resource
allocation.”
“Recommendation 4: In order to meet the Standards, the team recommends that the institution develop
appropriate planning documents to integrate institutional planning efforts:
a) Strategic Plan;
b) Human Resources Staffing Plan;
c) Facilities Master Plan; Professional Development Plan. “
Page 199
“Recommendation 13: In order to fully meet the Standards, the team recommends that the College
strengthen its ability to implement, document, and evaluate its plans to support ongoing and systematic
dialogue about institutional effectiveness. “
“In addition, by the time of its Midterm Report due in March 2015, the institution is required to fully
address Recommendations 6 and 9 which call for an update of Board policies and administrative
procedures and the review of all College contracts for alignment with the College mission.”
These set of demands of Barstow Community College is a good illustration of the kind of hoops that
a college must jump through in order to achieve a full accreditation. Notice that little of the above
relates to an the quality of the education that the students are actually receiving.
Victor Valley College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012)
“The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, at its meeting June 6-8, 2012, considered the Follow-Up Report submitted by the Victor Valley
College, the report of the evaluation team which visited the College on Thursday, April 19, 2012, and
President O'Hearn's testimony provided at the Commission meeting. The Commission took action to
continue Probation and require the College to complete a Follow-Up Report by October 15, 2012. That
report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.”
In June of 2011 Victor Valley College was placed on Probation by the ACCJC. Prior to that they had no
sanctions imposed on them since a Watch in June of 2008.
In the June 2012 report, the Commission recognizes that many of the recommendations deal with
“processes of assessment and program review, planning, budgeting, funding and implementing
improvements.” The visiting team did recognize that “the College has spent a good deal of energy
designing and refining its program review process. But despite the inordinate amount of time and
resources needed to complete the process of program review and that the college has planned to complete
the process in six year cycles, it goes on to advise that “if this is the case, it will be unable to
demonstrate compliance within the required timelines for correction of institutional deficiencies.”
In order to meet the Standards, the College has been directed to:
 revise its planning documents to reflect the current mission
 “establish and maintain an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the continuous
improvement of student learning and institutional processes.”
 “complete the development of student learning outcomes for all programs and ensure that
student learning outcomes found on course syllabi are the same as the student learning outcomes
found on the approved course outlines of record.”
 “cultivate a campus environment of empowerment, innovation, and institutional excellence by
creating a culture of respect, civility, dialogue and trust.”
 “examine and provide evidence that appropriate leadership ensures the accessibility, quality and
eligibility of online and hybrid courses and programs, and that such programs demonstrate that all
services, regardless of location or means of delivery, support student learning and enhance
achievement of the mission of the institution.”
Page 200




“develop long-term fiscal plans that support student learning programs and services that will not
rely on using unrestricted reserves to cover deficits.”
“build and maintain a system for effective, stable and sustainable”
“members of the Board of Trustees must limit their role in governing the College to those
responsibilities established in Board Policy, including delegating power and authority to the
Superintendent/President to lead the district and to make administrative decisions regarding the
effective implementation of Board Policies without Board interference.”
“Trustees must avoid micromanaging institutional operations including their participation in
campus committees and governance groups.”
Again the Commission forgets that the Board of Trustees is the elected body and the district and
campus bodies are under their direction, not the other way around as Barbara Beno seems to believe and
attempt to enforce. The Commission again places time and financial consuming responsibilities that
the college can ill afford in these tough financial times.
Gavilan College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)
At the Commission’s July 3, 2013 meeting, the Commission voted to give full accreditation status to
Gavilan College. Gavilan College’s Superintendent/President is an ACCJC Commissioner. Since the
meetings of the ACCJC are held in secret, I have no knowledge of what role Superintendent/President
Steven Kinsella played in the decision. Without public knowledge of his role there is at least a perception
of a conflict of interest in this case. This is contrary to ACCJC rules on conflict of interest.
The decision on Gavilan College is an example of the lack of clarity of Commission requirement when a
college is not in compliance with all of the policies of the ACCJC. In the words of the letter to Kinsella
from Barbara Beno:
“The Commission took action to reaffirm accreditation, with a requirement that the College complete a
Follow-Up Report by March 15, 2014. The Report will be followed by a visit of Commission
representatives. Reaffirmation is granted when an institution is found to substantially meet or exceed the
Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies, but recommendations
on a number of issues should be addressed. The Report should demonstrate that the institution has
addressed the recommendations noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now meets Eligibility
Requirements and Accreditation Standards.”
“Recommendation 1 In order to meet Standards, the team recommends that the College develop and
substantially implement an effective, systematic, and comprehensive institutional strategy closely
integrating student learning outcomes with all planning and decision-making efforts and resource
allocations. That strategy should include:

A more effective approach to assessing student learning outcomes at the course, program, and
institutional levels on a regular, continuous, and sustainable basis. This process must include
outcome statements that clearly define learning expectations for students, define effective criteria
for evaluating performance levels of students, utilize an effective means of documenting results,
and the documentation of a robust dialogue that informs improvement of practices to promote and
enhance student learning.
Page 201


An approach that recognizes the central role of its faculty for establishing quality and improving
instructional courses and programs.
Reliance on faculty expertise to identify competency levels and measurable student learning
outcomes for courses, certificates, and programs, including general and vocational education, and
degrees.
I guess some colleges, such as those with an ACCJC Commissioner as Superintendent/President are held
to a different standard than colleges that have not yet drunk the Commission kool-aid.
Ventura County Community Colleges PLACED ON PROBATION (2012),
ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)
Ventura, Moorpark, and Oxnard Colleges were placed on Probation by the ACCJC at its meeting of
January 10-12, 2012. The Commission was primarily upset with 12 year veteran Board of Trustee
member Arturo Hernandez who the Commission described as “disruptive” and displayed
“inappropriate behavior.” According to Trustee Hernandez, he was “never interviewed by the
Accreditation Team regarding the comments and perceptions that were presented to them in April 2012,
and therefore, I had no opportunity to correct the accusations presented.”
James Mezenek resigned as Chancellor of the Ventura Community College District in the Spring of 2012.
Mezenek had served on a number of ACCJC visiting teams in the past. His resignation was described in
the press as having come from disagreements with Board Vice Chair Hernandez. This slant to the
resignation was leaked by Chancellor Mezenek to the press. This came after a number of stormy meetings
of the Board of Trustees at which many students and community members spoke against proposed
program cuts. Vice Chair Hernandez was commended by many of the community and student speakers
for his speaking up on behalf of the interests of the community served by the colleges.
The ACCJC directed the Ventura District together with its three colleges to “develop clearly defined
organizational maps that delineate the primary and secondary responsibilities of each, the college-tocollege responsibilities, and that also incorporate the integrity of activities related to such areas as budget,
research, planning, and curriculum.” It should be noted that ACCJC President Barbara Beno had
problems with her local district when she served as President of Vista College. She appears to continue to
carry a grudge against local Boards of Trustees and district management whom she routinely accuses of
“micro-managing” the colleges. Ironically, the ACCJC under Beno’s leadership has now taken on the role
of micro-managing the various colleges (and their districts) in the areas of shared governance, fiscal
planning, and Board of Trustees roles and responsibilities.
Other directions to the District and colleges included document the review of District Policies and
Procedures, conduct periodic outcome assessment and analysis of its strategic planning, ensure open and
timely communications, formally adopt expected outcomes and measures of continuous quality
improvement, equitable decision-making across the three colleges, and professional development of
Trustees. If they don’t satisfy all of the above within two years, the three colleges may lose their
accreditation and then the community will lose access to community college education for reasons
other than the quality of the educational offerings.
At the January 9-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC all three of the Ventura District Colleges received
Page 202
reaffirmed accreditation. The Commission found that the recommendations of the previous visiting
team had been addressed, that the associated deficiences had been resolved, and that the Eligibility,
Accreditation Standards and Commission Policies met. A Midterm Report is now required to be filed by
October 15, 2013. The clowns have left the arena but the circus must continue.
Peralta Community College District Colleges – PLACED ON WARNING (2012),
WARNING REMOVED AND REAFFIRMED ACCREDITION (2013)
The ACCJC has been including judgments on Districts when imposing sanctions on colleges. This
appears to be a new approach. One such instance is the June 6-8, 2012 sanctions on the colleges of
Peralta. It must be noted that Barbara Beno was once the College President of what was then Vista
College. She had many problems working with the district administration and governing board and
eventually was forced to leave the district after she was unable to have Vista become its own independent
college. Her husband continues to work at one of the district colleges and was on the visiting team
for the City College of San Francisco evaluation that eventually led to a SHOW CAUSE sanction by
the ACCJC which is led by his wife. It appears that she raised no conflict of interest concern related to
her relationship with the Peralta district or to her husband being on the visiting team.
The Peralta colleges were placed on Warning in part based on district “deficiencies.” These “deficiencies”
included the need to resolve remaining audit findings, resolution of long term financial stability,
completion of evaluation of Board of Trustees policies with regard to governance (micro managing the
college presidents), and quality of programs after program reductions. These must be cleared up by
March of 2013. One wonders if the Commission was aware of the tax increase proposed for the
November 2012 election and the financial uncertainty that all of the California community colleges
continue to feel. Even with the passage of the CFT/Governor compromise initiative (Proposition 30)
to increase revenue to the state, community colleges will continue to wait until the final budget is
passed to know how much state money will be flowing to provide district funding in any given fiscal
year.
At its June 2013 meeting the ACCJC removed the Warning sanctions on Berkeley City College, College
of Alameda, Laney College, and Merritt College.
Coast Community College District – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
Following the trend represented by the Ventura Community College District, all of the colleges in the
Coast Community College District were placed on WARNING by the ACCJC at its June 2013 meeting.
The two faculty members on the Orange Coast College 2013 Accreditation Visiting Team were both
Coordinators - one of Planning and Program Review and the other Institutional Research. The Visiting
Team for Golden West College three faculty members out of the ten person team.
The Visiting Team for Coastline College included only one current faculty member - an Instructional
Technology Librarian. The team also included Dr. Andrew LaManque, the current president of the
Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group) and Ian Walton, a retired
Page 203
faculty member now serving as a Commissioner of ACCJC beginning in July 2013. The rest of the team
members were administrators.
The letter from Barbara Beno to the President of Golden West College dated July 2013 stated that "The
Commission acted to issue Warning and require Golden West College correct the deficiencies noted. The
College is required to complete a Follow-Up Report by March 15, 2014. The College must demonstrate
resolution of the deficiencies noted in the 2013 Evaluation Report: District Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and
4, the Commission Recommendation 1, and College Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The Report will
be followed by a visit of Commission representatives. " The other two colleges in the district received a
similar letter.
The emphasis at all three colleges was on the following three District Recommendations:
"District Recommendation 1: To meet the Standard, and as recommended by the 2007 Orange Coast
team, the team recommends that faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward
achieving stated student learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in
producing those learning outcomes."
The recommendation to include student learning outcomes as a component of evaluation is a violation of
California law since evaluation is a collective bargaining issue.
"District Recommendation 2: To meet the Standards, and as recommended by the 2007 team, the team
recommends that the Board and district follow their policies regarding the delegation of authority to the
Chancellor for effective operation of the district and to the college presidents for the effective operation of
the colleges. Further, the team recommends that the district develop administrative procedures that
effectively carry out delegation of authority to the Chancellor and the college presidents."
We see once again from the Commission the reflection of a complaint that Beno had against the Board of
Trustees when she was a president in the Peralta district. Once again we see the ACCJC attempting to
dictate how the publically elected Board of Trustees is supposed to act.
"District Recommendation 3: To meet the Standard, the team recommends that the Board of Trustees
follow its established process for self-evaluation of Board performance as published in its board policy.
Once again the Commission is attempting to dictate to the elected Board of Trustees
"District Recommendation 4: To meet the Standards, and as recommended by the 2007 team, the team
recommends that the Board implement a process for the evaluation of its policies and procedures
according to an identified timeline and revise the policies as necessary."
Nothing recommended on content, only process.
"Commission Recommendation 1: To meet the Standards, the District needs to examine the role of the
four board employees who report directly to the Board of Trustees to ensure there is no conflict with the
delegation of authority of the Chancellor and the college presidents."
Page 204
This is a recommendation from the Commission not reflected in the Visiting Team report. It is an attempt
to reverse the Coast Board of Trustees desire to get information independent of that which is fed to it by
the Chancellor and college presidents – something that the top-down ideology of Beno and her
commissioners can not abide.
Imperial Valley College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
At its meeting of June 5-7, 2013, the ACCJC placed Imperial Valley College on WATCH. The letter to
the Superintendent/President of the college stated that “The College is required to complete a Follow-Up
Report by March 15, 2014. The College must demonstrate resolution of the deficiencies noted in the
2013 Evaluation Report Recommendations 1, 7, and 8. The Report will be followed by a visit of
Commission representatives.” The Visiting Team had ten members of which only one was a faculty
member.
The letter went on to state that “The Follow-Up Report of March 2014 should demonstrate that the
institution has fully addressed the recommendations noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now
meets all Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and recommendations identified in the
External Evaluation Team Report.”
“Recommendation 1: In order to fully meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College
consistently link the institutional goals and objectives detailed in the Educational Master Plan with
operational plan goals and resource allocations, including technology resources, in order to assess
progress toward meeting institutional goals. In addition, the College should establish a planning calendar
that identifies all planning activities, committees, and the roles of various College plans, and includes
institutional effectiveness assessment and improvement cycles. “
“Recommendation 7: In order to meet the Standard the team recommends that faculty and others directly
responsible for student progress toward achieving student learning outcomes, have as a component of
their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those outcomes.”
“Recommendation 8: In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends the College develop a
financial strategy that will result in balanced budgets that have ongoing revenues to meet or exceed its
ongoing expenditures without the use of reserves; maintain the minimum prudent reserve level; and
address funding for its long term financial commitments and its retiree health benefits costs. “
How the Commission differentiates the above recommendations that resulted in a WATCH and the same
recommendations for CCSF that resulted in a decision to deny accreditation is not clear from its
guidelines. Beno continues with the often made statement: “I wish to inform you that under U.S.
Department of Education regulations, institutions out of compliance with Standards or on sanction are
expected to correct deficiencies within a two-year period or the Commission must take action to
terminate accreditation.”
And so she continues; “Imperial Valley College must correct the deficiencies noted in Recommendations
1, 7, and 8 above no later than March 15, 2015, or the Commission will be required to take adverse
action.” This is the threat that all colleges fear and the ACCJC uses as much as possible.
Page 205
College of Marin – REMOVED FROM WARNING (2013)
College of Marin was removed from WARNING at the January 9-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC. They
were ordered to prepare a Midterm Report by October 15, 2013. The letter from the Commission dated
February 11, 2013 indicated that “the Midterm Report should demonstrate the college’s sustained level of
effort and progress in program review, planning, and resource allocation and in student learning
outcomes assessment and use of the results in program planning and resource allocation for
improvement. The Report should also forecast where the College expects to be by the time of the next
comprehensive evaluation.” I have not seen the forecast statement before.
Fresno City College – REMOVED FROM WARNING (2013)
At the January 9-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, the Commission removed Warning and reaffirmed the
full accreditation of Fresno City College. A Follow-Up Report is to be submitted by October 15, 2013. By
that date (less than one year from the receipt of the letter from the ACCJC). At that point the college
must “demonstrate that the institution has addressed the recommendation noted below, fully resolved the
deficiencies, and now meets Accreditation Standards.”
How is it possible, given what the ACCJC has publically stated that some districts must have no
deficiencies if they are to receives full accredition, that Fresno City College must address its deficiencies?
“District Recommendation 1
In order for the colleges and District to fully meet the intent of the previous recommendation, the State
Center Community College District must engage in continuous, deliberative, and timely dialog with all
District stakeholders to coordinate long term planning and examine the impact on all the stakeholders of
the planned increase in the number of colleges and the future roles of the centers. This includes creating,
developing, and aligning district and college plans and planning processes in the following areas: strategic
planning, facilities planning, technology planning, organizational reporting relationships of centers,
locations of signature programs, funding allocation, and human resources and research capacity. “
Antelope Valley College – Midterm Report (2013)
At the January 9-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, Antelope Valley College was directed to submit a
Follow-Up Report in conjunction with the Midterm Report. This Follow-up Report is to be submitted by
October 15, 2013. The February 11, 2013 letter from Dr. Bemo stated that “The Follow-Up Report should
demonstrate that the institution has addressed the recommendations noted below, resolved the
deficiencies, and now meets Accreditation Standards.” I am not sure how there can be deficiencies when
a college has not received a sanction at any level.
The “recommendations” include:
“Recommendation 1:
In order to comply with the standards, it is recommended that the college modify its processes to create
documentation and other forms of evidence that can be used to reveal the college's progress toward
Page 206
implementation of Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and assessment of those outcomes. More
specifically, the team recommends that to show compliance with the standards that the college:
a.Develop a method to monitor progress made when implementing activities identified in program
reviews to include listing steps in action plans, listing of individual student learning outcomes for
each course, and assessment activities matched against progress made to achieve assessment
activities.
b. Provide evidence in the form of documents or other deliverables to result from the operation of
the integrated planning cycle.
c. Provide evidence that outcomes demonstrate the integrated planning cycle, from student
learning outcomes to making budget decisions.
d. Assess Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) and provide evidence of program, student service,
and administrative changes and improvements that result because of changes made.
Recommendation 2:
To meet the standards, to raise the quality of instructional programs, and to instill a culture of evidence
across the college the team recommends the following practices be institutionalized:
a) To meet the standards it is recommended that when curriculum is being modified and at other
appropriate points in time, the college establish clear connections with and document the
involvement of members of professions, associations and professional organizations in order to
demonstrate input from vocational/occupational advisory boards, and experts in the field to
ensure the College is able to verify that the quality of educational programs is based on experts in
the profession.
b) To ensure each department is being consistently evaluated under the program review process it is
recommended that the college develop a list of minimum areas considered to ensure a rigorous
self examination is conducted consistently across the college.
c) To meet the standards requirement that adequate resources be allocated to support the Library
function of the college, it is recommended that the college conduct a comparative analysis against
other similarly sized colleges to assess whether the amount of resources to meet the needs of
students who rely on the Library to complete their educational goals.
d) To meet the standards and to enhance the effectiveness of its technology, it is recommended that
the college adjust its technology advisory committee structure to ensure that the needs of
administrative and instructional computing are equally well addressed, and that this dialogue
then results in equitable priorities, implementation. and budget allocations for all technology
needs.
Recommendation 4:
To comply with the standards, it is recommended that the college, when making its short-range financial
plan, e.g., the annual budget of the college, consider its long-range financial obligation to pay the cost of
the GASB 45 - Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB) as the costs are incurred instead of delaying
payment to some future date. Specifically, the college is encouraged to prepare a comprehensive plan to
prevent disruption of services offered to students by paying the Annual Required Contribution (ARC)
determined using generally accepted accounting principles into an irrevocable trust fund at the amount
equal to the actuarially determined Annual Required Contribution. “
Again we see a lack of clarity regarding what is required and what is a view of what might help the
college improve. We also see that the college is “encouraged” to fully fund the GASB obligation –
something that is not required by law and would put the college in a negative financial situation.
Page 207
In an article appearing in the Victor Valley Daily Press on September 4, 2013, Opinion Page Editor Steve
Williams discussed the visit to Victor Valley College by the ACCJC. The sites “an ACCJC staff analysis
of the school’s annual fiscal report, according to a letter sent to Interim VVC President Peter Allan”
AVVC has been placed in financial category R, “and the school is now, according to the letter, receiving
a “more in-depth analysis” by the ACCJC’s financial reviewers.” No notice of this letter was either on
the college’s website or on the ACCJC website. Category R is the lowest category (severe risk).
“The letter to Mr. Allen lists three reasons for the ACCJC’s financial review” based on its R category
rating. “Excessive Salary/Benefits as a proportion of expenses” is the top item. The other two are
“Significant unfund enrollment” and the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team report of July
2012.
El Camino College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
“The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, at its meeting January 9-11, 2013 considered the Follow-Up Report submitted by El Carnino
College College and the report of the evaluation team which visited November 14, 2012.”
The Commission acted to issue Warning and require El Camino College to submit a Follow-Up Report`
by October 15, 2013. The report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.”
Warning is issued when the Commission finds that an institution has pursued a course deviating from the
Commission's Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards or Commission policies to an extent that
gives concern to the Commission.”
“The Report should demonstrate the College has fully resolved the deficiency noted and Standards
cited in the following recommendation:
Recommendation 2: The college should immediately define and publish a timeline in respect to how it
will develop and implement student learning outcomes at the course, program and degree levels, establish
systems to assess student learning outcomes and use the results of such assessments to make
improvements in the delivery of student learning, to ensure that the College shall attain, by 2012, the level
of Proficiency in the ACCJC Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness ---Part III: Student
Learning Outcomes.”
“With regard to Recommendation 2 above, the team noted that a plan and timeline for SLOs had been
developed, but the plan had not resulted in the college attaining the level of Proficiency by fall 2012.
It was noted that from 2011 to 2012, the main campus increased course student learning outcome (SLO)
assessment from 37% to 55%, and program assessment from 84% to 95%. It was further noted that.during
the same time period, the Compton Center increased course SLO assessment from 32% to 98%, and
program outcomes assessment to 38%. The team report noted that some degree programs have only one
student learning outcome. While a particular number of outcomes per degree is not specified by the
Standards, it is important to assure that assessment of outcomes fully addresses the range of knowledge
and competencies expected of students completing a degree at the College and that results from
assessment are sufficiently disaggregated to provide information adequate to fine tune curriculum and
instruction, and address other needed changes, in order to increase student learning. The College will
need to increase and strengthen its current level and usage of SLO assessment in order to meet the
Standards.” Again, the SLOs are understood to be inputs not outcomes.
Page 208
And then comes the hammer: “I wish to inform you that under U.S. Department of Education
regulations, institutions out of compliance with standards are expected to correct deficiencies within
a two-year period or the Commission must take action to terminate accreditation. The Commission
wishes to notify the College that the period of monitoring progress toward fully addressing this area of
deficiency has ended. El Camino College must correct the deficiencies noted no later than October 15,
2013 or the Commission will be compelled to act.”
As I have frequently stated in this paper, it makes no sense to close a college because it did not satisfy
some standard such as failing to full implement SLOs. If the above is true that a college’s
accreditation must be terminated if any “deficiency” is not corrected within two years, then the
Congress needs to change that policy!
Hartnell College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2013)
Hartnell College was placed on Probation by the Commission in June of 2013. The college had previously
been placed on PROBATION in January of 2007, a WARNING letter in January of 2008, and a fully
resolved letter in June of 2009. A midterm report was submitted in January of 2010.
The March 18-21 2013 Visiting Team from ACCJC had two faculty members. One was an assistant to the
Chair of the Committee (both the chair and the assistant are from Solano College). The other faculty
member served as her college’s Basic Skills Initiative Coordinator and as the faculty inquiry lead for the
Lumina project. The other eight members of the team were administrators.
At the June 5-7, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC the Barbara Beno wrote to the college
Superintendent/President Dr. Willard Lewallen that the Commission “considered the Hartnell College
Self Evaluation Report, the report of the External Evaluation Team that visited the College March
18-21, 2013, and the supplemental information provided by the College.” The Visiting Team Report
was over ninety pages and the Self-Evaluation Report combined with the supplementa report was over
three hundred seventy pages, I am not sure how much time they could have spent on this material as they
also had to look at such materials from the other twenty colleges under review. I guess it doesn’t take the
Commission members long to “consider” the documents or they are incredibly fast readers. As with most
college sanctions, the criticisms of the college had nothing to do with the quality of instruction offered nor
the value of the college to the student. All criticism had to do with process.
The letter went on to state that “The Commission acted to impose Probation and require Hartnell College
to correct the deficiencies noted. The College is required to complete two Follow-Up Reports. The first
Report is due by March 15, 2014, demonstrating resolution of the deficiencies noted in the 2013
Evaluation Report Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 12. The second Report is due by March 15, 2015 and
should demonstrate resolution of Recommendations 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and demonstrate that the
changes and improvements meant to resolve deficiencies and comply with Eligibility Requirements and
Accreditation Standards noted in Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 12 have been sustained. Both reports will
be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.”
Beno stated that “However, Hartnell College must correct the deficiencies noted in Recommendations 2,
3, 4, and 12 below no later than March 15, 2014, or the Commission will be required to take adverse
Page 209
action.” “Adverse action” in this context means the removal of accreditation status. So, just as in
Compton and San Francisco, Hartnell could lose its accreditation because of perceived failure to satisfy
the process demands of the ACCJC. The value of the education to the student is not a consideration.
In the March 15, 2014 Follow-Up Report, “Hartnell College must demonstrate that the institution has
addressed the recommendations noted above, fully resolved each of the noted deficiencies, and now meets
the recommendations, Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards identified in the External
Evaluation Team Report.”
Although the letter states that the college “must” meet the Commission’s demands, the actual statements
by the Visiting Team are called “recommendations.” I am not sure what the team intended as their final
recommendation of a sanction is not made public.
The Visiting Team observed
 “ a college that has a dedicated cadre of faculty, staff and students who believe strongly in their
mission and in the value of student learning.: Those beliefs were evident to the team members as
they observed the daily operations of the College and listened to the employee and student
comments during discussions, meetings, and forums.”
They commended the college for
 “its collaborative and unified efforts to initiate change and support the institutional improvements
currently underway at the college.”
 “offering unique and innovative programs to address the variety of community needs, such as
those in Student Affairs, as well as the Academy for College Excellence, the Math Academy, the
New Media Center, and the various STEM partnerships and programs.”
 “creating an architecturally inviting learning space for students in the Library and Learning
Resources facility, which creates a productive and creative atmosphere conducive to student
success.” the innovative use of physical resources in the development of the King City Education
Center and the Alisal Campus that meets the needs of a historically-underserved student
population.”
The Commission statement of Probation included the following “recommendations.”
Recommendation 2 relates to recommendations that
 The college develop a comprehensive integrated planning process that includes participatory
governance and meets both the strategic and annual needs of the college.
 all institutional plans of the College (e.g., budgeting, technology, Student Services) be linked to its
planning process and
 budget planning and allocation of resources inform financial projections
These all deal with the planning process, not with the education provided to students.
Recommendation 3 relates to recommendations that
 the college develop a regular systematic process for assessing its long term and annual plans, as
well as its planning process, to facilitate continuous sustainable institutional improvement.
 the college systematically review effectiveness of its evaluation mechanisms
Again, nothing to do with the educational process itself, just more demands for planning.
Page 210
Recommendation 4 relates to recommendations that
 the college fully engage in a broad-based dialogue that leads to the identification of Student
Learning Outcomes at the course and program levels, and regular assessment of student progress
toward achievement of the outcomes.
 in order to meet the Standards, the College develop student learning outcomes and assessment
that is ongoing, systematic, and used for continuous quality improvement, where student learning
improvement in all disciplines is a visible priority in all practices and structures across the
College.
 training be provided for all personnel in the development and assessment of learning outcomes at
the course, program, institution and service levels.
 faculty teaching online be evaluated regularly and that assessment of student learning be
measured regularly for online students.
I have spoken to the use of student learning outcomes and the fact that they are not widely accepted as
being useful in improving teaching or learning. Many faculty members feel that they are just the latest fad
brought forward by groups like ACCJC.
Recommendation 12 relates to recommendations that
 that each board member adhere to the Governing Board's Ethics policy
 The board self-evaluation continue to be done with full participation of each board member.
This is the continuation of the trend of the ACCJC to attempt to direct the elected governing board as to
how to act as a board.
The letter from Beno continued “The Follow-Up Report of March 2015 should demonstrate that the
institution has fully addressed the recommendations noted below, resolved the noted deficiencies, and
now meets all recommendations, Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards identified in the
External Evaluation Team Report.”
Recommendation 1: the team recommends that
 the college develop a process for regular and systemic evaluation of its mission statement.
 the college implement this process to thoroughly review and revise its mission statement to more
clearly reflect its intended population and address student learning.
A continuation more process work, even to change a long standing mission of a college.
Recommendation 5 the team recommends that
 the college create an evaluation and assessment process for the library and support services that
is integrated with the college's program review processes, and that includes an assessment of the
process for integrating library acquisitions into circulation in a timely manner and how the needs
for staffing, maintenance, and technology support are addressed.
 the College create a process to evaluate the impact of minimal library and learning support
services at the King City Education Center and Alisal Campus to ensure the sufficient availability
of library and support services, including better up-to-date counseling online.
Page 211
Recommendation 6: “In order to fully meet the standard, the team recommends that the college regularly
evaluate the contracted library services outlined in the "Memorandum of Clarification" finalized in March
2013. “
Recommendation 7: In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that
 the college ensure that evaluation processes and criteria necessary to support the college's
mission are in place and are regularly and consistently conducted for all employee groups.
 professional learning opportunities be formally and regularly offered to all employee groups to
ensure equity in employee development opportunities.
 faculty and others responsible for learning have as a component of their evaluation effectiveness
in producing those student learning outcomes. Use the results of employee evaluations as a basis
for continuous improvement.
The above recommendations attempt to insert the ACCJC into the evaluation of faculty. The evaluation of
faculty is a collective bargaining issue in California and by making this demand, the ACCJC is breaking
California law.
Recommendation 8 relates to recommendations that
 the college establish a stable infrastructure of sufficient administrative personnel to better ensure
a consistent level of services to support the institution's mission and purpose.
 the college expedite the process to fill vacant and interim positions
This is just another example of the ACCJC’s attempt to increase the number of administrators on a
campus. It is no surprise when the Visiting Team is so highly weighted with administrators. No mention is
made of increasing the number of full-time faculty.
Recommendation 9 relates to recommendations that
 the college ensure that program review processes are ongoing, systematic, and used to assess and
improve student learning, and that the college evaluate the effectiveness of its program review
processes in supporting and improving student achievement and student learning outcomes.
 the institution review and refine its program review processes to improve institutional
effectiveness; and use the results of program review to clearly and consistently link institutional
planning processes to resource allocation, including physical resources.
Again, more emphasis on planning. No emphasis on the actual educational program offered.
Recommendation 10: “To fully meet the standard the team recommends that the college develop a
process for regular and systemic evaluation of all Human Resources and Business and Fiscal Affairs
policies. “
Recommendation 11: “To fully meet the standards, the team recommends that the college implement
and evaluate a governance model and establish a key participatory governance group to provide an avenue
for meaningful input into decision-making including but not limited to resource allocation.”
A good question given the CCSF situation is whether an effective and true participatory system would
meet the ACCJC standards or would they claim, as they have, that such a system does not allow for
planning that does not cater to the interests of the parties involved.
Page 212
The Commission then lays down a defensive position for further actiont: “The recommendations
contained in the External Evaluation Team Report represent the best advice of the peer evaluation team at
the time of the visit, but may not describe all that is necessary to come into compliance.”
And then the hammer is laid down against any dissent: “Institutions are expected to take all actions
necessary to comply with Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards and Commission policies.
The Commission wishes to remind you that while an institution may concur or disagree with any part of
the report, the College is expected to use the External Evaluation Report to improve educational programs
and services and to resolve issues identified by the Commission.”
It is important to keep an eye on what happens at Hartnell College over the next year. Will the ACCJC
continue its reign of terror by taking away the accreditation of another college for issues that do not
affect the education of the students enrolled?
West Los Angeles College – PLACED ON WARNING (2012) , ACCREDITATION
REAFFIRMED (2013)
At the June 6-8, 2012 meeting of the ACCJC, West Los Angeles College was placed on WATCH. The
college was ordered to complete a “Follow-Up Report” by March 15, 2013. The Report will be followed
up by a visit of Commission Representatives.
In the words of the letter from Barbara Beno dated July 2, 2012, “The Commission wishes to convey its
concern that the Los Angeles Community College District is out of compliance with Eligibility
Requirements 17 and 18 as noted in the recommendations below. The Commission urges the District and
the colleges to rectify these issues that are related to the financial planning and distribution of resources of
the District and its ability to resolve continuing concerns expressed in the District's audit. These issues are
ongoing and place the District's colleges at risk.” From the above it is clear that the problem, in the eyes
of the ACCJC, rest at the District not the college level.
The Recommendations from visiting team included:











Measurable Goal Setting
Systemic Evaluation and Planning
Student Learning Outcomes
Student Learning and Service Level Outcomes
College Catalog Currency
Library Collection Development
Financial Resources
Construction Bond Oversight
District Financial Audit
District Allocation Model
Professional Development of Trustees
Page 213
I have learned that the Visiting Team’s recommendation was that the college be fully accredited but that
the Commission upped their recommendation to a Warning.
The Visiting Team commended the Los Angeles Community College District on the basis of


“The district office is commended for revising district service outcomes, district wide committee
descriptions, and the district wide functional map to create a user-friendly and clear delineation of
college and district functions. The process of survey, dialog, and district-wide review
demonstrates a commitment to providing an informed understanding of the district's role in
governance and service.”
“The district office is commended for revising district service outcomes, district wide committee
descriptions, and the district wide functional map to create a user-friendly and clear delineation of
college and district functions. The process of survey, dialog, and district-wide review
demonstrates a commitment to providing an informed understanding of the district's role in
governance and service.”
In the suggestions above the visiting team basically found that West Los Angeles College needed to
“increase effectiveness and improve its compliance”of some standard or “that the college has partially
met” previous year suggestions of visiting teams.
West Los Angeles College was commended as follows:







Student services is to be commended for the pervasive commitment to developing alternative
modes of delivery and incorporating appropriate technologies for serving students at a distance
and in an effort to develop efficiencies in providing services with shrinking resources.
West should be commended for the institutional efforts to address equity gaps in student
achievement through such programs as Umoja, Puente, and participation in Achieving the Dream
Student Services should be commended for the focus on developing community partnerships to
address gaps in service or specialized services that cannot be provided by college staff and faculty,
such as mental health services provided by USC interns; assessments for Child Development
Center children with special needs provided by the pediatrics department at St. John’s Hospital,
and working with U.S. Vets to provide mental health services and support specific to the needs of
Veteran students.
West Los Angeles College is to be commended for an established governance structure that
embraces open, candid dialogue and encourages involvement from all constituent groups in the
planning and decision making process
The team commends the college for expanding its online learning program in a thoughtful and
effective way that combines technological and pedagogical innovations while maintaining high
instructional training standards, collegial oversight, and a strong commitment to student learning.
Both the growth and the quality of the online program are impressive.
The team commends the college for pursuing and obtaining external funding from various sources
including state capital funds, Title V grant, and Predominately Black Institution funding.
The team commends the college for the attractiveness of the college’s campus and its emphasis
upon sustainable facilities that provide state of the art classrooms and address ever increasing noninstructional operating costs. The commitment to a clean, welcoming campus is a positive
reflection of the culture of the college
Page 214

The team commends the college for its CTE programs that strongly emphasize the outcomes of
employability, licensure and placement of their students.
West Los Angeles College is clearly a good place to study and to work.
At its June 5-7, 2013 meeting the ACCJC removed the Warning and returned West Los Angeles College
to unblemished accreditation. “In the words of the letter from the ACCJC of July 3, 2013 “The
Commission took action to remove Warning, reaffirm accreditation, and require the College to undergo
a visit in conjunction with the Midterm Report in 2015. At that time, the visiting team will verify that
the College has sustained the changes and improvements that were initiated to comply with
Standards and meet College Recommendations 1-7 and District Recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 5.”
The particular recommendations referred to from 2012 were all addressed (according to the visiting team).
The April 16, 2013 Visiting Team was composed of a chancellor, a vice chancellor of business services, a
vice president of instruction, and an executive dean. No faculty members served on the team. “The
purpose of the team visit was to verify that the Follow-Up Report prepared by the College was accurate
through examination of evidence, to determine if sustained, continuous, and positive improvements
had been made at the institution, and that the institution has addressed the recommendations made
by the External Evaluation Team, resolved the deficiencies noted in those recommendations, and
meets the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards and Commission policies.” The team
decided that they had and I guess the ACCJC has confirmed that in their decision.
The conclusions of the Follow-Up Visit on all the recommendations were “:“The College has fully
addressed the recommendation, corrected the deficiencies, and now is in compliance with
Accreditation Standards and Commission policies.”
Los Angeles Harbor College – REMOVE PROBATION AND REAFFIRM
ACCREDITATION (2013)
In a July 3, 2013 letter to Los Angeles Harbor College the ACCJC wrote that “The Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, at its
meeting June 5-7, 2013, reviewed the Follow-Up Report submitted by Los Angeles Harbor College and
the report of the evaluation team that visited April 16, 2013. The Commission took action to remove
Probation, reaffirm accreditation, and require the College to undergo a visit in conjunction with the
Midterm Report in 2015. At that time, the visiting team will verify the College has sustained the
changes and improvements that were initiated to comply with Standards and meet College
Recommendations 1 and 2 and District Recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 5.”
Note that the letter does not state that the changes and improvements had gone “full cycle” as of the
June decision. The claim that the CCSF changes and improvement had not gone full cycle was one of
the reasons given for removing accreditation from CCSF. This may show an inconsistency in ACCJC’s
approach to its standards.
College Recommendation 1 related to a 2006 evaluation team concern with the planning process at
Harbor College.
Page 215
College Recommendation 2 related to the monitoring of salaries and benefits in relation to available
funds. This seems to be more of a district concern since salaries and benefits are bargained at the district
level and staffing levels are ultimately determined at the district level as well.
The District Recommendations 1, 2, 4, and 5 related to bond oversight, financial audit issues, the
allocation model for the colleges, and the board’s responsibility to act in the public’s interest. The fact
that these issues have not recently been brought up with respect to the other colleges in the Los Angeles
Community College District must be an indication that these issues have been resolved to the satisfaction
of the ACCJC.
Modesto Junior College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012)
Modesto Junior College was placed on Probation at the Commission Meeting of January 10-17, 2012.
They had been placed on Probation in June of 2008 but were clear of sanctions until the 2012 action
against the college. The October 2011 Visiting Team was composed of eleven members, only three of
which were faculty members.
As with other colleges in multi-college district, Modesto was faulted for perceived failures by the District.
The list of District “deficiencies” to meet the Commission Standards included the need for systematic
evaluation of personnel, a review of institutional missions and delegation of authority policy, and clearly
defined processes for hiring. The college has been directed to analyze community demographics; force
faculty to “differentiate between course learning outcomes and course objectives”; and “create venues to
maintain an ongoing, collegial, self reflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of student
learning and institutional process; and so on.” This is the kind of self-invented education-speak that
the faculty on the campuses are being forced to put up with.
Interference with Collective Bargaining
Hittelman Letter of November 21, 2001
As president of the Community College Council, I wrote the commission on November 21, 2001
objecting to certain policies of the ACCJC. Many of these concerns have magnified over the years. In
particular I wrote “The Community College Council of the California Federation of Teachers is opposed
to the direction that the new proposed standards (Draft A) has taken. We oppose using so-called
“quantifiable outcomes” as the mandated approach to determine effectiveness of education. We believe
that many institutions would prefer to use qualitative issues and educational standards as their guide to
institutional quality. While a few colleges may wish to use the Total Quality Management approach, we
do not believe that it should be imposed on all institutions, especially in light of its still controversial
status. We do not believe that the “learning objectives” and “outcomes” approach to education necessarily
produces the highest quality educational experience. Many “objectives” that can be easily measured are
not important whereas many important results cannot be measured. Education is more than standardized
tests - it is a holistic experience which should include social, societal, and self-actualizing goals. The goal
Page 216
of education should include the ability to learn on one’s own, be motivated to work hard in pursuit of
truth, and want to continue learning. None of these goals are valued in the new proposed standards.
In Standard III, the new standard requires that “Evaluations of faculty also includes effectiveness in
producing stated student learning outcomes.” By defining what evaluation must specifically include, the
Commission is entering an area that is the domain of collective bargaining. In the past (Standard Seven),
the Commission did not determine how effectiveness would be measured but rather stated that “Criteria
for evaluation of faculty include teaching effectiveness, scholarship or other activities appropriate to the
area of expertise, and participation in institutional service or other institutional responsibilities.” The
change to the required outcome-based criteria is not appropriate. Evaluation processes are best defined at
the local level via local expertise and the collective bargaining process and that is what is required by
California law.”
“We are concerned with the removal of what seemed to be, in the previous standards, a commitment to
collegial governance. The changes seem to reflect a veiled attempt to overthrow the gains made through
the passage AB 1725 in California. In addition, the new “Vested Authority” section is too prescriptive as
to the rights of the chief executive officer. One example is the statement that “(T)he governing board
delegates full responsibility and authority to him/her to implement and administer board policies without
interference and holds him/her accountable for the operation of the district, system, or college.” This
seems more like a “protect administrators” device rather than an accreditation standard. Another example
of micro managing by the Commission is the statement in the multi-college district section where it
requires that the chief executive “delegates full responsibility and authority to them to implement and
administer district or system policies without interference and holds them accountable for the operations
of the colleges.”
“The Community College Council also believes that a community college district should be required to
comply with the laws and regulations governing districts including those requiring the participation of
faculty, staff, and students in the development of district and college policy. Faculty rights and
responsibilities are specified and guaranteed in the California Code of Regulations (Title 5) and therefore
should be addressed in the accreditation self-study. The issue has been partially addressed in the current
standard Ten B.7 in the statement that ‘faculty have established an academic senate or other appropriate
organization’ and that "faculty have a substantive and clearly defined role in institutionalized
governance.” This language should be continued and enlarged to include classified and student
participation. “
The CCC also believes that there should also be a standard directed at the working relations between the
district and its collective bargaining agents. It should be noted that most districts currently include faculty
unions in the development of policy and in January 2002 will be required to include classified unions as
representatives in shared governance. How these arrangements work reflect on the quality of the
experience at the college and should be addressed in a standard and reflected in the college self study.
October 13, 2008 Hittelman Letter to ACCJC
Later in October of 2008, acting as the president of the California Federation of Teachers, I wrote a letter
to the ACCJC with regard to the actions of the ACCJC. I wrote with respect to amendments to Standards
III.A.1.c and II.A.6. The letter was as follows:
Page 217
“I write as President of the California Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL CIO. As you know, the
Accrediting Commission for the California Junior Colleges (ACCJC) serves an important function by
virtue of California law. In particular, the State has dictated that, "Each community college within a
district shall be an accredited institution. The Accrediting Commission for California Junior Colleges
shall determine accreditation." (5 Cal. Code Regs. ' 51016)
In conferring on this important responsibility on the ACCJC, the State of California and the Board of
Governors of the California Community Colleges expect the ACCJC to fulfill an important state
objective, providing education through accredited public community colleges. ACCJC may or may not be
a quasi governmental entity, but either way it must respect State laws created by the Legislature, when
fulfilling its functions.
Of particular importance to the California Federation of Teachers, and its constituent locals, is the
Educational Employment Relations Act, California Government Code section 3540 et seq... The Act, as
you know, provides a framework for collective bargaining for faculty in the California Community
Colleges.
One of the most important rights faculty have is to negotiate with their employer over evaluation
procedures, criteria and standards. In fact, this right is so important that the Legislature deemed it worthy
of explicit enumeration within the Act. In addition, pursuant to the EERA academic freedom policies are
negotiated at community colleges.
In recent years, considerable controversy has existed within the community colleges over the issue of
Student Learning Outcomes or SLOs. It is an understatement to say that many within the college
community, faculty and administrators alike, feel the ACCJC has gone too far in its demands regarding
SLOs, because they intrude on negotiable evaluation criteria, and violate principles of academic
freedom.
Not long ago, the CFT invited comment from its faculty unions about SLOs, and their impact on their
local colleges. Of particular concern to CFT is the propensity with which accreditation teams from the
ACCJC have indicated to the colleges that they should "develop and implement policies and procedures to
incorporate student learning outcomes into evaluation of those with direct responsibility for student
learning." This directive is based on ACCJC Accreditation Standard III.A.1.c., which states,
"Faculty and others directly responsible for student programs toward achieving stated student learning
outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those student learning
outcomes." (ACCJC Accreditation Standard III.A.1.c.)
Another standard has been used by accreditation teams to justify changes in faculty work such as syllabi.
Ths standard, which has interfered in faculty's academic freedom rights, states: one:
"The institution assures that students and prospective students receive clear and accurate information ... In
every class section students receive a course syllabus that specifies learning objectives consistent with
those in the institution's officially approved course outline." (ACCJC Accreditation Standard II.A.6.)
We believe both of these standards, as written and as applied, intrude on matters left to collective
bargaining by the Legislature. For a time, we recognized that the ACCJC's inclusion of these
Page 218
standards appeared to be mandated by the regulations and approach of the U.S. Department of
Education, hence we understood ACCJC's apparent justification for including them.
Now, however, with the recently re enacted Higher Education Act, the Federal mandate for the SLO
component has been eliminated for community colleges and other institutions of higher education. I'm
sure you are aware that Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation amending 20 U.S.C. 1099
(b), to provide that the Secretary of Education may not "establish any criteria that specifies, defines, or
prescribes the standards that accrediting agencies or associations shall use to assess any institution's
success with respect to student achievement." [See Higher Education Act, S. 1642 (110th Congress, 1st
Session, at p. 380)]
Given this amendment, it is CFT's position that the ACCJC has no statutory mandate which prescribes
inclusion of the above referenced standards dealing with faculty evaluations, and syllabi. Under the
EERA, absent mandatory proscriptions in the law, each and every aspect of evaluation is negotiable. See,
e.g., Walnut Valley Unified School District (1983) PERB Dec. No. 289, 7 PERC & 14084, pp. 321 322;
Holtville Unified School District (1982) PERB Dec. No. 250, 6 PERC & 13235, p. 906. The Legislature
reaffirmed the negotiability of evaluation procedures and criteria when it adopted A.B. 1725 in 1989. (See
Cal. Ed. Code ' 87610.1, 877663(f)). The Legislature did specify that community college evaluations
procedures must include a peer review process and, to the extent practicable, student evaluations. (See
Cal. Ed. Code ' 87663(g)). However, it did not mandate SLOs.
Accordingly, the CFT wishes to inquire as to what actions ACCJC intends to take to conform its
regulations to the requirements of State law, and to recognize that the adoption of any local provisions
which include faculty effectiveness in producing student learning outcomes, shoult be entirely a matter of
collective bargaining negotiations. And, similarly, that the ACCJC cannot mandate inclusion of
information in syllabi which faculty, by reason of academic freedom and tradition, are entitled to
determine using their own best academic judgment, or through the negotiations process. Of course, in
negotiations over evaluation, the law also provides that faculty organizations shall consult with local
academic senates before negotiating over these matters.
While ACCJC is free to encourage colleges and their faculty organizations to negotiate over this topic, it
is not free to mandate or coerce the adoption of such standards by sanctioning colleges which do not
adopt standards that ACCJC would prefer in these areas. Given its state function, ACCJC must
respect the negotiations process mandated by state law, and academic freedom rights adopted by
contract or policy.
California's public community colleges are an extraordinary public resource, and the Legislature has seen
fit to decree that when it comes to faculty evaluation, that process shall be subject to collective
bargaining. With the adoption of the landmark bill A.B. 1725 almost 20 years ago, the Legislature came
down squarely on the side of faculty determining, with their employers, the method and content of their
evaluations. This system has worked exceptionally well for almost 35 years.
Given the change in Federal law, I call upon ACCJC to take prompt and appropriate action to amend
its standards to respect the boundaries established by the Legislature and not purport to regulate
the methods by which faculty are evaluated or determine their course work such as syllabi.”
Page 219
December 2008 ACCJC Reply Filled with Errors
On December 2, 2008 I received a reply from the Commission regarding my letter. The Commission
attempted to respond to each of my points as they saw them. Unfortunately they had not done their
homework and were just wrong on most of their responses.
On December 12, 2008 I responded, on behalf of the California Federation of Teachers, back to the
ACCJC as follows:
“This letter responds to your letter of December 2, 2008. Your attempt to address our issues was not very
well researched and contains a number of errors. I will try to address them as clearly as possible.
1. You state that "The ACCJC does not provide education. Its purpose is to assure that its accredited
institutions adhere to its standards which are designed to assure that certain levels of quality are
maintained. The ACCJC was not developed to help achieve any State objective. The ACCJC was not
developed by the State, and it is not an agent of the State, and it has not been delegated any State function.
The ACCJC is a private organization, and its standards are developed without any involvement or
directions from the State of California. Its accreditation activities are not limited to the State of California.
It also accredits institutions in Hawaii and in the Pacific regions accredited by WASC."
This reply completely ignores "Each community college within a district shall be an accredited
institution. The Accrediting Commission for California Junior Colleges shall determine accreditation." (5
Cal. Code Regs. § 51016). The fact that the ACCJC has activities outside of California does not
contradict the fact that its accreditation activities in California are empowered under Section 51016 above.
It is also clear that the majority of ACCJC's funding comes from California community colleges. In
other words, it is funded heavily by the State of California and is, to a great extent, answerable to
the laws of California.
2. You argue that the "the ACCJC is not a governmental or quasi-governmental entity. It is a private
organization. It functions are of course carried out in a manner that are consistent with all applicable
laws, state and federal. " In part, you are making our point. As I will address later, evaluation is a
collective bargaining issue and when ACCJC attempts to dictate in this area, it is conflicting with
California law. By the way, the statute involved is the Government Code, not the Labor Code as your
letter indicated.
a.You are completely wrong in your analysis of collective bargaining law in California, particularly when
you state that "terms and conditions" does not include "criteria and standards" to be used for evaluation. I
believe that if you checked this assertion with any lawyer familiar with collective bargaining law as it has
been adjudicated, you will find that you are in error.
b. The PERB has ruled repeatedly that the evaluation criteria are negotiable. I am not sure why your
lawyer is unaware of this. For instance, PERB has ruled that evaluation criteria are negotiable in both
Holtville Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 250 (Holtville) and Walnut Valley Unified
School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 289 (Walnut Valley). Both cases hold that criteria and
standards to evaluate faculty are negotiable. See also State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles)
(1998) PERB Decision No. 1291[performance standards within scope of negotiations under Dills Act
governing State employees] .
Page 220
In addition, when AB1725 was enacted, the Legislature confirmed that faculty evaluation procedures
include negotiable criteria. The following is from AB 1725:
"(v) ...
(2) The evaluation process should be effective in yielding a genuinely useful and substantive
assessment of performance. Among other things, this requires an articulation of clear, relevant criteria on
which evaluations will be based.
(3) The evaluation process should be timely. This requires that evaluations be performed regularly at
reasonable intervals.
(4) The specific purposes for which evaluations are conducted should be clear to everyone involved.
This requires recognition that the principal purposes of the evaluation process are to recognize and
acknowledge good performance, to enhance satisfactory performance and help employees who are
performing satisfactorily further their own growth, to identify weak performance and assist employees in
achieving needed improvement, and to document unsatisfactory performance.
(5) A faculty member's students, administrators, and peers should all contribute to his or her
evaluation, but the faculty should, in the usual case, play a central role in the evaluation process and,
together with appropriate administrators, assume principal responsibility for the effectiveness of the
process.
(6) The procedures defined by negotiations should foster a joint and cooperative exercise of
responsibility by the faculty, administration, and governing board of the community college and should
reflect faculty and administrator expertise and authority in evaluating professional work as well as the
governing board's legal and public responsibility for the process."
The Legislature then enacted these standards with Education Code section 87663. I am not sure why you
cite section 87663, but it appears that you are ignorant of the meaning of the section, and the
interpretation of PERB in the above, and other, cases.
As is apparent, the Legislature anticipated that evaluation process and procedures includes the criteria for
evaluating faculty work. PERB held in the above cases, and in others, that only when the Legislature
expressly excluded evaluation criteria, are they not negotiable. And the only place that this took place is
with respect to academic employees of UC and CSU (owing to a lot of historical factors, including the
then very weak academic unions).
So, your claim that evaluation criteria are not negotiable based on the law is simply wrong.
Moreover, in every community college district, the criteria ARE negotiated. That is the contemporaneous
understanding of those charged with complying with the EERA.
When ACCJC attempts to force SLOs into evaluation, it is intruding on the collective bargaining
process.
By the way, the Federal NLRB law is consistent with this.
You claim that "California law leaves the final decisions on all such matters squarely with the governing
Page 221
body of the institution. It does not leave the content of these matters to collective bargaining although it
does permit consultation from the collective bargaining unit." Again you are just wrong. You need to
consult someone who understands the collective bargaining law in California in order to perfect your
understanding of the law.
In short, the ACCJC is legally obligated to respect the Rodda Act when it acts to accredit community
colleges and districts in California. Among these obligations is to not involve itself in the collective
bargaining process and the procedures and policies with respect to evaluation of faculty.
Finally, could you send me the minutes of the meeting at which you took up my letter and your response
to it?”
NO RESPONSE
I never received a response to the above letter.
CCA/CTA Correspondence
The Community College Association (a branch of the California Teachers Association) was also
concerned with the actions of the ACCJC and met with Barbara Beno on March 17, 2009. In a memo
from the CCA/CTA dated March 24, 2009 it was stated that “Not one community college in California
has received a sanction because of SLOs.” On March 20, 2009, Barbara Beno sent a memo to the
CEO’s and ALO’s from California community colleges. She referred to meeting with representatives of
the “CAA” but of course she meant “CCA.” The CEOs are the college presidents and the ALOs are the
accreditation liaison officers. In the memo she stated that “The CAA may now be trying to communicate
some information about its informational meeting with me. Unfortunately, from what I've heard, it
appears the CAA communications are not very accurate. I want you to be assured that the
Commission has not changed its position or its expectations of institutions, nor would the Commission
communicate any changes in its expectations of institutions through another agency or organization. “
Beno addressed a future meeting she will be holding with the “SoCal CEOs.” She would advise them as
to the “22 ACCJC member institutions that are currently on a sanction to be placed on sanction.
The institutions currently on sanction are deficient in meeting standards in one or more of the
following areas: program review, integrated planning, governance, and financial stability or
management. These are the same four common reasons for sanction that I reported to the CEOs last time
the ACCJC did this analysis, in Spring 2004.”
Beno went on to write: “The CAA is apparently conveying a confused message that faculty can or should
stop work to implement the accreditation standards that have to do with student learning outcomes and
assessment because colleges are not yet being commonly sanctioned for failure to do this work.
This logic would imply that colleges should only meet standards as the result of the extreme pressure of
an accreditation sanction. This is not the message that the ACCJC conveyed to the CAA, and it is an
ill-advised message.”
Beno also stated, as if she had anything to say about it, “ We agree that on issues of accreditation,
colleges should contact ACCJC, however, CCA has the right to contact membership concerning issues
that deal with collective bargaining.“
Page 222
CTA Letter
On March 16, 2009 the Department of Legal Services of the California Teachers Association wrote a
letter to the ACCJC regarding accreditation at Solano Community College. The letter states that “I write
to discuss and clarify various statements you have made pertaining to the future of the Solano County
Community College District that have been reported in the media and have caused great consternation
and anxiety among the faculty.
The statements that are attributed to you include the following: “If the faculty do not adopt Student
Learning Outcomes (SLOs) regardless of collective bargaining the college will lose its accreditation
and close at the end of the 2009 Spring semester.
As you know, the terms and conditions of employment of the faculty are governed by the California
Education Code and the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA). This law mandates that public
school employers, including community colleges, negotiate with the exclusive representative of the
faculty over wages and other terms and conditions of employment. Most subjects that relate to the terms
and conditions of employment of faculty are mandatory subjects of bargaining and cannot be changed or
imposed by college employers.”
“Currently the contract between the College and the Association is not open. We are advised that the
Association is not necessarily opposed to SLOs, but the college has not made a specific proposal. As a
result your directive that a dialogue among all constituent groups take place, regardless of collective
bargaining is unlawful.”
The CTA letter went on to state what has been going on in California: “It appears to us that the directives
and threats from your office are causing more problems than they solve. As you know the ACCJC of
WASC has a much higher percentage of institutions on probation, warning or show cause status
than do the other accreditation agencies elsewhere in the United States. While the other college
accreditation agencies have a small percent of institutions in some negative status, ACCJC of
WASC has approximately 37% of its member institutions on a negative status. Needless to say this is
a statistic that is setting off alarms in the minds of higher educators both in California and in Washington,
D.C.
We suggest that you give serious thought to moderating the tone and volume of the rhetoric. If that or
some other approach does not de-escalate the threat of the college losing its accreditation because it is
attempting to follow California law, it appears that the courts will become the ultimate arbiter of
whether ACCJC/WASC may revoke accreditation when the conduct of the institution is mandated
by state law. That being said, it is a result that no one is hoping for.”
CFT letter of January 8, 2013 Concerning Failure to Obey Timelines
On January 8, 2013, the CFT President Josh Pechthalt wrote the ACCJC a letter outlining the CFT’s
concerns with the ACCJC’s Failure to ComplyWith Its Policies Regarding the Agenda for the Meetings of
January 9-11, 2013. The CFT expressed its frustration in trying to find out about the January meeting. CFT wrote
“Our lawyers contacted the Commission on November 8, 2012, and December 13, 2012. On each occasion
Page 223
Commission staff advised us that the Commission meeting was not a public meeting, and on that basis declined to
apprise us of the location of the meeting. Given the detailed agenda, which we located on the Commission website
on January 4, it seems highly unlikely that on November 8 or December 13 Commission staff thought the meetings
of January 9-11 were not intended as public meetings.”
The Commission rules call for a 30 day notice. CFT wrote that “Only two weeks ago, long after the Commission's
30 day deadline for giving notice had elapsed, and after the 15 day time limit for the public to submit notice of a
desire to speak to the Commission, did the ACCJC website finally indicate that the meeting of January 9-11, 2013,
would occur in Burlingame, at the Hyatt. It was not until around January 4, 2013, however, that the [preliminary]
agenda for January 9, finally appeared on the Commission's website and expressly indicated there would be a
public meeting. This means that proper notice was "posted" about 25 days late.”
The CFT letter concluded that “If our understanding of the facts is accurate, the Commission has failed to satisfy its
declared policy of "supporting" and "encouraging" the presence of the public at its meetings. It is difficult not to
conclude that by the way it neglects to provide notice to the public of its activities, the Commission actually seeks
to discourage or effectively restrict public attendance and comment at its meetings.” The CFT requested that the
Commission defer all actions until their next meeting. The Commission failed to defer actions taken.
Hittelman Complaint/Comment of April 30, 2013
On April 30, 2013 I sent a complaint and third party comment to the ACCJC with a copy to
accreditationscommittees@ed.gov. The complaint was as follows:
“*Name of Institutions: ACCJC, Coastline College, Copper Mountain College, Gavilan College,
Hartnell College, Imperial Valley College, Los Angeles Mission College, Los Angeles Pierce College,
Los Angeles Valley College, Orange Coast College, San Joaquin Valley College, City College of San
Francisco, College of the Sequoias, Barstow Community College, El Camino College, Los Angeles
Harbor College, Los Angeles Southwest College, West Los Angeles College, Merced College, College
of Alameda, Berkeley City College, Laney College, Merritt College, College of the Redwoods, Cuesta
College, Santa Barbara City College, Solano Community College, Victor Valley College, Columbia
College, Modesto Junior College, Woodland Community College, Yuba College
Your Relationship to the Institution:
Former Faculty Member (Los Angeles Harbor College, Los Angeles Valley College)
Interested Party (state relationship): Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, Los Angeles Valley
College; Emeritus President, California Federation of Teachers; Former President, California
Federation of Teachers Community College Council
Please provide any comment about the institution's quality or effectiveness:
What is the basis of your comment? This is a complaint against the Commission as well as a third
party comment related to the June 2013 reviews of the above colleges.The complaint and comment
outline recent Commissions violations of standards and policies including, but not limited to, failure of
ACCJC to follow its own timelines, conflict of interests, misapplication of standards, lack of concise
standards, respect for due process rights, lack of consistent basis for sanction levels, arbitrary and
inconsistent use of standards, failure to provide the public with transparency in its operations, failure to
properly train visiting teams, interference in the collective bargaining processes, attempting to replace
local governing board policies and procedures with those that the Commission prefers, and others as
Page 224
outlined in attached the documents: ACCJC Gone Wild by Martin Hittelman and Focusing
Accreditation on Quality Improvement by the RP Group.
All current sanctions should be removed and no new sanctions imposed until the ACCJC corrects all of
the attached violations.
A Complaint and Third Party Form will also be filed with the National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and the U.S. Department of Education in order to oppose reaccreditation of the
ACCJC.
Submitted as an attachment to: accjc@accjc.org
April 30, 2013”
ACCJC Response of May 31, 2013
I finally received a response to a follow-up question questioning why my complaint and comment
had not been replied to. The following letter arrived on June 4, 2013. This was another violation of
ACCJC rules not only in terms of timing but also the lack of any analysis of what I claimed. It also
violates federal law (34 CFR Section 602.23(c) which requires that the Commission “review in a timely,
fair and equitable manner, and apply unbiased judgment, to any complaints against it”. It violated this
provision with the CFT complaint due to failure to fulfill any part of that requirement. It violated this
provision in my case by never making a judgment.
“This acknowledges receipt of the Third Party Comment materials, dated May 29, 2013, you sent to the
ACCJC. The matter is being reviewed in accordance with ACCJC policy and procedures.
Please note that Third Party Comment does not entail further communication with the correspondent,
unless further clarification is needed. The materials are initially reviewed by Commission staff to
determine whether the matter applies to an institution's compliance with Eligibility Requirements,
Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies. Then, for applicable Third Party Comment:
If an institution is undergoing a comprehensive evaluation, the materials are provided to the team
for inclusion in its evaluation of the college.
At other times, applicable Third Party Comment may be used as the basis for requesting an
institution to provide additional information to the Commission. The additional information is then
reviewed and followed up in accordance with normal monitoring processes of the Commission.
As a general rule, applicable Third Party Comment is provided to the institution for review following the
Commission staff review. In specific circumstances, provision to the institution may be delayed in order
to meet investigative or regulatory needs for confidentiality.
Lastly, please note on our website the recent posting concerning a complaint response.
Thank you for your interest in the academic quality and institutional effectiveness of our member
institution. We appreciate your effort in sharing this information with us.
Page 225
Sincerely,
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges”
June 26, 2013 Hittelman Response
On June 26, 2013 I sent the following e-mail:
“June 26, 2013
Krista Johns
kjohns@accjc.org
On May 30, 2013 I sent the ACCJC the following. I am bolding those portions that were related to the
complaint against the ACCJC. It seems clear to me that any one who actually read the
complaint/comment would have understood that I was refering to both. I am not sure how your office
missed this. In any case, here it is again but this time I have attached my latest version of ACCJC Gone
Wild.”
“Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
THIRD PARTY COMMENT FORM
*Name of Third Party: Martin Hittelman
*Email and Phone Number: martyhitt@gmail.com (323) 644-2859
*Address: 2475 Moreno Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90039
*Date: April 29, 2013
*Name of Institutions: ACCJC, Coastline College, Copper Mountain College, Gavilan College, Hartnell
College, Imperial Valley College, Los Angeles Mission College, Los Angeles Pierce College, Los
Angeles Valley College, Orange Coast College, San Joaquin Valley College, City College of San
Francisco, College of the Sequoias, Barstow Community College, El Camino College, Los Angeles
Harbor College, Los Angeles Southwest College, West Los Angeles College, Merced College, College of
Alameda, Berkeley City College, Laney College, Merritt College, College of the Redwoods, Cuesta
College, Santa Barbara City College, Solano Community College, Victor Valley College, Columbia
College, Modesto Junior College, Woodland Community College, Yuba College
Your Relationship to the Institution:
Former Faculty Member (Los Angeles Harbor College, Los Angeles Valley College)
Interested Party (state relationship): Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, Los Angeles Valley
College; Emeritus President, California Federation of Teachers; Former President, California Federation
of Teachers Community College Council
Please provide any comment about the institution's quality or effectiveness:
Page 226
What is the basis of your comment? This is a complaint against the Commission as well as a third
party comment related to the June 2013 reviews of the above colleges.The complaint and comment
outline recent Commissions violations of standards and policies including, but not limited to, failure
of ACCJC to follow its own timelines, conflict of interests, misapplication of standards, lack of
concise standards, respect for due process rights, lack of consistent basis for sanction levels,
arbitrary and inconsistent use of standards, failure to provide the public with transparency in its
operations, failure to properly train visiting teams, interference in the collective bargaining
processes, attempting to replace local governing board policies and procedures with those that the
Commission prefers, and others as outlined in attached the documents: ACCJC Gone Wild by
Martin Hittelman and Focusing Accreditation on Quality Improvement by the RP Group.
All current sanctions should be removed and no new sanctions imposed until the ACCJC corrects all of
the attached violations.
A Complaint and Third Party Form will also be filed with the National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and the U.S. Department of Education in order to oppose reaccreditation of the
ACCJC.
Submitted as an attachment to: accjc@accjc.org
April 30, 2013”
If you read the attached documents you will see on what basis these charges are being made.
I will be filing a new complaint after the new sanctions come out that will include the exclusion of
the public from your so-called public meeting in June and any new variances from you policies and
procedures.
Martin Hittelman
June 26, 2013”
June 28, 2013 Response from ACCJC
In a letter dated June 28, 2013 I received a letter from Cheri Sixby, Executive Assistant to the President of
the ACCJC saying that they have received my complaint of June 26, 2013 and that Barbara Beno had
delegated a review of my complaint to Krista Johns, Vice President for Policy and Research. My
“complaint of June 26” was actually just a reiteration of my complaint of April 20, 2013. In any case,
Krista Johns was assigned to contact me with any questions and “a response or notification will come
within 30 days of receipt of the complaint.”
The Commission never responded to my original complaint/comment of April 30, 2013.
Page 227
July 25, 2013 ACCJC Reply to Hittelman Complaint and Hittelman analysis
In a letter signed by Krista Johns, Vice President for Policy and Research, the “Commision” decided that
“Upon review of specific portions of the documents you identified and of our standards, policies and their
application in accreditation practices, organizational structure, procedures, and other items referred to, no
Commission violations were found.” This decision came as not surprise to me given the past responses of
the ACCJC to complaints against the way they operate. On as side point, I am not sure how the
“Commission” could have approved the letter since it has not met between the time that the ACCJC
decided to address my issues and the issuance of the letter.
The letter begins by declaring that the RP Group study was flawed. They did not contest that the findings
did represent factual accounts of the persons interviewed. Ms. Johns noted the RP Group desire to have
colleges and the Commission work more in harmony but the letter only addressed the college need to
cooperate with the Commission. No discussion was offered regarding the ACCJC’s reliance on
compliance.
The letter also noted that “The ACCJC is currently engaged in an extensive review of its Accreditation
Standards. This process will result in improved and changed processes. However institutional quality
assurance to the public will always be at the foundation of any actions taken by the Commission.” I am
not sure why a need to change is required when the ACCJC claims that it is perfect in the execution of its
Visiting Teams and the performance of the Commission itself.
They once again state that they did not understand that my April 30 e-mail did not include a complaint
although anyone reading it would understand that.
One of the continuing themes of the letter involved the need for colleges to correct deficiencies within
two years of their appearance – even if they are not noted in any Visiting Team report or actual ACCJC
action.
One of my continued questions involves whether a suggestion made by a Visiting Team represents a
demand by the Commission to address it completely. What makes the answer t this question even more
puzzling is when Ms. John writes such statements as: “Evaluation teams complete a confidential
recommendation regarding institutions prior to the completion of their on-site visit. It is made clear to
evaluation teams that this is a recommendation only, from team to Commission; it does not carry any
decisional weight. The decision on the accredited status of a college is made by the Commission.” Does
this mean that the Visting Team report has no official recommendation status unless that recommendation
is given a stamp of approval by the Commission? If so, why was CCSF held to a recommendation of a
2006 Visiting Team when no sanctions had ever been issued by the Commission?
According to the Johns letter “Regulations require that if an institution is found to not be in compliance
with any standard, the accrediting agency must immediately initiate adverse action against the
institution or require the institution to come into compliance within a period not to exceed two years. 34
C.F.R. § 602.20.” “Adverse action” means the removal of accreditation. The problem with all of this is
that almost every college has some “deficiency” noted in its Visiting Team report and yet not every
college has been given a SHOW CAUSE sanction based on the two year rule.
Page 228
Another basic question arises: Is it good public policy to remove the accreditation of a college for
anything other than the low quality of its academic program or the cost of the classes to the student versus
the reward from the credits? I am sure that the Department of Education and the federal standards do not
expect accreditation agencies from removing accreditation for “failure to meet standards” that have little
to do with the actual quality of the instruction offered.
The Johns letter questions whether the data presented in ACCJC Gone Wild demonstrates ACCJC being
out of step with the other regional bodies. They did not present alternative data nor did they state that my
data was incorrect – only that various agencies have different ways of reporting sanctions. Their actually
being out of step was never addressed.
In terms of the ACCJC’s insistance that colleges reduce their offerings in order to meet the new realities,
Ms. Johns writes: “The earlier ability of institutions to hold multiple missions of equal priority in terms of
commitment, resource allocation, effectiveness and quality, is another area which has been altered by
external forces in today's fiscal, governmental, and political environment.” She fails to address the fact
that the California Master Plan is still the law in California. Attempts by the Commission to force colleges
and districts to limit their scope of offerings would cause districts to be out of step with California law. Of
course that is not problem for the Commission given their lack of respect for other California laws and
regulations regarding such issues as governance, role of governing boards, collective bargaining, financial
requirements, and GASB 45.
The appearance of a conflict of interest when Kinsella and Gornick hold positions both with the ACCJC
and with the CCLC JPA was not addressed in the letter.
I now understand why I have heard that Visiting Team reports have been altered by the team chair after
meeting with a member of the ACCJC staff and after the Team completed its work. The letter from Johns
explained that “Responsibility for completing the team report falls to the team chair. After the team chair
completes an initial draft evaluation report, the chair will share the report with an ACCJC staff member.
This review is done to ensure that reports are clear, address all essential and required components for team
reports, and are grammatically correct and consistent with Commission requirements.”
A typical statement in the Johns letter is “ACCJC's objectives are clearly set forth in its standards,
including Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies.” This despite all
the evidence presented that proves that this statement is just not true. The fact that no one can predict what
sanction the Commission will come up with –not even the Visiting Team – is one example of the lack of
clarity. The recognition in the letter that different teams may come up with different recommendations is
another example of lack of clarity.
Another example of the kind of answer the ACCJC in reply to complaints is “Institutional evaluations are
conducted by peer evaluators who are professionals in the field. They apply standards consistently and
fairly to all institutions.” Do they all act professionally and apply standards consistently across the
colleges? Has the ACCJC ever investigated and compared the Visiting Team reports in a systematic way
in order to determine if inconsistencies exist? Despite the ACCJC manner of answering complaints,
saying something is true doesn’t make it true.
Finally, the question of lack of transparency on the part of the ACCJC is never addressed in the letter.
Perhaps this is an issue that should be addressed at the national level by Congress. The private workings
Page 229
of the ACCJC combined with the agreement by Visiting Team members, Commissioners, and members
of the staff not to disclose any of the proceedings of the ACCJC only contribute to the distrust of the
Commission and the validity of their actions.
ACCJC Reply to Hittelman Complaint
Hittelman Comments
Hittelman Notes on ResponseJuly 25, 2013
Dear Mr. Hittelman:
The investigation of your complaint against the ACCJC has
been completed. Your complaint was comprised of "recent
Commission violations...as outlined in the documents:
ACCJC Gone Wild by Martin Hittelman and Focusing
Accreditation on Quality Improvement by the RP Group."
Upon review of specific portions of the documents you
identified and of our standards, policies and their
application in accreditation practices, organizational
structure, procedures, and other items referred to, no
Commission violations were found. Explanatory
information concerning the items investigated is provided
below.
The Commission did not
investigate the claims to see if
they were true, the letter merely
states that they follow their
procedures and policies. There
is no indication that they spoke
to any Visiting Team members,
campus personnel, or even the
Commission members
themselves to determine if my
charges had any validity.
RP Group, Focusing Accreditation on Quality
Improvement
The RP Group study, Focusing Accreditation on Quality
Improvement, 138 pages, published February 2011,
describes a project to survey college presidents and other
college professionals across the country and in California
for the purpose of identifying accreditation practices that
might be promising in California. The article was
previously presented to the ACCJC as input for suggested
changes to accreditation standards and practices, and we
have again determined that was the appropriate process for
consideration of the contents in that article.
The RP Group 2011 Study suffered issues within its design.
The study focused on colleges that had been sanctioned,
rather than on a broad sample of accredited institutions
which could provide a more comprehensive basis for
analyzing the views of college personnel on accreditation.
In citing to particular cases, the study failed to consider the
facts of the cases included in the analysis, focusing only on
the declared results of the evaluation processes; this
omitted from analysis the conditions and actions that
resulted in referenced sanctions. These and other flaws
permitted bias to influence the outcome of the study.
Page 230
They claim that the study design
was flawed. They did not contest
that the statements made by
those interviewed in the study
were true.
Even if bias was present in the
report, were the statements
made by Chancellors and others
true or not? Many of the
comments made by the
participants in the RP Group
Study clearly support my basic
thesis that the ACCJC is, in fact,
a rogue organization.
It should also be noted that the study followed a period
right after the application of the two-year rule changed in
the Western Region. This change, coming out of the U.S.
Department of Education review of ACCJC practices,
meant that colleges would have no more than two years to
eliminate a deficiency and come into compliance with the
cited standard(s); this rule would no longer be applied
only to recommendations/deficiencies noted when
sanctions were given, but would apply to all
deficiencies.
This change meant that continuous progress toward
meeting standards would not be sufficient; compliance with
standards within a period not to exceed two years from
when first noted was the requirement. In the intervening
years, understanding of this requirement has become
widespread, but accreditation practice was significantly
changed by this correction in applying the two-year rule.
The RP Group study was submitted as a contribution to a
dialog related to accreditation in California. As stated in the
study:
We hope this study will contribute
positively to the accreditation
conversations in California, offering
insights into tangible improvements we
can all make and clarifying possible
Page 231
The practice of the ACCJC has
not been to sanction all colleges
that were not in compliance
with all “deficiencies” listed in
visiting team reports and
Commission letters to the
colleges. The treatment of
colleges have not been
consistent - some have been
sanctioned for having
“deficiencies” while others
have not. My examples in
ACCJC Gone Wild document
that fact.
The statement relative to “from
when first noted” contradicts
the statement in many letters to
the colleges that “The
recommendations contained in
the Evaluation Report represent
the best advice of the peer
evaluation team at the time of
the visit, but may not describe
all that is necessary to come
into compliance. Institutions are
expected to take all action
necessary to comply with
Eligibility Requirements,
Accreditation Standards, and
Commission policies." This lack
of specificity is a violation of
both federal and Commission
standards and policy.
Note that the RP Group
suggested improvements by all
but the ACCJC only addresses
the improvements needed to be
made by others - never the
ACCJC itself.
approaches for making the process as
productive and meaningful as possible.
As noted above, since its publication there have been
concerns regarding the methodology of the study itself.
Direct comparisons among regional accreditors are
difficult. While all regional accreditors adhere to the same
set of federal regulations, their application of those
regulations and the implementation of accreditation
practices is specific to their regions and the historical
context of their region. The member organizations for
which each accrediting organization was formed are
different, as is the environment in which they operate.
Even if the numbers of sanctions
are not consistently applied, is it
still true that the ACCJC is out
of step with the other regional
accreditation agencies as shown
in ACCJC Gone Wild?
The author of the RP Group study cited the nature of the
balance between institutions and the accrediting agency. As
stated in the study:
One significant insight that I return to
over and over again is the centrality of
the joint responsibility college and
commission leadership carry within the
accreditation process. There is a delicate
balance between a commission's duty to
uphold standards, its responsibility to
prescribe directions for the colleges and
its efforts to promote quality
improvement beyond basic compliance
through the processes it implements and
the supports it offers. Similarly, the
state's community college leadership
must balance their strategic sense of
institutional direction with their
accountability for appropriately
addressing the accreditation standards.
To a significant degree, the differences
expressed within California are about
how much responsibility ACCJC
shoulders versus the institutional
leadership.
At the heart of the peer review process is a necessary
commitment by each member institution to engage in
ongoing self-evaluation and improvement for the sake of
students, academic quality and institutional effectiveness.
This self-evaluation has to take into account developments
in higher education and changing expectations in the field.
Periodic monitoring and external reviews provide the
Page 232
Note that there is no
discussion by the ACCJC is this
reply regarding the ACCJC’s
emphasis on compliance as
indicated in the RP Group
report.
Again, the ACCJC avoids the
basic question regarding its
levels of sanctions.
And the role of the ACCJC in
helping colleges avoid
sanctions?
I do not like the phrase
evaluation and validation needed by institutions in light of
standards, but will not replace the need for continuous selfevaluation and improvement by each college. Both
elements are vital to successful peer review as a system.
The ACCJC is currently engaged in an extensive review of
its Accreditation Standards. This process will result in
improved and changed processes. However institutional
quality assurance to the public will always be at the
foundation of any actions taken by the Commission.
Martin Hittelman, ACCJC Gone Wild, version 17
You have clarified for us that you wish the complaint to
focus on elements within the seventeenth version of your
article, dated June 8, 2013, 71 pages. Your article reports
on the accredited status of a number of colleges and lists
what purports to be the college-specific recommendations
from evaluation teams. However, the full recommendations
as presented by ACCJC to the colleges included citations to
the standards in which deficiencies were found and for
which peer evaluators were providing recommendations.
Further, the letters in which the recommendations were
communicated to the institutions make special note of the
need for readers to go back to the full team evaluation
report in order to understand better the deficiencies found
and the basis for why the particular actions are
recommended.
“continuous” when speaking of
evaluations and improvements.
The nature of change is that it is
never “continuous” but rather
occurs over time in a
discontinuous manner. The
word “continuous” used in this
way is just misleading jargon.
Why do the standards need to be
improved and the process
changed if ACCJC is as
faultless as it claims in its reply
to my complaint as well as the
complaint of the California
Federation of Teachers and
AFT Local 2121?
Note that they are not
responding to my original
complaint and Third Party
Comment. Anyone who actually
reads my April 30, 2013
complaint and Third Party
Comment would clearly see that
a complaint was included. The
ACCJC never responded to my
original complaint - a violation
of both ACCJC and federal
requirements.
The major issue to focus on is
whether a suggestion by a
visiting team is the same as a
required change made by the
ACCJC in their official vote.
Does the two year rule apply to
any suggested changes a
visiting team makes?
Introduction: The document's introduction notes that
ACCJC works under the Western Association of Schools
and Colleges (WASC) although it seems to be acting to
"distance itself from WASC." This statement
mischaracterizes the relationship between WASC and the
ACCJC, WASC. Prior to July 1, 2013, the Western
Page 233
At the time I wrote the
Introduction this is what seemed
to be happening. The secrecy of
the ACCJC in its operations
makes it difficult to know
Association of Schools and Colleges was a corporate body
that included three independent accrediting agencies: the
ACSCU, the ACCJC, and the ACS, each involved with
different types of educational institutions within the
Western Region. It was determined during a review
commissioned by the WASC board, that it would be more
appropriate for each of the accrediting agencies to
separately incorporate and to locate the organizational
descriptions within each organization's bylaws. This was
needed to legally clarify the intended WASC entity role as
one of affiliation for the three accreditors. Each of the three
accreditors has undertaken the recommended changes.
Page 5 - Goal of accreditation: Academic quality and
institutional effectiveness are at the core of ACCJC
accreditation, as declared in its purpose and standards. The
complaint implies that the sole measure of quality should
be the interaction between a faculty member and a student
in an educational setting. ACCJC's requirements include a
broader set of criteria that include and go beyond the
faculty/student interaction to examine the organizational
structure and infrastructure that supports that interaction
and the manner in which quality in each activity—
including the classroom-- is evaluated, continuously
improved, and communicated. The quality of instruction is
a clear focus within the standards, especially standard II. In
assessing the quality of an institution, the ACCJC applies
all of the Eligibility Requirements (ER), Accreditation
Standards, and Policies that it has identified.
exactly what is happening.
It now appears that what is
described here is what was
being done and future versions
of ACCJC Gone Wild will
reflect that understanding.
I am still not sure why it was
necessary to “legally clarify”
the change.
My argument is not whether the
education of the students is the
only thing to look at in
evaluating a college. My
argument is that a private
organization like the ACCJC
should not have the power to
remove accreditation and thus
close down a college except in
cases where the students are
not getting a quality education
at a reasonable cost. This is not
the reason that ACCJC closed
down Compton College and is
not the reason it is attempting to
remove the accreditation of
CCSF.
Perhaps the issue that I am
raising is more appropriately
addressed at the Congressional
level when Congress considers
the Reauthorization. Never the
less, it is a critical issue that the
public should be concerned with
and the Department of
Education should address.
Page 5 - Clearly defined objectives: ACCJC's objectives
Page 234
are clearly set forth in its standards, including Eligibility
Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission
policies. Member institutions are involved in the
development of standards and agree to abide by them in the
accreditation process.
The statement that they are
clearly set forth is not based on
any evidence. In fact, the reason
that different teams come up
with different recommendations
and often with different
recommendations than the
Commission itself speaks to the
fact that the standards are not
clearly set forth. One only has
to read them to see that they are
not precise enough to make
consistent judgments based on
them. This is a violation of
federal policy.
Page 7 - Interference with mission statement: The ACCJC's
requirements for the institutional mission are included in
Standard I. The standards require that an institution's
mission be reviewed on a regular basis, including the
manner in which the mission informs planning and resource
allocation. Recommendation 1 from the CCSF
comprehensive team evaluation report stated:
Why should the failure to not
review a mission statement that
is in compliance with California
law be enough of a “deficiency”
to close a college down? This
makes no sense at all.
Recommendation 1: Mission Statement
To improve effectiveness of Standard
I.A Mission, the team recommends that
the college establish a prescribed process
and timeline to regularly review the
mission statement and revise it as
necessary. The college should use the
mission statement as the benchmark to
determine institutional priorities and
goals that support and improve academic
programs, student support services and
student learning effectively linked to a
realistic assessment of resources
(I.A.3).
The ACCJC did not require CCSF to change its mission but
only to review it and revise it as necessary to help
determine institutional priorities within a realistic
assessment of resources.
Page 235
The “effectively linked to
realistic assessment of
resources” is one of the issues
at CCSF. Many at CCSF see
this insistence by the ACCJC as
an attempt to reduce the broad
mission that CCSF has been so
correctly proud of. I myself
believe it an attempt to narrow
the requirements of the
California Master Plan and as
such is a violation of California
law and policy.
The CCSF special trustee and
the appointed temporary
Chancellor certainly saw the
dismantling of the college
mission as a requirement in
order to pass accreditation.
They understood what the true
intent of the Commission was.
Page 8 - Micromanaging: Accreditation Standard IV
describes the requirements related to governing boards and
chief executive officers. These are clearly stated and have
successfully undergone scrutiny by the U.S. Department of
Education in its review of ACCJC. Eligibility
Requirements 3 and 4 clarify the respective roles of the
governing board as noted as follows:
3. Governing Board
The institution has a functioning
governing board responsible for the
quality, integrity, and financial
stability of the institution and for
ensuring that the institution's mission
is being carried out. This board is
ultimately responsible for ensuring
that the financial resources of the
institution are used to provide a
sound educational program. Its
membership is sufficient in size and
composition to fulfill all board
responsibilities.
The governing board is an
independent policy-making body
capable of reflecting constituent
and public interest in board
activities and decisions. A majority
of the board members have no
employment, family, ownership, or
other personal financial interest in
the institution. The board adheres to
a conflict of interest policy that
assures those interests are disclosed
and that the interests do not interfere
with the impartiality of governing
body members or outweigh the
greater duty to secure and ensure the
academic and fiscal integrity of the
institution.
4. Chief Executive Officer
The institution has a chief executive
officer appointed by the governing
Page 236
These requirements are more
properly addressed by
California law and not by an
accreditation agency. This may
also be a role that Congress
may have to address.
Again, this should be a matter of
satisfying California law not the
private beliefs of a private
agency.
The voters ultimately decide
whether governing board
members are adequately
performing their duties. This is
the way it works in a
democracy.
How does one enforce the
requirement of "reflecting the
public interest?" This appears
to be a political decision best
made by the voting public
board, whose full-time responsibility
is to the institution, and who
possesses the requisite authority to
administer board policies. Neither
the district/system chief executive
officer nor the institutional chief
executive officer may serve as the
chair of the governing board. The
institution informs the Commission
immediately when there is a change
in the institutional chief executive
officer.
In accordance with ACCJC standards, the role of the
governing is to be an independent policy making body. It
also reflects constituent and the public interest.
Standard IV.B describes the requirements for Board and
Administrative Organization. Standard IV.B through
IB.B.1.b reads as follows:
B. Board and Administrative
Organization
In addition to the leadership of
individuals and constituencies,
institutions recognize the designated
responsibilities of the governing
board for setting policies and of the
chief administrator for the effective
operation of the institution. Multicollege districts/ systems clearly
define the organizational roles of the
district/system and the colleges.
1. The institution has a governing
board that is responsible for
establishing policies to assure the
quality, integrity, and
effectiveness of the student
learning programs and services
and the financial stability of the
institution. The governing board
adheres to a clearly defined
policy for selecting and
evaluating the chief administrator
for the college or the
district/system.
a. The governing board is an
Page 237
independent policy-making
body that reflects the public
interest in board activities
and decisions. Once the
board reaches a decision, it
acts as a whole. It advocates
for and defends the
institution and protects it
from undue influence or
pressure.
b. The governing board
establishes policies consistent
with the mission statement to
ensure the quality, integrity,
and improvement of student
learning programs and
services and the resources
necessary to support them.
This Standard mirrors the Eligibility Requirements noted
above. As noted in the bold section above, the governing
board is responsible for setting policy and the chief
administrator is responsible for the operation of the
institution. The relationship between the governing board
and the chief administrator is further clarified in Standard
IV.B.1.j as follows:
j. The governing board has the
responsibility for selecting and
evaluating the district/system chief
administrator (most often known as the
chancellor) in a multi-college
district/system or the college chief
administrator (most often known as the
president) in the case of a single college.
The governing board delegates full
responsibility and authority to him/her
to implement and administer board
policies without board interference and
holds him/her accountable for the
operation of the district/system or
college, respectively.
As noted in the bold section, the governing board is to
delegate full responsibility and authority to the chief
administrator to administer policies without board
interference.
Page 238
When is influence and pressure
“undue” for a politically elected
board?
The authority of the chief executive
officer (CEO) is a matter of California
law. It is also California policy that
the chief executive officer may
authorize others to carry out the
responsibilities of the CEO - this was
put in law under AB 1725 and then
under Board of Governors regulations.
The delegation of authority is up to the
governing board under California law.
To demand otherwise is a violation of
California law.
If the governing board does not fully
satisfy this goal, should the ACCJC be
allowed to effectively shut down the
college? I think the reasonable answer
is NO.
The question is, where did the ACCJC
get the authority to judge a college
based on its district level activities?
When a sanction includes deficiencies in standards related
to governing board behavior, the ACCJC has made this
determination in accordance with published ERs and
Standards. In multi-college districts, there are occasions
when deficiencies exist within the activities reserved to the
district in support of the colleges. The ACCJC must
evaluate colleges' compliance with standards, including
those functions conducted on behalf of the college by
another entity. Thus, district deficiencies are cited to the
college, which can result in a sanction on the college. In
like fashion, since the governing board has responsibility
for and to the colleges within a district, resolution of
deficiencies must be applied through the colleges.
Situations can exist where multiple colleges within a
district receive a sanction for deficiencies in meeting
standards when the role or function involves the district or
the governing board.
Why "must" it? There is no
documentation to support this
contention.
Is it required that all colleges in a
district be equally sanctioned for the
operation of its district office? Is this
a requirement of consistency of
application?
Page 10 - Adequate staff, resources, and time: This section
of the complaint contains no specifics upon which to base a
response.
The point was that the ACCJC does
not have the staff or resources to fully
investigate and help over twenty
colleges at a time. The fact that the
Commission is seeking to increase the
dues for colleges supports the
financial resources portion of that
conclusion.
Page 11 - WASC: Although not cited in the July 13 letter,
there are some inaccuracies in the "Wild" document that
merit comment.
I have addressed this earlier. Again
the ACCJC Cone of Silence makes it
very difficult to ascertain what is
actually happening with ACCJC and
WASC.
2. As has been noted previously, the organizational and
corporate structure of WASC has been
changed effective July 1, 2013. This has
required technical changes in various
policies of the ACCJC. The changes
noted in the "Wild" document were
technical in nature to comply with the
new corporate structure. The separate
incorporation of each Western Region
accrediting agency as recommended by
the WASC board included the need for
each accrediting agency to state within
its own bylaws certain matters including
an appeal process. The appeal process
Page 239
How does the appeal process differ?
The appeal process now is certainly no
one’s idea of due process. The ACCJC
itself makes the decision as to the
review and appoints the people who
decide if a decision of the Commission
should be reversed.
As pointed out, not all of the regional
accreditation agencies limit appeals to
termination of accreditation.
described in ACCJC bylaws is quite
similar to the process formerly contained
in the WASC constitution. It has been
updated to meet U.S. Department of
Education regulations and guidelines.
3. The federal mandate for appeal is an "adverse action."
Adverse action is defined as termination
or denial of candidacy or accredited
status. Sanctions such as Warning,
Probation, and Show Cause are not
adverse actions and as such are not
subject to appeal. This is consistent with
Federal regulations.
4. The "Wild" document asserts that commissioners have
little time to review institutional
evaluation documents. In fact, materials
are provided to Commissioners several
weeks prior to a Commission meeting.
In situations where additional materials
arrive at the ACCJC too late for
inclusion in the initial shipping, these
materials are provided to Commissioners
as they arrive at the Commission. When
an institution has sent supplemental
information to the Commission short of
the minimum 15 days-before-theCommission-meeting requirement
[Policy on Access to Commission
Meetings, II.A., ARH page 133] ,
ACCJC practice has been to nevertheless
provide that information to
Commissioners.
It should be noted that these same voluminous materials
comprising multiple copies of the originals held on file at
the ACCJC, must be collected and shredded upon
conclusion of each meeting.
Page 240
The several week policy seems to be a
new one since I have learned from
several sources that in the past the
Commissioners received the materials
the night before the first day of the
meeting. Even so, no one could read
and absorb the over 10,000 pages of
material one would need to read.
The Commission did not post the
agenda for the January 2013 meeting
in a timely manner. The actions at the
January 2013 meeting should have
voided.
The shredding of information makes
appealing a decision of the
Commission very difficult. The
Commission should not be allowed to
obliterate evidence that could be used
against it by the Department of
Education or in a courtroom.
One of the hallmarks of ACCJC accreditation practice is
that Commissioners do not act solely to ratify team
reports. Instead, institutional reports and evidence,
previous reports and action letters, and testimony and
documentation provided by the college Chief Executive
Officer, as well as the team reports and recommendations
are reviewed and considered by the Commission before it
takes action on the accredited status of institutions. The
semiannual Commission meeting itself is generally
conducted over three days.
5. Accreditation is an assurance of quality to the public.
The federal regulations for accreditation
delineate the requirements that must be
met by the ACCJC. The ACCJC has
developed its ERs, Accreditation
Standards, and Policies to comply with
the federal requirements and to provide
the assurance to the public of
institutional quality.
Its actions are consistent with the
argument postulated by NACIQI that
accreditation be a system of selfregulation. Member institutions are
involved in the development of the ERs,
Standards, and Policies and volunteer as
members of external evaluation teams in
the peer review process. It is the
position of the ACCJC that the process
currently used is necessary in order to
meet federal requirements and provide
quality assurance.
Page 13 - Mt. San Antonio College: The complaint cites as
evidence in the case of Mt. San Antonio College a
statement that was included as general "boilerplate" in all
action letters from the ACCJC. The 2002 revision of the
Accreditation Standards included enhanced language
related to Student Learning Outcomes (SLO). In order to
assure that institutions had sufficient time to develop
processes related to these standards, the ACCJC provided
ten years for full implementation by colleges of certain
aspects of the SLO requirements. As the end of that
timeline approached, colleges undergoing review were
Page 241
If the only true decision is made by the
Commission itself, how does the
Commission then claim that
suggestions made by Visiting Teams
have the force of a Commission
requirement for accreditation? This is
a critical issue in the case of CCSF
and several other colleges.
It is not enough to say that its actions
are consistent with arguments of the
NACIQI. Some evidence of such
compliance should be included.
Who cares if the ACCJC believes
something, what is important is
whether it is true. Certainly in the area
of the quality of education provided, it
does not provide any assurance. Any
reading of the ACCJC letters will
provide proof of non compliance with
federal requirements.
reminded in action letters about the need to fully meet SLO
standards. The statement cited in the complaint was only a
reminder of the deadline for the full implementation of
SLOs. Mt. San Antonio College was in full compliance
with all standards at the time of its evaluation. At the time
of the evaluation visit to Mt. San Antonio College, no
colleges were subject to sanction based on the Standards
related to SLOs.
Page 13 - Sanction criteria: The level of sanction, if any,
applied by the ACCJC is based on the degree of deviation
from the Standards based on the judgment of the evaluation
team and the Commission.
6. Institutional evaluations are conducted by peer
evaluators who are professionals in the
field. They apply standards
consistently and fairly to all
institutions. Colleges which have
deficiencies as to particular standards
may receive different recommendations
from the evaluation teamsrecommendations relevant to the
circumstances of the institution in
question- for how to address the
deficiency. This is one of the benefits of
the peer evaluation process and does not
represent a disparate application of the
standards themselves. Institutions are
advised in Commission action letters to
refer to the more detailed language of
the team report in understanding the
findings and cited deficiencies in
compliance with standards that led to the
team's recommendations. In many of the
instances of sanction noted within the
"Wild" document, deviations from
standards noted by prior evaluation
teams had not been given the necessary
attention by the college.
7. Not all of the Regional Accrediting Agencies apply the
same sanctions. However the sanctions
structure of the Regions is similar. The
criteria applied by Middle States for
PROBATION are consistent with those
Page 242
The degrees of deviation required for
the levels of sanction are not well
spelled out in ACCJC policy. This
causes Visiting Team
recommendations to differ from final
ACCJC decisions.
To say it something is true doesn’t
make it true. In fact they do not apply
standards consistently and fairly to all
institutions. ACCJC Gone Wild details
how this is not true for a variety of
colleges.
If this is not disparate application,
what is?
The question remains, which findings
are the finding of the ACCJC itself
and not just the Visiting Team’s. Are
they all equally valid in relationship
with the two-year rule?
So what is the correct comparison of
sanction levels issued by the various
regional accreditors? I am sure that
any comparison would clearly show
that ACCJC is out of step with the rest
of the ACCJC. Those who wish to
compare levels of sanction in the
Western Region against those of other
regional accreditors often fail to
recognize that some regional accreditors
have used private sanctions which have
not been made public, reserving public
notice only for severe sanctions. In
addition, some accreditors do not require
that all accreditation reports and action
letters be made available to the public.
These practices, while more comfortable
for member institutions, create a
misimpression for the public that the
lack of notice means there are no
deficiencies related to standards at an
institution. The practice of nonpublic
notices at certain levels has also come
into question of late as to whether it
meets regulatory disclosure
requirements. Definitions of sanction
also vary among the regional accreditors.
For some accreditors, the term probation
is used to identify the most severe
sanction prior to termination of
accreditation. ACCJC also imposes
probation, but has identified a more
severe sanction, Show Cause, for when
institutions are in substantial noncompliance with standards or when the
institution has not responded to the
conditions imposed by the Commission.
In the situation of "Show Cause," the
substantial non-compliance and/or nonresponse to imposed conditions are such
that the institution must demonstrate
why its accreditation should not be
withdrawn at the end of a stated period.
Because member institutions must meet
and demonstrate compliance with
standards at all times, the substantial
non-compliance implicates an
institution's eligibility to maintain
accredited status beyond the limited
period of time given to demonstrate
compliance again. Finally, it must be
noted that environmental and structural
Page 243
of the nation.
What does the “come into question”
mean and who has called it into
question?
Is it possible for an institution to
“meet and demonstrate compliance
with standards at all times.” Does not
the ACCJC have some responsibility to
direct colleges to come into
compliance before issuing sanctions?
Should a college be held to some
standard that it does not even know it
is somehow violating?
conditions within certain states and
systems can alter the prevalence of
issues related to meeting standards.
Collective bargaining climates, different
levels of state regulation, election versus
appointment of governing boards, and
other factors play a role in the variations
found across the regions and within
regions. In the Western Region,
variations are found between California,
Hawaii, and the seven Western Pacific
affiliates. In California, external review
agencies are finding, as has also been
noted in accreditation reviews, that
difficulties in governance and leadership
are impacting the stability and
effectiveness of a number of public
community colleges. It is worthy to note
that availability of growth funds in times
past may have masked the impact of
organizational decisions, which, in
today's fiscal environment, become
patently obvious. The earlier ability of
institutions to hold multiple missions
of equal priority in terms of
commitment, resource allocation,
effectiveness and quality, is another
area which has been altered by
external forces in today's fiscal,
governmental, and political
environment.
8. Two Year Rule: Regulations require that if an
institution is found to not be in
compliance with any standard, the
accrediting agency must immediately
initiate adverse action against the
institution or require the institution to
come into compliance within a period
not to exceed two years. 34 C.F.R. §
602.20.
Here is the red flag regarding the
demand by the ACCJC for colleges to
give up their adherence to the
California Master Plan.
I assume that the “adverse action”
noted here is removal of accreditation.
It makes no sense to remove
accreditation for non compliance with
just one standard that has very little to
do with the quality of education
provided. In fact, if this statement were
true, every community college in
California would be denied
accreditation. Every Visiting Team
report includes at least one instance of
non-compliance with a standard at the
college visited.
If this is true then the Department of
Education needs to change its policy
or Congress must insist that this policy
be changed. It makes no sense that
some minor concern should be the
cause of the virtual closure of a
college.
This is not reflected in the letters to
Page 244
Beginning in 2008, the ACCJC shifted
its interpretation of this regulation.
Whereas prior to that time, the
Commission had applied the regulation
to deficiencies noted as a part of a
sanction, it was clarified during the 2007
U.S. Department of Education
recognition review of ACCJC that
regulatory intent was for the language
"not to be in compliance with any
standard" to apply to all deficiencies in
compliance with standards.
Further, the time requirement for an institution to "come
into compliance within a period not to exceed two years"
began to run when the deficiency was first noted as
such.
As this shift represented a significant departure from past
practice, multiple notifications were provided to member
institutions, and trainings and manuals were adapted to
provide for the corrected application of regulations.
The Two-Year Rule, as it is referred to
in the ACCJC Western Region, has been
one of the single-most important
changes in accreditation practice over
the past several years. Whereas
continuing progress of a college in a
positive direction may have prevented
serious action by the Commission in
earlier times, removal of deficiencies
within the designated time is now the
expectation. Both the ACCJC and its
member institutions have a heightened
awareness of the need for compliance
with standards at all times.
Page 16 - Focus on input, not output: The reasons cited for
sanction have been summarized by the ACCJC. Program
outcomes are a major component of ACCJC's evaluation of
Page 245
colleges which often mention that "The
recommendations contained in the
Evaluation Report represent the best
advice of the peer evaluation team at
the time of the visit, but may not
describe all that is necessary to come
into compliance. Institutions are
expected to take all action necessary to
comply with Eligibility Requirements,
Accreditation Standards, and
Commission policies." This lack of
specificity is a violation of both federal
and Commission standards and policy.
But what represent “compliance” is
not well understood especially if it is
making the changes suggested by a
Visiting Team that was not ratified by
the Commission itself.
And the amount of data required has
caused the hiring of research positions
unaffordable for many colleges.
institutions. The ACCJC Guide to Evaluating Institutions
provides direction to college on the types and quantity of
data to be summarized and presented in order to reflect the
quality of the institution.
Pages 17 to 22 of the "Wild" document cite the results of
institutional evaluations with a focus on the numbers of
sanctions imposed. However this summary fails to note the
reasons individual colleges were placed on sanction. The
summaries cited on pages 16 and 17 focus on the results of
the evaluations without any type of perspective on the
basis or causal factors that resulted in the actions.
Page 22 - Governing boards: In those cases where internal
governance or the governing board were cited among the
deficiencies leading to sanction, the governance processes
of those colleges were judged as deficient in relation to the
Standards. Standards related to governing board
expectations have been discussed above. Commission
actions are not inconsistent or at variance with
California law.
Page 23 - Consideration of reports: The complaint
incorrectly assumes that all of the analysis of colleges
occurs during the period of the Commission meeting.
Commissioners are provided with all relevant materials,
including institutional self-evaluation reports, evaluating
team reports, related reports from the historical record, and
other evidence several weeks in advance of each meeting.
The commissioners have access to the institutional history
and the evaluation team reports.
How would such “perspective” have
changed the conclusions drawn - that
ACCJC is out of step with the rest of
the nation.
Many of the standards are inconsistent
with California law in the ways that I
have indicated.
To say they are not inconsistent or at
variance does not make it true. See the
CFT complaint for proof that they are
inconsistent and at variance.
This must be a new policy of the
ACCJC as I have heard from many
sources that in the past the materials
were given to the Commissioners the
night before the meetings. In any case,
it would be impossible for any
Commissioner to read the over 10,000
pages of documentation and
understand each of them as they apply
to that college. The discussions at the
closed to the public meetings of the
Commission could not have been very
extensive if over twenty colleges are
considered over the two days of secret
meeting.
Is one day of training and one on-line
course enough? Not according to
members of Visiting Teams that I have
discussed this with nor to the college
faculty members who interacted with
the Teams. This is something that the
Department of Education should fully
investigate.
Page 24 - team training: Evaluation team members
participate in a one-day training session with their
evaluation team prior to the evaluation visit. All team
members also complete a required on-line course,
"Accreditation Basics," prior to their first evaluation team
visit. Team members are provided with all relevant
documents well in advance of the actual team visit.
Additionally, teams are made up of mostly experienced
team members who have been on prior visits. Only a few
Page 246
What about the heavy bias toward
administrators on the team? What
about the heavy bias in favor of
administrative control of the
governance process or the narrow
self-interest views of fiscal managers?
team members will be on their first visit. Team members
also have experience with the accreditation process,
including the development of a self-evaluation report, from
their home campus. They are also experienced
professionals with in-depth backgrounds in areas related to
their responsibility on the evaluation visit. Given their
training and experience, it would be inaccurate to cite
evaluation team members as unqualified and unprepared to
participate in this peer evaluation process.
Should an institution have any issue with a team member, it
can avail itself of the due process ability challenge any
proposed team member for conflict or other cause.
Page 25 - Public record: Evaluation teams complete a
confidential recommendation regarding institutions prior to
the completion of their on-site visit. It is made clear to
evaluation teams that this is a recommendation only, from
team to Commission; it does not carry any decisional
weight. The decision on the accredited status of a college is
made by the Commission. Evaluation teams will also have
completed much of their draft evaluation report prior to the
end of the on-site visit. Responsibility for completing the
team report falls to the team chair.
After the team chair completes an initial draft evaluation
report, the chair will share the report with an ACCJC staff
member. This review is done to ensure that reports are
clear, address all essential and required components for
team reports, and are grammatically correct and consistent
with Commission requirements.
The team chair does not share the confidential
recommendation of the evaluation team with the staff
member.
In any case, since the confidential team recommendation
has already been completed at this point of the process, a
staff member is unable to influence that recommendation.
After an evaluation report has been finalized, it is included
Page 247
How would a college know of the lack
of training or knowledge needed to
make good judgments until after they
have been on campus and demonstrate
their ignorance?
I have heard that not all teams
actually sign the confidential
recommendation.
Since the Visiting Team report carries
no “decisional weight” how can the
ACCJC then hold colleges to
recommendations made by the
Visiting Teams but not given a stamp
of approval by the ACCJC itself. A
clear accreditation indicates that
there is no violation of policy by the
college. Otherwise, a sanction “must
be given.”
This verifies the RP Group and my
conclusion that the Visiting Team
Report is changed after the Visiting
Team itself has finished its work.
I do not believe that “The team chair
does not share the confidential
recommendation of the evaluation
team with the staff member.” An
investigation by the Department of
Education should prove the claim is
false.
This point makes no difference since
the real decisions are made at the
secret Commission meetings.
How is it possible for all the 10,000
pages of documentation to be
discussed at a two day meeting? How
do we how a majority of those voting
voted unless the vote is made public?
in the Commission's agenda and forwarded to the
commissioners as described above.
The report and all related college documents, including
historical documents since the previous comprehensive
evaluation, are discussed by all commissioners at the
Commission meeting and a decision is made. Commission
decisions are based on a majority of Commissioners voting.
Based on the circumstances of a particular case and in
accordance with the ACCJC Conflict of Interest Policy,
individual commissioners may be recused or abstain from
voting on a particular action.
All Commission actions are published in accordance with
USDE regulations within 30 days of the conclusion of the
Commission meeting. The actions are posted on the
ACCJC web site and all colleges are sent an action letter
that delineates the Commission Action on the institution
and describes any follow-up action required by the
institution. Institutions are required by the public disclosure
requirements of the ACCJC to make public all documents
related to the evaluation including the Self-Evaluation
Report, the Evaluation Team report, and the Action letter.
The ACCJC requires that accreditation information be
located no more than one mouse-click from the institution's
home web page. The deliberations of the ACCJC are
conducted in accordance with the Policy on Public
Disclosure and Confidentiality in the Accreditation
Process, and accreditation results and status are made
public and transparent in accordance with federal
regulations.
Page 26/27 - Kinsella and Gornick conflict: The complaint
cites that Dr. Steve Kinsella and Dr. Frank Gornick have a
conflict of interest because of their prior relationship with
the CCLC Joint Powers Authority. There is no financial or
organizational relationship between the ACCJC and the
CCLC - JPA. Therefore there is no actual or apparent
conflict of interest. Moreover, the suggestion that
professional involvement of Commissioners, team
members, and other representatives of ACCJC touching on
subjects related to accreditation or on improvements in the
field of higher education should be considered a conflict of
Page 248
How do we know that conflicts of
interest do not arise in the voting?
This is something the Department of
Education should demand happen.
Commission members should be
accountable for their votes.
They only must make public those
documents mentioned, not any private
letters or discussions with President
Beno. The real decisions are made
behind closed doors.
The Policy should be changed to
comply with California’s Brown Act.
Federal Regulations should be written
in order to require more transparency
on the part of the ACCJC. The existing
cone of silence should be lifted.
They certainly have the appearance of
a conflict of interest. As such the
ACCJC is in violation of their own
policy.
The continued relationship with CCLC
is the issue.
It clearly does not guard against such
conflict of interest. This is even more
evident when the process of discussion
and decsion is not done in public.
interest is disturbing. This is an untenable position. It is that
very professional involvement and expertise that enhances
the value of the peer accreditation process for member
institutions and lends to the credibility of the process. The
Commission's Policy on Conflict of Interest for
Commissioners, Evaluation Team Members, Consultants,
Administrative Staff, and Other Agency Representatives
and its consistent application by ACCJC guards against
conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflict.
Due process provisions in ACCJC policy provide another
safeguard to member institutions in this area.
Pages 29-66 - citations regarding numerous actions by the
ACCJC: All sanctions imposed on the colleges identified in
the referenced pages were cited for deficiencies related to
ACCJC Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards,
and Policies. All of the effected colleges were notified via
an ACCJC Action Letter of the accredited status,
deficiencies, and required follow-up actions. As was noted
above, the ACCJC Commission retains unto itself the final
decision on the accredited status of a college. The
evaluation team provides the Commission with a
Confidential Recommendation. However it is a
recommendation by the team based upon its external
evaluation only, without decisional weight. The decision
regarding accredited status is made by the ACCJC
Commission by majority vote as detailed above.
Evaluation teams typically cite colleges with
commendations as well as noting deficiencies and
developing recommendations to the colleges on how these
deficiencies might be addressed. Team reports include
extensive analysis regarding the institution's compliance
with Standards. A team is charged with noting both
effective and deficient practices. However, the
Commission's decision on accredited status is based upon
an institution's compliance with standards, in accordance
with the Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions.
There is no "averaging" of commendations over
recommendations. In the action letter, the Commission
reminds institutions to review the entire team report so that
it can benefit from all of the observations and findings of
the external peer evaluators.
Page 66 - Interference with collective bargaining:
Collective bargaining is a relationship that exists between
Page 249
There is little if any due process for
member institutions and none for the
faculty or the students of the
institutions.
The difference between required
changes versus suggested
improvements is not made clear in the
letters to the colleges.
Again the disclaimer that the Visiting
Team Report has no decisional
weight. As such its
“recommendations” should also have
no weight.
It is interesting that the positives noted
most often deal with the quality of
instruction and the outreach to the
needs of community.
To “benefit” from insights and the
requirement to adhere to the
suggestions of the Visiting Team are
two very different things.
Beno was reported to tell the faculty at
a college without a collective
bargaining agent that such an
arrangement is a good thing. She also
was reported to have told another
college faculty that if their college
loses accreditation, that all the faculty
will be out of work - unlike what
happened at Compton.
The college administration is often met
with the question of whether to obey
state and federal law or ACCJC
demands.
an institution and the collective bargaining agents selected
by the institution's employees. The ACCJC neither
interferes nor endorses these relationships. The ACCJC's
relationship is with its member institutions, and its
expectation is that the member institutions comply with
ERs, Standards, and Commission policies. Whether
employees at member institutions are represented by labor
unions or not, institutional leaders are charged with
improvement of the teaching and learning environment,
assuring implementation of statutes and policies,
effectively controlling budgets and expenditures, and
exercising effective leadership in planning, organizing,
budgeting, selecting and developing personnel, and
assessing institutional effectiveness to assure the quality of
the institution. [Standard IV.B.2] Institutions must assure
the financial integrity of the institution and responsible use
of its financial resources. When making short-range
financial plans, the institution must consider its longrange liabilities and obligations. There must be sound
financial practices, financial stability, and a reasonable
expectation of both short-term and long-term financial
solvency. [Standard III.D.] While there is no mention of
labor unions specifically, the standards require that:
"Contractual agreements with external entities are
consistent with the mission and goals of the institution,
governed by institutional policies, and contain appropriate
provisions to maintain the integrity of the institution."
[Standard III.D.3.g]
The Standards are silent on unions, as they are designed to
broadly apply to all member institutions, some of which do
not have faculty unions. The ACCJC standards do not
describe or define the manner in which participation
happens at a member institution. However, the Standards
are very clear that faculty members have a distinctive role
in instruction, curriculum, student learning outcomes, and
related areas, and a substantial role in institutional
governance, exercising a substantial voice in institutional
policies, planning and budget that relate to their areas of
responsibility and expertise. [Standards II.A and IV.A]
"The institution relies on faculty, its academic senate or
other appropriate faculty structures, the curriculum
committee, and academic administrators for
recommendations about student learning programs and
services." [Standard IV.A.2.b] At CCSF and many other
member institutions, institutional faculty who are
represented by labor unions make up the "faculty,"
Page 250
A district need only consider the longrange liabilities, it need not fund them
but is allowed by law to continue a
“pay as you go” system. The letter to
the college from the ACCJC often
gives a different impression.
"academic senate," and "other appropriate faculty
structures" mentioned in Standards. They are critical to the
success and quality of an institution and to meeting the
Standards. ACCJC standards do not set out the manner in
which an institution will meet the standards related to
faculty participation; it is the institution and its members,
working within the institution's mission, who establish
policies and practices in these areas.
As to labor negotiations, the responsibility for contracting
with labor unions falls to the institutional Chief Executive
Officer and delegates, with approval of contracts by
governing boards. In the negotiations, as in every activity
conducted, the CEO and delegates, and the governing
boards, must operate within standards. It is not an
interference with labor negotiations for ACCJC Standards
to require that institutions allocate resources for
payment of liabilities and future obligations [Standard
III.D.1.c] or that faculty and others directly responsible for
student progress toward achieving stated student learning
outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation,
effectiveness in producing those outcomes. [Standard
III.A.1.c] Rather, the standards provide general guidance
for the present-day effectiveness and the future
sustainability of the institution. These are both vital to
students and prospective students in the community.
Page 67 - failure to address complaints of M. Hittleman
(sic): The ACCJC did not understand your opposition to
components of the Accreditation Standards as a complaint
against the ACCJC. The ACCJC received your various
correspondences as a disagreement with the Standards.
However given the Standards were adopted by the member
institutions with the components disagreed with, the
disagreement did not result in any change to Standards.
The complaint by the CFT is a separate complaint. It has
been addressed by the ACCJC. Additionally, since the
complaint was also forwarded to the U.S. Department of
Education, it has been responded to in that context.
The method of recognizing future
obligations is a matter for state and
federal law and not a direction that an
accreditation commission should
demand.
The component of a faculty member’s
evaluation is determined by the
Collective Bargaining Agreement and
the ACCJC cannot legally require
colleges to include SLOs in the
evaluation. This would be
interference with the Collective
Bargaining process.
In addition to spelling my name
wrong, the lack of understanding that
my April 30, 2013 e-mail was not a
complaint only reinforces the feeling
that the ACCJC staff member
responsible did not read it carefully.
The fact that I copied the Department
of Education should have been an
additional indication that I was filing a
complaint as well as a Third Party
Comment (which was never replied
to). This was a violation of federal
requirements.
The CFT complaint was met with the
same low level of response as I have
received.
Received but not considered. In fact,
the Commission was not even willing
(at first) to even listen to the State
Community College Chancellor on the
isse.
Again, there is no disagreement
offered here with the finding of the
Report, only with the structure of the
study. This is in keeping with the
ACCJC focus on process rather than
content.
Page 251
Page 75-77 - Response to the Chancellor's Task Force: In
various venues, the ACCJC has received the concerns and
recommendations voiced by the California Community
Colleges Accreditation Task Force. The recommendations
were received and considered.
Addressed but not answered with
respect to California law.
They have not historically been posted
and the ACCJC office has not been
forthcoming when calls have been
made to find out where the meeting
will be held.
Page 77-79 - RP Group: See the discussion above
concerning the RP Group study.
Page 80-82 - Interference with governing boards: Issues
related to governing boards were addressed above.
Page 82-83 - Timelines for agenda posting: Locations for
ACCJC Commission meetings are posted well in advance
of meetings. Institutions know they are scheduled to be on
the agenda of the Commission meeting following the
submission of their report, and are also aware of the
location.
The Commission conducts business at two meetings per
year. Each meeting includes a Public Session and a Closed
Session. Commission decisions related to policy are made
in the public session. Commission decisions related to
member institutions are made in the closed session. The
ACCJC Accreditation Standards and Policies are published
each year in the Accreditation Reference Handbook. In
accordance with ACCJC Policy:
The Commission provides "an
opportunity for institutional
representatives and the general public to
attend those portions of Commission
meetings devoted to policy matters and
others of a non-confidential nature."
Policy on Commission Good Practice in
Relations with Member Institutions,
Section 21.
Page 252
The Public Session occurs after all
decisions regarding colleges have
been made. As a result, faculty and
students have no input relative to the
decision being made.
At the meeting in June of 2013 the
majority of those wishing to attend the
“Open” meeting were not allowed
into the hearing room although the
maximum size of the room had not
been met. This violates the policy of
the ACCJC. Even a reporter from the
San Francisco Chronicle was refused
entry.
This has not always happened as it did
not happen for the January 2013
meeting.
Public Sessions of the Commission
Meeting
The President mails a preliminary
agenda 30 days before each regular
meeting of the Commission to the Chief
Executive Officer and Accreditation
Liaison Officer of all applicant,
candidate, and accredited institutions
with the request that the agenda be
posted or otherwise publicized. The
preliminary agenda is also posted on the
Commission web page. Policy on Access
to Commission Meetings, Section 1.
The Commission has consistently distributed to CEOs and
ALOs the preliminary agendas of public sessions 30 days
before each regular meeting. These college officials are
asked to disseminate information about the meeting at their
institutions. In addition, the Commission posts a draft
agenda on its website in advance of the meeting. Though
there is no time designation for posting the agenda on the
accjc.org website, the draft agenda is generally posted two
to three weeks before a meeting, and includes any updates
available to the agenda since mailing of the preliminary
agenda.
The ACCJC conducts both Public Sessions and Closed
Sessions at its Commission meetings two times per year.
As discussed in the section above, preliminary agendas for
Public Sessions are sent out to the CEOs and ALOs at all of
the member, candidate and applicant institutions. The
CEOs and ALOs of colleges being considered for
Commission action in the Closed Session are well aware of
their institution's placement on the agenda of that meeting.
The institutions have all submitted reports (some have also
had team visits) in preparation for the Commission's
consideration. Colleges undergoing a comprehensive
evaluation have been preparing for two years in
anticipation of this event; those undergoing a follow-up
evaluation have been preparing for six months to a year. In
advance of the Commission meeting, CEOs have had the
opportunity to review draft reports and submit proposed
corrections.
In accordance with ACCJC Policy:
The Commission provides "institutions
Page 253
Does “consistently” here mean the
same thing as “always?”
The ACCJC should have a
requirement for the posting of the
agenda on the website at least thirty
days before a meeting.
Why does the faculty not have a
chance to review the draft report?
What happens after the report is
rewritten? Does anyone from the
campus see the revision prior to the
meeting of the Commission? How will
they know what to respond to?
The problem with appearing before the
Commission is that the college
administration is not aware of what
level of sanction is being considered.
They thus have no real chance to make
their case before the Commission.
Most colleges choose not to appear
because they do not want to raise the
profile of their college before this
body.
due process concerning accrediting
decisions made by the Commission:
Institutions are provided an opportunity
to respond in writing to draft External
Evaluation Reports in order to correct
errors of fact; to respond in writing (no
less than 15 days in advance of the
Commission meeting) to final External
Evaluation Reports on issues of
substance and to any Accreditation
Standard deficiencies noted in the report;
and to appear before the Commission
when reports are considered." Policy on
Commission Good Practice in Relations
with Member Institutions, Section 20.
When the Commission is deliberating or
acting upon matters that concern an
institution, it will invite the Chief
Executive Officer of the institution to
meet with the Commission... If the
institution wants to bring written
material to the Commission's attention it
should be submitted to the Commission
no less than 15 days before the meeting.
Policy on Access to Commission
Meetings, Section II.
The process of policy revision is not dependent solely on
Commission meeting agendas for notification to the field.
Institutional policies are initially presented for first reading
to the Commission at the Commission Public Session by
the policy committee. Then, within a month of the meeting,
notification is sent to CEOs and ALOs at member
institutions of the policies under consideration. That
notification includes the language of proposed policy
revisions and the dates for submitting comment on those
proposed revisions (generally eight to ten weeks). The
proposed policy revisions are posted online at that time, as
well. After the close of the comment period, the policy
committee reviews the proposed revisions and comments
from the field; the finally revised policies are presented at
the next Commission meeting for second reading and
adoption.
The policies under review and available for comment can
Page 254
Again, the CEO has not seen the final
report nor the recommendations for
sanction. Is this really a fair “due
process” procedure? I think not.
The change is policy regarding the
shredding of materials did not follow
this process - a violation of ACCJC
policy.
The document fully explained that it
included a complaint and spelled out
the nature of the complaint.
The ACCJC was in violation of its
policy based on the lateness of this
response to my original complaint of
April 30, 2013.
Was there ever an investigation? If so,
be found on the accjc.org website following the link on the
home page entitled "Recent Commission Actions."
Recently adopted policy revisions can be found at this
location as well.
what witnesses were interviewed and
were Visiting Team Reports reviewed
to see if they were consistent across
campuses? In short, how was the
“investigation” handled?
Page 83-88 - Failure to respond to complaint: The ACCJC
received a document entitled THIRD PARTY COMMENT,
with two published articles attached. The comment in the
form itself was general in nature. ACCJC staff treated this
material as Third Party Comment and responded to you
accordingly. Since receiving confirmation from you this
was also to be treated as a complaint against the ACCJC,
the ACCJC has proceeded to process and investigate it as
such, culminating in this report of the outcome.
Finally, who actually prepared the
letter and when did the Commission
approve it?
This concludes explanatory notes concerning the
investigation of your complaint.
Sincerely,
Krista Johns
Vice President for Policy and Research
October 1, 2013 Hittelman Request for Information
On October 1, 2013 I wrote to the ACCJC requesting information regarding the copies of the ACCJC
Appeals Procedure Manual as well as information regarding the information on the upcoming review of
the decision regarding CCSF.
I received a reply from Krista Johns, ACCJC Vice President for Policy and Research, on October 8, 2013.
It was the usual type of reply one gets from ACCJC. Vice President Johns declared that “We are not
currently providing the ACCJC Appeals Procedure Manual on request.” She notes that it is her belief that
such “procedural details that would only be of interest to an institution at such time as the institution is
eligible for and decides to initiate an appeal.“ I would think it should be the public’s decision whether
such information would be of interest. It is of interest to me or I would not have written the letter
requesting the information. In fact one of the items I found interesting was Section M “Release of
Information about the Appeal to the Public. Details about the appeal in general, including the Hearing,
are to remain confidential unless the Institution, the Commission, and the Chair of the Hearing Panel
agree otherwise. Accordingly, information about the time and place of the Hearing, the identity of the
Page 255
Hearing Panel members, the grounds for appeal, strategies for appeal, and documents submitted by
either party that describe its arguments and positions relative to the appeal may not be disclosed to the
general public, the press, or posted on any website. Failure to respect this restriction by the Institution
shall be grounds for the dismissal of the appeal. Failure to respect this restriction by the Commission
shall be grounds for the Chair to rule that the Commission shall pay all of the Institution’s legal and
witness costs connected with the appeal.”
The Process itself, as described in the Manual (which is attached to this document and obtained
from a source other than the ACCJC), is pretty heavily tilted in favor of the ACCJC. There is no
appeal after this appeal process.
Ms. Johns notes in the letter that “ as President Emeritus of the California Federation of Teachers (CFT),
you are intimately involved with CFT. The CFT is a plaintiff in litigation against ACCJC. Our legal
counsel has advised that we should not respond to questions or requests that may pertain to the issues in
the litigation.” The issue in my request is to see the Manual. I am not sure how that is related to the
litigation.
Johns continues “With respect to your questions about the completion of selection and names of review
committee members, at this time those details will remain confidential to anyone who is not directly
involved in that process either on behalf of ACCJC or the institution.”
As before, Johns believes that somehow confidentiality is somehow useful in “order to preserve the
integrity of the review process from the undue influence of outside parties and to protect the privacy of
everyone involved.” This is an interesting statement in light of the rigged nature of the process itself.
She then goes on with the statement that “Several members of the Commission and Commission staff have
been inappropriately contacted, pressured or otherwise harassed by members of the public who may be
associated the CFT. To protect against further inappropriate contacts and attempts to compromise the
objectivity and integrity of this process, other details of ACCJC's review process, including names of the
review committee members, will not be shared.” Again, I am not sure what “objectivity and integrity of
this process” actually exists.
The Lumina Foundation and the ACCJC
The Lumina Foundation is a private, Indianapolis-based foundation with about $1.4 billion in assets. It
came out of the USA Group. The USA Group, Inc. was founded after the year 2000 and is a large private
guarantor and administrator of education loans. It then sold most of its operating assets to the Student
Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae). The Lumina Foundation was created with $770 million from
the sale. The Foundation was renamed Lumina Foundation for Education in February, 2001.
Lumina’s declared mission is to “expand student access to and success in education beyond high school.”
Lumina attempts to identify and support what they consider effective practice. They are a public policy
advocate and use their foundation to communicate to the public what they believe will work in increasing
the number of graduates in the United States.
Lumina helped sponsor the 2011 Annual conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC). ALEC helps develop right wing legislative “model bills.” Most recently ALEC helped move
Page 256
forward anti-democratic voter ID laws, anti-union right-to-work laws, and anti-gun control laws.
Almost 98% of ALEC's funding comes from Exxon Mobil, Reynolds American, Altria, corporate
"foundations" like the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, or trade associations like the
pharmaceutical industry's PhRMA as well as other like minded corporations. A small amount of money
comes from legislative dues. The stated goal of Lumina is to increase graduation rates but the method
they propose to accomplish that is more data collection and the narrowing of curriculum.
The Lumina Foundation has given the ACCJC $450,000 in grant funding in order to fund a project which
they call “Application of the Degree Qualification Profile (DQP) to Two-Year Colleges in the Western
Region.” Lumina is attempting to influence accreditation standards that would require the identification of
and measurement of desired educational outcomes. This grant is in addition to the $1.5 million given to
WASC to redesign its accreditation process. The ACCJC project involves a “Tuning Clusters” project
and an “Associate Degree Cohorts” project. The first will have faculty from Riverside Community
College, Copper Mountain College and Fullerton College identifying “the learning outcomes, the
culminating skills and knowledge” for the new and highly controversial and narrow AAT and AST
degrees designed to meet Californa State University requirements for transfer.
The Associate Degree Cohorts will attempt to identify “culminating outcomes in career-technical degrees,
discipline specific transfer degrees, and/or liberal arts (general education) degrees.” The colleges involved
in this project include Berkeley City College, Cerritos College, Gavilan College, Grossmont College,
MiraCosta College, Mission College, Pasadena City College, Sacramento City College, Saddleback
College, Santa Rosa Junior College, Shasta College, and West Hills College Coalinga.
Interestingly, four of the colleges chosen have a member of the ACCJC Commission from their
college. In addition, five of the colleges have an ACCJC staff person who came from the college.
Virtually all of the colleges have faculty or administrators that have served on visiting teams. In short, this
is an inside game.
The above initiative is a part of an initiative called “Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count.”
The initiative is attempting to get colleges to “focus” on “understanding and making better use of data.”
Since data collection is one of the primary goals of the ACCJC standards, this privately funded initiative
fits right in with ACCJC’s ideological bent.. Achieving the Dream is funded by the Lumina Foundation
for Education, CollegeSpeak Washington, the Heinz Endowments, Houston Endowmen Inc, Knowledge
Works Foundation, and Nellie Mae Education Foundation.
The Lumina Foundation supported the publication of a Policy Brief issued in October of 2006 by Radh
Roy Biswas entitled “A Supporting Role: How Accreditors Can Help Promote the Success of Community
College Students.” Understanding the paper helps one to understand what has been happening in the
ACCJC under the direction of Barbara Beno. For example, Biswas writes “There is a growing sense,
among institutions and accrediting bodies alike, that accreditation would benefit from moving toward an
ongoing process of continuous improvement based on a culture of evidence, built around the central
themes of student learning and student success.” She continues “Institutional expertise around evaluation
and measurement is an issue, as is institutional research capacity that can help colleges do this, but
more important for colleges is to know what to measure. This will require collaboration between
accreditors and their colleges and their faculty members to arrive at a consensus on some common,
acceptable measures of student learning and student success.” The ACCJC has been an engine for the
Page 257
increased hiring by colleges of administrative research positions by referencing the need for more
research positions in their sanction letters.
In October of 2013 the Lumina Foundation awarded the Institute for Evidence-Based Change (IEBC) a
$1 million three-year grant to support an expansion of Tuning USA. The grant is to support work by the
American Historical Foundation, the Midwest Education Compact, and the ACCJC. IEBC seeks to align
high school exit expectations and college entrance expectations. The IEBC has developed curriculum
guides for use in California in the areas of math and English. It is a umbrella organization for the CalPASS program. The Board of Directors of the IEBC include Omero Suarez (a past Chancellor in the
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District) and David Wolf (past Executive Director of the
ACCJC). The Founders of IEBC include several community college districts (Cabrillo, Coast, College of
the Desert, Fullerton College, Saddleback College, and West Hills) as well as the Lumina Foundation, the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, the Walter S. Johnson Foundation, and
the Stuart Foundation.
Behavior of the ACCJC
Again, quoting Carl Friedlander, “ACCJC sanctions colleges with a frequency and ferocity unheard of
in any other region of the U.S. (or in the four-year section of WASC). The comparative data is clear
and mind-boggling.”
“Meeting and documenting compliance with accreditation standards is not a favorite faculty activity
anywhere in American higher education—especially in the brave new world of Student Learning
Outcomes (SLO's).
“Faculty across the country may grouse about the work involved in accreditation, but only in the
California community colleges do faculty find themselves fantasizing about shifting to a new
Commission that can accredit our colleges or even substituting state oversight for ACCJC oversight.
We consider these desperate alternatives because the relationship between ACCJC and the California
community colleges has become rather toxic.”
“These kinds of behaviors by ACCJC leadership compound the problem of the federal pressures and make many faculty feel that accreditation in California today has almost nothing to do with
"peer and professional review" and is instead about ACCJC spearheading an aggressive (and, many
believe, misguided) "reform" agenda. Spearheading a "reform" campaign is not the business of an
accrediting commission.”
It is sad that the ACCJC has not acted on its understanding of what the colleges have been facing
in determining reasonable sanctions. Instead, it has added to the college woes. The colleges have
enough to worry about without also being required to exist under the yoke of the ACCJC and its
micro-managing sanctions. Something must be done concerning the ACCJC and its abusive
posturing - and sooner rather than later.
Although I am not yet convinced that the sanctions and recommendations of the ACCJC and their use
of grants from groups that seem more interested in privatizing education than expanding public
Page 258
education indicates that the ACCJC itself has an interest in privitization, many in the community
college family are convinced. For example, some believe that “In view of the extraordinarily high
number of colleges the ACCJC has sanctioned recently, in comparison to the very low number in the
rest of the country, many of us have concluded that ACCJC has exceeded its public-policy scope and
authority and the accreditation crisis is part of a larger movement to downsize and privatize
community colleges.”
I do believe that a number of college administrators and trustees have attempted to use the club of the
Commission to force educational and collective bargaining condition changes that do not advance the
quality of the institution or the service to students. Often the changes imposed result in the erosion of
community support, laying off of critical faculty and staff, cuts in benefits and pay (and the resulting
unfair labor charges), changes in the collegial governance systems, a breakdown of communication
between administration and staff, and even a loss in support for the treasured California Master Plan
for Higher Education. These actions often negatively affect long established employee working
conditions as well as the collegial atmosphere on campus. In short, the current “my way or the
highway” attitude of the Commission is helping to change community colleges in California in
negative ways.
Conclusion
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) is the required
accreditation agency for the Community Colleges of California. The ACCJC claims that “In achieving
and maintaining its accreditation a higher education institution assures the public that the institution
meets standards of quality, that the education earned there is of value to the students who earn it, and
that employers, trade or professional-related agencies and other colleges and universities can accept a
student's credentials as legitimate."
The ACCJC does not address college quality of instruction, but instead the ACCJC has been issuing a
barrage of sanctions from WATCH to LOSS OF ACCREDITATION based on the “successful
performance” of excessive documentation and data gathering, reviews of policy and procedures, and
adherence to education practices favored by the Commission.
Accrediting agencies in the United States are private educational associations of regional or national
scope. Without accreditation colleges will not receive state funding and their students will not be
eligible for student financial aid. Credits from non-accredited colleges are not accepted by most
colleges. So without accreditation, colleges are forced to close.
In a three day meeting in June of 2013, the ACCJC voted in secret to remove accreditation from City
College of San Francisco (CCSF) effective July 31, 2014. After the secret votes on sanctions, the
Commission held an open limited access hearing at which a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle
was denied entrance. The reasons publically given for the CCSF vote were related to college
leadership and governance issues, financial administration, and bureaucratic procedures. None of the
reasons given had to do with the actual educational quality of the program at CCSF. The action to
remove accreditation and force CCSF to close its doors to more than 85,000 students will not be final
until the review and appeal processes are completed - a process that is strictly controlled by the
ACCJC itself.
Page 259
From 2003 to 2008 the ACCJC issued 112 of the 126 sanctions nationwide. From June 2011 to June
2012 the ACCJC issued forty-eight of the seventy-five sanctions (64%) issued nationwide. The
community colleges in California represent about 19% of the community colleges accredited
nationally. In January 2013 the ACCJC continued its assault on California's community colleges when
it sanctioned 10 out of 23 (43.4%) colleges and in June of 2013 it sanctioned 10 out of 21 (47.6%)
colleges.
CCSF is not the only college not meeting what the ACCJC considers standards as claimed on several
occassions by Beno and Brice Harris. The Commission is systematically created chaos.
The hostile attitude of the ACCJC toward the colleges has created a reign of terror in which college
personnel are afraid to speak out against the Commission’s attempts to narrow college missions (in
contradiction to California’s Master Plan for Higher Education), interfere in local collective bargaining
(in contradiction to California law), dictate how locally elected Boards of Trustees are to behave, and
change local college governing structures (to be inconsistent with California policy) for fear of
reprisals.
In short the ACCJC is a rogue organization that should not be allowed to close a college like CCSF
except in the case where a college is not providing quality education at a fair price. The closure of any
college is a crime against its community and particularly against those residents that would benefit
from community college education. This should not be allowed to happen.
THE ACCJC MUST BE STOPPED FROM CREATING HAVOC.
Page 260
ACCJC Appeals Procedure Manual
APPEALS PROCEDURES MANUAL
ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES,
WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
Following are the Appeal and Hearing Procedures adopted and approved by the Board of Directors of the
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (“ACCJC”) which shall govern the conduct of a challenge to the Commission’s denial or
withdrawal of candidacy or accreditation under Article IX, Appeals, of ACCJC’s Bylaws.
SECTION 1.
DEFINITIONS
A.
Appealed Decision. The action of the Commission that is being appealed which ordinarily will be
the action of the Commission following the Review Process, pursuant to ACCJC’s Policy on Review of
Commission Actions.
B.
Board of Directors. Reference to Board of Directors shall refer to the Board of Directors of
ACCJC.
C.
Chair. References to the Chair refer to the Chair of the Hearing Panel.
D.
The Commission. References to the Commission shall refer to ACCJC’s Commission.
E.
Gender References. References to “his,” or “him” are gender neutral and refer to the male or the
female gender, as the case may be.
F.
Hearing Panel. References to the Hearing Panel shall refer to that body constituted pursuant to
ACCJC’s Bylaws that conducts the appellate hearing as described in this Manual.
H.
Institution. A post secondary educational institution which has been denied, or which has had
withdrawn, accreditation or candidacy by the Commission.
I.
President. References to the President refer to the President of ACCJC.
J.
Record on Appeal. The Record on Appeal consists of all documents exchanged between the
Institution and the Commission which directly led to the appeal, including any team report and any
Institutional response that were before the Commission when it rendered the Appealed Decision, all
documents presented in conjunction with the Review Process, and the Review Decision.
K.
Review Decision. This refers to the decision of the Commission at the conclusion of the Review
Process.
L.
Review Process. The process described in the Policies of ACCJC which describes the procedures
followed by the Commission for a review of an initial action denying or withdrawing candidacy or
accreditation.
Page 261
M.
Time Limits. References to time limits in terms of a number of “days” mean calendar days.
N.
Written Notice. References to Written Notice require that the document be transmitted by any
commercial means (UPS, Federal Express) or by U.S. Mail, providing a return receipt that confirms the
date of delivery.
SECTION 2.
APPLICATION AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A.
Notice of Appeal. An Institution desiring an appellate hearing (“Hearing”) must file a Notice of
Appeal within 30 calendar days of receiving notice of a Commission’s action on review to affirm an
adverse action on the institution. The Notice of Appeal shall be sent by Written Notice and shall identify
each of the specific grounds, as identified in ACCJC’s Bylaws that will serve as the basis (bases) of the
Institution’s appeal. Under each ground, the Institution must list, in plain language and in concrete terms,
the reasons why each ground is met, drawing exclusively from the Record on Appeal. The Hearing
Panel shall not consider legal arguments which challenge the legal validity of any of the provisions of this
Manual, ACCJC’s Bylaws, or any ACCJC Policy, or any generally followed practice of ACCJC.
Ordinarily, the Institution may not raise grounds, or reasons in support of grounds, which were not raised
to the Commission during the Review Process. In the event the Institution wishes to raise grounds, or
reasons in support of those grounds, including any written or oral evidence relating to such grounds or
reasons, that were not raised during the Review Process, the Institution must demonstrate good cause as to
why it did not raise such grounds, reasons or evidence during the Review Process, and it must set forth
such good cause in its Notice of Appeal.
B.
Legal Counsel. The Notice of Appeal should indicate whether the Institution will be represented
by legal counsel, leading up to and at the Hearing, and should include the name and address of such legal
counsel if known at that time. Legal counsel for both parties shall be permitted to participate in the
hearing in the manner customarily permitted in administrative hearings by presenting arguments and
statements on behalf of a party and by examining and cross examining witnesses.
C.
Costs and Deposit. The Institution must include a deposit at the time it files the appeal in an
amount established by the Board of Directors. The deposit shall represent an estimate of one half (1/2) of
the incremental costs to ACCJC of the appeal. The appeal costs include, but are not necessarily limited to,
cost of travel and hotel of Hearing Panel members and staff, the hearing room, rental fees, phone and
duplication costs, the certified shorthand reporter, and the Hearing Panel’s legal counsel. During the
progress of the appeal, if the President determines that costs are likely to exceed the amount of the
deposit, it is within the discretion of the President to require that the Institution supplement its original
deposit. The Institution will be required to respond promptly, or the appeal, at the discretion of the
President, may be dismissed. At the conclusion of the appeal, the Institution will be provided with an
accounting of such costs. If the costs exceed the amount of the deposit, the Institution will be responsible
for the balance. Should the deposit exceed actual costs, the Institution will receive a refund in the amount
of the difference. In the event the Institution prevails in the appeal, it is within the discretion of the
Hearing Panel to refund all or a portion of the Institution’s deposit to the Institution. The Commission
and the Institution will each assume its respective costs in connection with the preparation and
presentation of its case including any expenses of witnesses or legal counsel, and such costs shall not be
included in the amount of the deposit.
Page 262
D.
Failure to Properly Notice the Appeal. The President shall review the Notice of Appeal and either
accept it if it complies fully with the requirements of this Manual, or declare it incomplete. In the event
the Institution has raised grounds, reasons, or evidence that were not raised during the Review Process
and has failed to show good cause as to why such grounds, reasons or evidence were not raised during the
Review Process, the President shall exclude those grounds, reasons and evidence from the appeal and
shall so notify the Institution. If the Notice is incomplete, the Institution shall be so notified. If
incomplete, the Notice of Appeal will be returned to the Institution by Written Notice with an
identification of its deficiencies. The Institution shall have ten (10) days from the return of its Notice of
Appeal in which to correct the deficiencies and resubmit the Notice of Appeal to the President by Written
Notice. In the event the resubmitted Notice of Appeal is declared complete, the President shall notify the
Institution, and the appeal will proceed. In the event the Institution fails to resubmit the Notice of Appeal
in a timely manner or in the event the resubmitted Notice of Appeal is still declared incomplete, the
President shall thereupon dismiss the appeal and notify the Institution by Written Notice.
E.
Notice of Hearing; Selection of Hearing Panel. The Hearing shall take place at a location to be
established by the President which may not be on or near any campus of the Institution. The President
shall also set the date for the Hearing, and the President shall send a notice by Written Notice of the time
and place of the Hearing (“Hearing Date”) to the Institution and to the Commission at least sixty (60)
calendar days prior to the Hearing Date (“Hearing Notice”). The composition of the Hearing Panel shall
be determined in the manner described in ACCJC’s Bylaws. In the Hearing Notice, the President shall
notify the Commission and the Institution of the names of the members of the Hearing Panel with a brief
statement of their institutional affiliations (if any) and background. If the Institution or the Commission
has an objection to any person selected to be on the Hearing Panel, the objecting party shall notify the
President, through the Secretary-Treasurer, by Written Notice, within seven (7) days of receiving the
Hearing Notice, of its objection, together with a statement of the reasons for its objection. If the President
shall inform the Legal Counsel for the Hearing Board of the objections (see Section G, below). The Legal
Counsel for the Hearing Board, in his sole discretion, shall determine whether good cause for the
objection exists. If he determines that good cause exists, he shall notify the President who will remove
such person and have the Executive Committee of the Commission find a replacement. This process shall
continue until the Hearing Panel has been seated.
F.
The Commission's Response. The Commission, at its option, may respond in writing to the
grounds and reasons cited by the Institution in its Notice of Appeal. The Response must be delivered by
Written Notice to the Institution and to the Hearing Panel at least thirty (30) days prior to the Hearing
Date.
G.
Legal Counsel for the Hearing Panel. The President shall appoint legal counsel for the Hearing
Panel. Such person shall act as an advisor to the Chair and to the Hearing Panel. Such person shall not be
empowered to decide any disputed issues. Such person shall not be from the law firm representing the
Commission. In the Hearing Notice, the President shall identify the Hearing Panel’s legal counsel. If the
Institution or the Commission has an objection to the person selected, the objecting party shall provide a
written objection with a statement of reasons to the President by Written Notice within seven (7) days of
receiving the Hearing Notice. If the President in his sole discretion determines that good cause exists, he
shall replace such person with another selection and notify the Institution and the Commission of the new
selection. This process shall continue until the selection of legal counsel has been finalized.
Page 263
H.
Contact with the Hearing Panel. Once the Hearing Panel and its legal counsel have been selected,
all communications to the Hearing Panel from the Commission and from the Institution and their
representatives must be made through the Hearing Panel’s legal counsel.
I.
List of Witnesses; Appearance by Phone. At least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the Hearing
Date, the Institution and the Commission shall exchange and submit to the Hearing Panel, a list of all
witnesses each intends to call at the Hearing. Witnesses not identified on the list so provided may not
appear without prior approval of the Chair. Neither party may subpoena or call any witnesses from the
other party. Failure of either party to provide a timely witness list shall preclude such party from
introducing any witness testimony at the Hearing. At the discretion of the Chair, any witness may be
allowed to testify by phone in the event it is impractical for the witness to appear, provided the parties’
representatives, their attorneys, and the Hearing Panel members may listen through a speaker phone to the
witness’s testimony and provided the opposing party is given the opportunity to cross examine such
witness. Any request for a witness to appear by phone shall be made in writing at least seven (7) days
prior to the Hearing Date to the Chair, through the Hearing Panel’s legal counsel, with a copy to the other
party.
J.
Requests to Continue the Hearing Date. The Chair shall decide any requests to continue the
Hearing Date. All requests for a continuance shall be submitted by Written Notice to the Chair through
Hearing Panel’s legal counsel, with copies to the other party, and to the Secretary-Treasurer, and shall
specify the reasons. The other party shall be asked by the Hearing Panel’s legal counsel if there is an
objection to the request, and if there is, the other party will be given a reasonable time in which to file
written objections. The Chair’s determination shall be final.
K.
Submission of Briefs. Except as otherwise expressly permitted by this Manual, neither party shall
have the right to file any written brief or other papers with the Hearing Panel. Whether any written brief,
in addition to the Notice of Appeal and the Response, will be permitted is within the discretion of the
Chair. If either party desires to present a written brief (in addition to the Institution’s Notice of Appeal or
in addition to the Commission’s written response to the Notice of Appeal, if any,) such party shall notify
the Chair through the Hearing Panel’s legal counsel by Written Notice at least thirty (30) days prior to the
Hearing Date, with a copy to the other party. The Hearing Panel's legal counsel shall arrange for a phone
conference meeting, which shall include legal counsel or other appropriate representatives from both
parties if they are not represented by counsel in the appeal. The Chair may attend or may be advised after
the meeting of the proceedings from the Hearing Panel’s legal counsel. After such meeting, the Chair will
decide whether to permit additional briefs, and, if such are permitted, a briefing schedule that will be
limited to an opening brief by one a party and a responsive brief by the other party. The briefing schedule
shall be arranged so that all briefs will be submitted at least seven (7) days prior to the Hearing Date in
order to afford the Hearing Panel members the opportunity to review the briefs before the Hearing.
L.
Failure to Appear. Failure without good cause of the Institution to appear and proceed at the
Hearing shall constitute voluntary acceptance of the Appealed Decision and the Appealed Decision shall
become final automatically. The Hearing Panel in its discretion shall determine whether good cause
exists for failing to appear.
M.
Release of Information about the Appeal to the Public. Details about the appeal in general,
including the Hearing, are to remain confidential unless the Institution, the Commission, and the Chair of
the Hearing Panel agree otherwise. Accordingly, information about the time and place of the Hearing, the
Page 264
identity of the Hearing Panel members, the grounds for appeal, strategies for appeal, and documents
submitted by either party that describe its arguments and positions relative to the appeal may not be
disclosed to the general public, the press, or posted on any website. Failure to respect this restriction by
the Institution shall be grounds for the dismissal of the appeal. Failure to respect this restriction by the
Commission shall be grounds for the Chair to rule that the Commission shall pay all of the Institution’s
legal and witness costs connected with the appeal.
N.
Loss of Hearing Panel Members. In the event that, for any reason, any member of the
Hearing Panel withdraws prior to the Hearing Date, the Executive Committee of the Commission will
attempt to replace the Hearing Panel member. In the event that it is not possible or practicable to find a
replacement, the Hearing will proceed with the reduced number of Hearing Panel members, and, unless
agreed to by both parties, the withdrawal of a member of the Hearing Panel prior to the Hearing Date shall
not be cause for a continuance.
SECTION 3.
HEARING PROCEDURE.
A.
Length of Hearing. The Hearing shall be set to last no more than three (3) days, and, from such
three-day period, the Chair may set aside up to one (1) full day of that time for its deliberations and may
limit testimony accordingly. The Chair shall establish a Hearing schedule, setting forth how much time
shall be allocated for each party to present its evidence. The Chair shall deliver the Hearing schedule to
the Institution and to the Commission at least five (5) days in advance of the Hearing Date.
B.
Role of the Presiding Officer. The Chair shall be the presiding officer of the Hearing. The Chair
shall act to ensure that decorum is maintained and that a reasonable opportunity is provided within the
established schedule for witnesses to be heard and documentary evidence to be presented. The Chair may
limit presentation of evidence, including the number of witnesses testifying, to avoid repetition and
unnecessary length. He may adjourn the Hearing and reconvene for the convenience of the participants
without special notice. He shall have the right to vote on and the authority to decide questions which
pertain to matters of law, to the admissibility of evidence, and to the conduct of the Hearing.
C.
Record of the Hearing. The Hearing Panel shall maintain a record of the Hearing by certified
shorthand reporter. Legal counsel for the Hearing Panel shall arrange for the certified shorthand reporter.
The cost of the certified shorthand reporter shall be divided equally between the parties. If either party
desires a written transcript of the Hearing, the party desiring the transcript shall pay for the cost of the
original.
D.
Right of Both Sides. At the Hearing, both parties shall have the following rights: to call and
examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits from the Record on Appeal, to cross-examine any witness on any
matter relevant to the issues, and to rebut any evidence.
E.
Admissibility of Evidence. The Hearing shall not be conducted according to rules of law relating
to the examination of witnesses or presentation of evidence. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted by
the Chair if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely upon in the
conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the admissibility of such evidence in a court of law. The Hearing
Panel may question the witness or call additional witnesses if it deems it appropriate. Unless the Chair
finds that good cause exists, evidence shall be considered relevant only if it relates to the Record on
Appeal and to the grounds for appeal cited by the Institution.
Page 265
F.
Order of Presentation and Evidence. The Hearing Panel shall be guided by the following order of
presentation and evidence:
(1)
Each party shall present a brief opening statement. The Chair shall determine the order of these
statements and any time limits, if necessary;
(2)
The Institution shall present evidence to support its position;
(3)
The Commission shall present evidence in support of its position;
(4)
Opportunity will be provided for rebuttal testimony; and
(5)
Each party may choose to make a closing statement reviewing and integrating all of the evidence.
The Chair shall determine the order of these statements and any time limits on them, if necessary.
At the request of either party, or upon its own initiative, the Chair may modify this order of presentation.
The Hearing shall not be open to the public. With the exception of the President, legal counsel and up to
two representatives from each party, all other witnesses and representatives shall remain outside the
Hearing until called to testify. The President may also designate a member of the Commission staff to act
in a support capacity and present, if necessary, throughout the hearing.
G.
Loss of a Hearing Panel Member. In the event that any member of the Hearing Panel is unable,
for any reason, to complete the Hearing after it has commenced, the Hearing will proceed with the
remaining members.
H.
Basis for Decision. The decision shall be based on the oral and written evidence presented at the
Hearing. In addition to the evidence presented at the Hearing, the Hearing Panel, at its sole discretion,
may consider as additional evidence any documents from the Record on Appeal that the parties did not
present.
I.
Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the Institution to show, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that one or more of the grounds for appeal have been met.
J.
Adjournment and Conclusion. Upon conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the Hearing
Panel shall conduct its deliberations and render a decision. The decision shall comport with ACCJC’s
Bylaws and shall be communicated in the manner set forth in ACCJC’s Bylaws.
34 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) – Relevant Sections
34 CFR 602.13 Acceptance of the agency by others.
The agency must demonstrate that its standards, policies, procedures, and decisions to grant or deny
accreditation are widely accepted in the United States by—
(a) Educators and educational institutions; and
(b) Licensing bodies, practitioners, and employers in the professional or vocational fields for
which the educational institutions or programs within the agency's jurisdiction prepare their students.
34 CFR § 602.15 Administrative and fiscal responsibilities.
The agency must have the administrative and fiscal capability to carry out its accreditation activities in
light of its requested scope of recognition. The agency meets this requirement if the agency demonstrates
that—
(a) The agency has—
Page 266
(1) Adequate administrative staff and financial resources to carry out its accrediting
responsibilities;
(2) Competent and knowledgeable individuals, qualified by education and experience in
their own right and trained by the agency on their responsibilities, as appropriate for their roles,
regarding the agency's standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its on-site evaluations, apply
or establish its policies, and make its accrediting and preaccrediting decisions, including, if
applicable to the agency's scope, their responsibilities regarding distance education and
correspondence education;
(3) Academic and administrative personnel on its evaluation, policy, and decision-making
bodies, if the agency accredits institutions;
(4) Educators and practitioners on its evaluation, policy, and decision-making bodies, if the
agency accredits programs or single-purpose institutions that prepare students for a specific
profession;
(5) Representatives of the public on all decision-making bodies; and
(6) Clear and effective controls against conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts
of interest, by the agency's—
(i) Board members;
(ii) Commissioners;
(iii) Evaluation team members;
(iv) Consultants;
(v) Administrative staff; and
(vi) Other agency representatives; and
(b) The agency maintains complete and accurate records of—
(1) Its last full accreditation or preaccreditation review of each institution or program,
including on-site evaluation team reports, the institution's or program's responses to on-site
reports, periodic review reports, any reports of special reviews conducted by the agency between
regular reviews, and a copy of the institution's or program's most recent self-study; and
(2) All decisions made throughout an institution's or program's affiliation with the agency
regarding the accreditation and preaccreditation of any institution or program and substantive
changes, including all correspondence that is significantly related to those decisions.
34 CFR § 602.17 Application of standards in reaching an accrediting decision.
The agency must have effective mechanisms for evaluating an institution's or program's compliance with
the agency's standards before reaching a decision to accredit or preaccredit the institution or program. The
agency meets this requirement if the agency demonstrates that it—
(a) Evaluates whether an institution or program—
(1) Maintains clearly specified educational objectives that are consistent with its mission
and appropriate in light of the degrees or certificates awarded;
(2) Is successful in achieving its stated objectives; and
(3) Maintains degree and certificate requirements that at least conform to commonly
accepted standards;
(b) Requires the institution or program to prepare, following guidance provided by the agency, an
in-depth self-study that includes the assessment of educational quality and the institution's or program's
continuing efforts to improve educational quality;
(c) Conducts at least one on-site review of the institution or program during which it obtains
sufficient information to determine if the institution or program complies with the agency's standards;
Page 267
(d) Allows the institution or program the opportunity to respond in writing to the report of the onsite review;
(e) Conducts its own analysis of the self-study and supporting documentation furnished by the
institution or program, the report of the on-site review, the institution's or program's response to the
report, and any other appropriate information from other sources to determine whether the institution or
program complies with the agency's standards;
(f) Provides the institution or program with a detailed written report that assesses—
(1) The institution's or program's compliance with the agency's standards, including areas
needing improvement; and
(2) The institution's or program's performance with respect to student achievement; and
(g) Requires institutions that offer distance education or correspondence education to have
processes in place through which the institution establishes that the student who registers in a distance
education or correspondence education course or program is the same student who participates in and
completes the course or program and receives the academic credit. The agency meets this requirement if
it—
(1) Requires institutions to verify the identity of a student who participates in class or
coursework by using, at the option of the institution, methods such as—
(i) A secure login and pass code;
(ii) Proctored examinations; and
(iii) New or other technologies and practices that are effective in verifying student
identity; and
(2) Makes clear in writing that institutions must use processes that protect student privacy
and notify students of any projected additional student charges associated with the verification of
student identity at the time of registration or enrollment.
34 CFR § 602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making.
The agency must consistently apply and enforce standards that respect the stated mission of the
institution, including religious mission, and that ensure that the education or training offered by an
institution or program, including any offered through distance education or correspondence education, is
of sufficient quality to achieve its stated objective for the duration of any accreditation or preaccreditation
period granted by the agency. The agency meets this requirement if the agency—
(a) Has written specification of the requirements for accreditation and preaccreditation that include
clear standards for an institution or program to be accredited;
(b) Has effective controls against the inconsistent application of the agency's standards;
(c) Bases decisions regarding accreditation and preaccreditation on the agency's published
standards;
(d) Has a reasonable basis for determining that the information the agency relies on for making
accrediting decisions is accurate; and
(e) Provides the institution or program with a detailed written report that clearly identifies any
deficiencies in the institution's or program's compliance with the agency's standards.
34 CFR § 602.20 Enforcement of standards.
(a) If the agency's review of an institution or program under any standard indicates that the
institution or program is not in compliance with that standard, the agency must—
(1) Immediately initiate adverse action against the institution or program; or
(2) Require the institution or program to take appropriate action to bring itself into
compliance with the agency's standards within a time period that must not exceed—
Page 268
(i) Twelve months, if the program, or the longest program offered by the
institution, is less than one year in length;
(ii) Eighteen months, if the program, or the longest program offered by the
institution, is at least one year, but less than two years, in length; or
(iii) Two years, if the program, or the longest program offered by the institution, is
at least two years in length.
(b) If the institution or program does not bring itself into compliance within the specified period,
the agency must take immediate adverse action unless the agency, for good cause, extends the period for
achieving compliance.
34 CFR § 602.21 Review of standards.
(a) The agency must maintain a systematic program of review that demonstrates that its standards
are adequate to evaluate the quality of the education or training provided by the institutions and programs
it accredits and relevant to the educational or training needs of students.
(b) The agency determines the specific procedures it follows in evaluating its standards, but the
agency must ensure that its program of review—
(1) Is comprehensive;
(2) Occurs at regular, yet reasonable, intervals or on an ongoing basis;
(3) Examines each of the agency's standards and the standards as a whole; and
(4) Involves all of the agency's relevant constituencies in the review and affords them a
meaningful opportunity to provide input into the review.
(c) If the agency determines, at any point during its systematic program of review, that it needs to
make changes to its standards, the agency must initiate action within 12 months to make the changes and
must complete that action within a reasonable period of time. Before finalizing any changes to its
standards, the agency must—
(1) Provide notice to all of the agency's relevant constituencies, and other parties who have
made their interest known to the agency, of the changes the agency proposes to make;
(2) Give the constituencies and other interested parties adequate opportunity to comment
on the proposed changes; and
(3) Take into account any comments on the proposed changes submitted timely by the
relevant constituencies and by other interested parties.
34 CFR § 602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have.
(a) The agency must maintain and make available to the public written materials describing—
(1) Each type of accreditation and preaccreditation it grants;
(2) The procedures that institutions or programs must follow in applying for accreditation
or preaccreditation;
(3) The standards and procedures it uses to determine whether to grant, reaffirm, reinstate,
restrict, deny, revoke, terminate, or take any other action related to each type of accreditation and
preaccreditation that the agency grants;
(4) The institutions and programs that the agency currently accredits or preaccredits and,
for each institution and program, the year the agency will next review or reconsider it for
accreditation or preaccreditation; and
(5) The names, academic and professional qualifications, and relevant employment and
organizational affiliations of—
(i) The members of the agency's policy and decision-making bodies; and
(ii) The agency's principal administrative staff.
Page 269
(b) In providing public notice that an institution or program subject to its jurisdiction is being
considered for accreditation or preaccreditation, the agency must provide an opportunity for third-party
comment concerning the institution's or program's qualifications for accreditation or preaccreditation. At
the agency's discretion, third-party comment may be received either in writing or at a public hearing, or
both.
(c) The accrediting agency must—
(1) Review in a timely, fair, and equitable manner any complaint it receives against an
accredited institution or program that is related to the agency's standards or procedures. The
agency may not complete its review and make a decision regarding a complaint unless, in
accordance with published procedures, it ensures that the institution or program has sufficient
opportunity to provide a response to the complaint;
(2) Take follow-up action, as necessary, including enforcement action, if necessary, based
on the results of its review; and
(3) Review in a timely, fair, and equitable manner, and apply unbiased judgment to, any
complaints against itself and take follow-up action, as appropriate, based on the results of its
review.
(d) If an institution or program elects to make a public disclosure of its accreditation or
preaccreditation status, the agency must ensure that the institution or program discloses that status
accurately, including the specific academic or instructional programs covered by that status and the name,
address, and telephone number of the agency.
(e) The accrediting agency must provide for the public correction of incorrect or misleading
information an accredited or preaccredited institution or program releases about—
(1) The accreditation or preaccreditation status of the institution or program;
(2) The contents of reports of on-site reviews; and
(3) The agency's accrediting or preaccrediting actions with respect to the institution or
program.
(f) The agency may establish any additional operating procedures it deems appropriate. At the
agency's discretion, these may include unannounced inspections.
34 CFR § 602.25 Due process.
The agency must demonstrate that the procedures it uses throughout the accrediting process satisfy due
process. The agency meets this requirement if the agency does the following:
(a) Provides adequate written specification of its requirements, including clear standards, for an
institution or program to be accredited or preaccredited.
(b) Uses procedures that afford an institution or program a reasonable period of time to comply
with the agency's requests for information and documents.
(c) Provides written specification of any deficiencies identified at the institution or program
examined.
(d) Provides sufficient opportunity for a written response by an institution or program regarding
any deficiencies identified by the agency, to be considered by the agency within a timeframe determined
by the agency, and before any adverse action is taken.
(e) Notifies the institution or program in writing of any adverse accrediting action or an action to
place the institution or program on probation or show cause. The notice describes the basis for the action.
(f) Provides an opportunity, upon written request of an institution or program, for the institution or
program to appeal any adverse action prior to the action becoming final.
(1) The appeal must take place at a hearing before an appeals panel that—
Page 270
(i) May not include current members of the agency's decision-making body that
took the initial adverse action;
(ii) Is subject to a conflict of interest policy;
(iii) Does not serve only an advisory or procedural role, and has and uses the
authority to make the following decisions: to affirm, amend, or reverse adverse actions of
the original decision-making body; and
(iv) Affirms, amends, reverses, or remands the adverse action. A decision to affirm,
amend, or reverse the adverse action is implemented by the appeals panel or by the original
decision-making body, at the agency's option. In a decision to remand the adverse action to
the original decision-making body for further consideration, the appeals panel must
identify specific issues that the original decision-making body must address. In a decision
that is implemented by or remanded to the original decision-making body, that body must
act in a manner consistent with the appeals panel's decisions or instructions.
(2) The agency must recognize the right of the institution or program to employ counsel to
represent the institution or program during its appeal, including to make any presentation that the
agency permits the institution or program to make on its own during the appeal.
(g) The agency notifies the institution or program in writing of the result of its appeal and the basis
for that result.
(h)
(1) The agency must provide for a process, in accordance with written procedures, through
which an institution or program may, before the agency reaches a final adverse action decision, seek
review of new financial information if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The financial information was unavailable to the institution or program until
after the decision subject to appeal was made.
(ii) The financial information is significant and bears materially on the financial
deficiencies identified by the agency. The criteria of significance and materiality are
determined by the agency.
(iii) The only remaining deficiency cited by the agency in support of a final adverse
action decision is the institution's or program's failure to meet an agency standard
pertaining to finances.
(2) An institution or program may seek the review of new financial information described
in paragraph (h)(1) of this section only once and any determination by the agency made with
respect to that review does not provide a basis for an appeal.
34 CFR § 602.26 Notification of accrediting decisions.
The agency must demonstrate that it has established and follows written procedures requiring it to provide
written notice of its accrediting decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing
agency, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public. The agency meets this requirement if the
agency, following its written procedures—
(a) Provides written notice of the following types of decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate
State licensing or authorizing agency, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public no later than 30
days after it makes the decision:
(1) A decision to award initial accreditation or preaccreditation to an institution or
program.
(2) A decision to renew an institution's or program's accreditation or preaccreditation;
(b) Provides written notice of the following types of decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate
State licensing or authorizing agency, and the appropriate accrediting agencies at the same time it notifies
the institution or program of the decision, but no later than 30 days after it reaches the decision:
Page 271
(1) A final decision to place an institution or program on probation or an equivalent status.
(2) A final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or terminate the accreditation or
preaccreditation of an institution or program.
(3) A final decision to take any other adverse action, as defined by the agency, not listed in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
(c) Provides written notice to the public of the decisions listed in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and
(b)(3) of this section within 24 hours of its notice to the institution or program;
(d) For any decision listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, makes available to the Secretary, the
appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, and the public, no later than 60 days after the decision,
a brief statement summarizing the reasons for the agency's decision and the official comments that the
affected institution or program may wish to make with regard to that decision, or evidence that the
affected institution has been offered the opportunity to provide official comment;
(e) Notifies the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, the appropriate
accrediting agencies, and, upon request, the public if an accredited or preaccredited institution or
program—
(1) Decides to withdraw voluntarily from accreditation or preaccreditation, within 30 days
of receiving notification from the institution or program that it is withdrawing voluntarily from
accreditation or preaccreditation; or
(2) Lets its accreditation or preaccreditation lapse, within 30 days of the date on which
accreditation or preaccreditation lapses.
Page 272
Index
§602.15(a)(3), 7, 99
34 C.F.R, 7, 241, 244
34 CFR, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, 34, 36,
42, 66, 70, 71, 72, 75, 82, 102, 103, 114, 177,
180, 181, 183, 196, 204, 207, 237, 280, 281,
282, 283, 284, 286
34 CFR 602, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26, 34, 36, 42,
70, 72, 75, 82, 114, 180, 181, 183, 197, 204
34 CFR 602.13, 9, 102
34 CFR 602.14, 103
34 CFR 602.15, 72
34 CFR 602.15(a)(2), 114
34 CFR 602.15(a)(3), 71, 114, 181
34 CFR 602.15(a)(6), 75
34 CFR 602.15(b), 66
34 CFR 602.15(b)(2), 12
34 CFR 602.15a (3), 75
34 CFR 602.17, 10, 36
34 CFR 602.17(a)(1), 10
34 CFR 602.18, 14, 26, 70, 71, 72, 82, 103, 180,
181, 183, 197, 204
34 CFR 602.18(e), 181, 183
34 CFR 602.20(a), 25
34 CFR 602.23( c ), 42
34 CFR 602.23(b), 34
34 CFR 602.25, 13
34 CFR Section 602, 13, 237
34 CFR Section 602.15(a)(3), 177
34 CFR Section 602.23(c), 237
34 CFR section 602.23(c)(1), 66
Access, 145, 147, 148, 151, 244
Access to Commission Meetings, 145, 147, 148,
151, 244
ACCJC Bylaws, 9, 17, 35
advance notice, 17
adverse action, 17, 25, 67, 73, 194, 195, 216,
221, 241, 244, 283, 285, 286
Agrella, 53, 62, 65, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 123,
124
ALEC, 271
Amador, 55, 84, 96, 98, 115
appeal, 17, 63, 173, 174, 285, 286
appeal process, 17
assessment, 12, 25, 28, 29, 43, 52, 175, 180,
181, 186, 198, 210, 213, 233, 235
Beno, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 25, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 57,
58, 59, 62, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 84, 85,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 100, 101, 104, 109, 114,
116, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 133, 134, 171,
173, 174, 177, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216,
220, 221, 222, 225, 234, 235, 240, 244, 271,
274
Board, 14, 16, 25, 29, 34, 53, 116, 117, 186, 187,
211, 212, 213, 229
Board of Trustees, 36, 49, 61, 64, 65, 171, 172,
212, 215
Brice Harris, 61, 74, 79, 82, 196, 274
California, 2, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 25, 28,
32, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55,
56, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 115, 116, 117,
118, 171, 174, 176, 180, 186, 198, 199, 213,
214, 223, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235,
236, 237, 239, 241, 272, 273, 274
California Collective Bargaining law, 207
Carl Friedlander, 12, 13, 28, 43, 272
CEO, 8, 23, 24, 43, 45, 46, 48, 71, 105, 107, 170,
171, 234, 244
CFR, 91, 280
CFT, 2, 12, 35, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63,
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 80, 82, 83,
84, 85, 91, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 119, 120,
121, 122, 125, 130, 132, 135, 136, 148, 149,
213, 230, 231, 236, 237, 244, 270
collective bargaining, 16, 40, 43, 54, 62, 183,
214, 223, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235,
237, 239, 242, 244, 273, 274
Complaints, 55, 75, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 203
compliance, 10, 11, 15, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 42,
43, 44, 45, 59, 67, 68, 69, 114, 171, 172, 173,
175, 180, 191, 193, 194, 195, 200, 204, 208,
210, 211, 216, 220, 224, 225, 227, 238, 240,
241, 244, 272, 281, 282, 283
confidential, 14, 35, 41, 45, 68, 71, 76, 77, 78,
79, 80, 81, 115, 202, 241, 244, 269, 270, 278
Confidentiality, 16, 34, 35, 78, 145, 147, 244
Page 273
Confidentiality of Documents Related to
Institutional Evaluations, 34
conflict of interest, 7, 20, 49, 57, 68, 72, 74, 75,
76, 83, 84, 87, 100, 108, 137, 156, 171, 191,
211, 213, 242, 244, 285
continuous, 18, 19, 52, 96, 168, 175, 182, 192,
193, 202, 206, 208, 210, 212, 213, 217, 222,
223, 226, 228, 244, 271
continuous improvement, 18, 52, 160, 162,
168, 175, 192, 193, 210, 223, 228, 271
data, 8, 9, 25, 28, 175, 181, 184, 185, 186, 193,
194, 196, 200, 201, 202, 207, 241, 271, 272,
273
data driven, 204
deficiencies, 12, 28, 29, 37, 47, 51, 52, 61, 62,
67, 69, 70, 72, 75, 83, 85, 92, 98, 101, 118,
173, 175, 177, 178, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186,
190, 192, 194, 195, 196, 201, 202, 203, 204,
206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215,
216, 217, 220, 221, 222, 227, 228, 241, 244,
277, 282, 285
Department of Education, 8, 15, 28, 43, 230
deviates significantly, 26, 206
Document, 209
documents, 2, 16, 35, 41, 58, 65, 69, 115, 190,
194, 209, 210, 220, 237, 239, 240, 285
due process, 13, 16, 18, 55, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83,
85, 91, 92, 100, 106, 177, 237, 239, 244, 284
Due Process, 68
evaluation, 7, 17, 19, 21, 28, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43,
44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 60, 61, 67, 69,
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 84, 85, 89, 91,
92, 93, 94, 98, 114, 115, 116, 172, 175, 176,
177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186,
188, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198,
199, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 213,
214, 215, 216, 219, 222, 223, 224, 227, 228,
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 238, 241, 242, 243,
244, 271, 281
Evaluation, 15, 19, 20, 40, 41, 49, 52, 67, 72, 75,
82, 83, 115, 175, 178, 179, 180, 182, 186, 187,
192, 194, 195, 197, 202, 204, 206, 207, 209,
214, 215, 216, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 227,
229, 241, 244, 281
faculty member, 2, 44, 45, 116, 117, 201, 207,
214, 215, 220, 233, 244
faculty members, 9, 51, 54, 186, 188, 192, 198,
201, 214, 220, 222, 226, 228, 244, 272
faculty members., 175
FCMAT, 63, 171, 172
fear, 8, 19, 25, 45, 46, 57, 61, 80, 96, 216, 274
federal, 10, 13, 16, 17, 40, 65, 186, 193, 202,
204, 232, 237, 241, 272
federal requirments, 244
financial, 12, 25, 29, 34, 40, 47, 51, 52, 61, 63,
68, 116, 119, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 180,
198, 199, 203, 211, 213, 216, 221, 225, 234,
242, 273, 281, 285, 286
First Reading, 144, 145, 150, 151
Follow-Up Report, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 178,
179, 183, 184, 186, 187, 191, 192, 195, 196,
202, 203, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 214,
215, 217, 219, 221, 222, 224, 226, 227
Galatolo, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107
GASB, 57, 83, 116, 117, 218, 242
gives concern, 202, 204, 219
Gornick, 58, 59, 60, 76, 84, 85, 90, 117, 187,
242, 244
governance, 10, 25, 49, 52, 53, 172, 173, 198,
200, 211, 213, 221, 224, 225, 226, 229, 234,
273
Governance, 29, 34
governing board, 12, 29, 34, 41, 47, 48, 49, 53,
115, 172, 213, 222, 229, 233, 237, 239
Governing Board, 47, 222
governing boards, 12, 34
Harris, 61, 62, 64, 65, 80, 83, 120, 122, 123, 124
Herrera, 93, 94, 119, 122, 123, 124
Hittelman, 1, 2, 14, 228, 229, 236, 237, 238, 239,
240
inconsistent application, 44, 103, 106, 282
Johns, 84, 240, 241, 242
Karnow, 122, 123, 124, 125
Kinsella, 51, 76, 84, 85, 105, 115, 116, 211, 242,
244
Krista Johns, 90, 238, 240, 244
lack of clarity, 16, 71, 211, 242
learning objective, 228, 230
library, 12, 25, 29, 51, 186, 189, 200, 201, 223
Library, 29, 117, 189, 218, 221, 225
Lumina, 14, 94, 220, 270, 271
Lumina Foundation, 108, 270, 272
micro-manage, 10, 25, 187
Page 274
micro-managing, 12, 14, 25, 26, 47, 49, 114,
213, 272
Middle States, 27
mission, 10, 16, 34, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 61, 64,
171, 174, 176, 184, 185, 186, 192, 194, 195,
196, 199, 200, 201, 207, 210, 211, 221, 222,
223, 270, 281, 282
NACIQI, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 99, 244
Nixon, 25, 83, 84
Open, 144, 244
out of compliance, 7, 27, 67, 68, 71
outcomes-based, 188, 190, 192
partially addressed, 51, 108, 161, 229
planning, 12, 25, 29, 34, 50, 51, 175, 180, 184,
185, 186, 198, 200, 201, 210, 212, 213, 225,
226, 234
policy, 8, 13, 16, 18, 25, 34, 35, 41, 44, 47, 49,
50, 55, 115, 172, 222, 228, 229, 231, 236, 237,
273, 281, 284, 285
policy change, 16
Probation, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 114, 180, 184,
185, 198, 199, 201, 210, 212, 228
procedures, 8, 12, 17, 19, 20, 28, 29, 47, 56, 65,
66, 70, 74, 75, 84, 85, 91, 99, 102, 104, 179,
180, 185, 188, 189, 190, 194, 205, 207, 208,
209, 210, 215, 230, 231, 233, 234, 237, 239,
240, 243, 244, 273, 274, 275, 280, 281, 283,
284, 285, 286
program review, 12, 25, 29, 175, 186, 210, 234
public, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43,
44, 47, 48, 49, 55, 57, 58, 60, 64, 114, 115,
116, 117, 118, 119, 173, 174, 176, 181, 198,
199, 211, 221, 229, 231, 233, 235, 236, 237,
239, 240, 270, 273, 281, 283, 284, 286
public access, 13, 34
quality, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, 25, 26, 28, 34, 41,
43, 44, 50, 51, 54, 176, 181, 185, 198, 211,
213, 226, 232
recommendations, 18, 21, 25, 41, 42, 50, 51, 59,
60, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 82, 88, 89, 91,
93, 99, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 118,
138, 139, 146, 147, 151, 171, 172, 175, 177,
178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188,
189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 201,
202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211,
213, 215, 216, 217, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225,
226, 227, 242, 244, 273
recommended, 16, 18, 46, 52, 65, 69, 114, 172,
173, 176, 181, 186, 199, 207, 208, 214, 215,
217, 218, 244
recommends, 52, 175, 176, 182, 183, 188, 189,
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 202,
203, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 216,
222, 223, 224, 244
reform, 13, 28, 272
reports, 14, 24, 41
review, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 28, 34, 35, 36,
43, 45, 55, 56, 57, 63, 171, 172, 173, 186, 198,
199, 200, 201, 210, 213, 220, 222, 223, 224,
225, 228, 231, 237, 238, 240, 272, 281, 282,
283, 284, 285, 286
RP Group, 10, 14, 44, 45, 46, 114, 237, 239
Saginor, 149
sanctions, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 25, 26,
27, 28, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 114, 115,
116, 119, 175, 184, 186, 198, 199, 210, 213,
228, 237, 239, 240, 272, 273
Sanctions, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 171
secrecy, 13, 69, 115, 187, 199, 201
should, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 35, 40, 41, 42,
45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59,
69, 71, 74, 75, 81, 82, 89, 90, 91, 94, 115, 171,
172, 175, 176, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184,
185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194,
195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205,
206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 215, 216, 219,
220, 222, 226, 228, 229, 230, 233, 234, 235,
237, 239, 242, 243, 244, 274
Show Cause, 26, 27, 28, 50, 51, 55, 74, 75, 76,
82, 83, 91, 94, 114, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183,
184, 244
SLO, 9, 92, 161, 189, 209, 219, 231, 244, 272
SLO’s, 9
SLOs, 9, 10, 52, 92, 168, 169, 184, 202, 206,
207, 209, 217, 219, 220, 230, 231, 234, 235,
244
special trustee, 53, 61, 171
Special Trustee, 25, 53, 56, 63, 171, 174
staffing, 12, 29, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 206,
208, 223, 227
Staffing, 29, 209
standard, 9, 25, 43, 57, 67, 68, 72, 116, 173,
174, 176, 179, 182, 183, 186, 195, 197, 202,
Page 275
212, 220, 223, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 241,
244, 283, 285
student learning, 9, 25, 28, 40, 52, 92, 175, 176,
178, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190,
192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200, 202,
206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 219,
221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 228, 230, 231, 235,
244, 271
student learning outcomes, 25, 28, 40, 52, 135,
160, 165, 166, 168, 175, 176, 179, 180, 181,
182, 184, 185, 186, 190, 193, 195, 196, 197,
198, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 214, 216, 217,
218, 219, 222, 223, 224, 228, 230, 231, 235,
244
substantially, 9, 81, 82, 195, 203, 211, 212
substantially meets, 157, 161, 164
teams, 13, 16, 35, 43, 44, 46, 62, 69, 70, 72, 73,
74, 76, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 106, 109, 110, 112,
114, 116, 128, 131, 132, 134, 140, 151, 181,
193, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205, 230, 241, 242,
244
technology, 12, 29, 97, 172, 180, 186, 188, 189,
191, 194, 196, 205, 206, 208, 216, 217, 218,
221, 223
transparency, 64, 77, 80, 81, 96, 100, 197, 237,
239, 242, 244
Tyler, 123
unfair business practices, 84, 86, 109
violation, 9, 13, 14, 15, 26, 36, 58, 63, 64, 65,
70, 71, 72, 76, 80, 82, 114, 174, 177, 181, 183,
204, 207, 214, 237, 244
violations, 15, 50, 56, 61, 64, 65, 71, 74, 114,
237, 239, 240, 243
visiting team, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 50, 52, 53,
56, 57, 114, 116, 117, 119, 173, 176, 180, 185,
186, 198, 199, 200, 201, 210, 213, 225
visiting Team, 197
Visiting Team, 18, 35, 49, 67, 69, 114, 171, 172,
173, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 195, 201, 214,
215, 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 241, 242
visiting teams, 7, 13, 14, 18, 40, 46, 50, 114,
115, 117, 119, 175, 212, 225, 237, 239, 271
Visiting Teams, 14, 71, 72, 89, 112, 168, 177,
188, 240, 244
voluntary, 14, 56, 59
Warning, 26, 27, 28, 33, 43, 114, 180, 184, 213,
225
WASC, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 116, 118, 232, 235,
236, 272
Page 276