By TimRedmond
JUNE 18, 2014 – On Friday, June 13, a publicist named Dave Hyams sent out a press release on behalf of the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. It announced the results of an ACCJC appeal board’s consideration of the accreditation status of San Francisco City College. The headline:
“CCSF loses appeal on termination.”
Um, what? That’s not what the news reports were saying – the Chron proclaimed the decision a victory for City College and noted:
The commission that had been set to revoke its accreditation based on year-old information cannot do so and must consider current progress, an appeal panel has concluded.
It’s just the latest chapter in what is becoming an increasingly bizarre story of an accrediting panel that has lost credibility across the board, has zero supporters – and yet persists in trying to shut down the biggest community college in the state on what can only be called political grounds.
I read the entire appeal ruling, which is full of legalisms, but not that hard to decipher. Like many appeals court rulings (although this wasn’t an appeals court, just a hearing panel) it goes through the various arguments one by one, and rejects four of CCSF’s five arguments.
But as anyone who follows the law knows, you only need one successful argument to win at appeal – and one of the school’s most important claims was upheld. The panel (made up of ACCJC members) agreed that City College had made substantial progress between July 2013 and January 2014, and that the steps taking to bring the school into compliance ought to be considered before the agency revokes its accreditation.
The terms are clear: The case is remanded to the full panel, which must look at all of the evidence and render a new decision.
I called Hyams and asked about the confusion, and he insisted at first that his headline was correct: “In all four technical arguments, City College’s appeal was rejected,” he told me.
Yes, but on the fifth substantive argument, the panel agreed that the revocation of accreditation should be suspended, right?
“The panel just said we should consider new evidence.”
And the school stays accredited until that happens, right?
“The school stays accredited anyway, because of a court order.”
Yes, but even without the court order, the ACCJC can’t pull the accreditation anymore until it considers the new evidence, right? And since the ACCJC doesn’t meet very often, that will take a while, won’t it?
“The commission can call a special meeting any time it wants.”
And has one been called?
“Not at this time.”
Okay then.
What’s happening here is pretty clear: The ACCJC is at war with City College and wants to either destroy it or force the institution to completely change its mission. And while the accrediting agency is under immense political pressure, and has to cover its own ass by appearing to be fair, the people in charge have not changed their basic stance one bit.
That’s why it’s going to be fascinating to see how a judge rules on the latest move by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who has filed a motion for summary judgment in his claim against the accreditors. That’s not uncommon in a civil lawsuit; both sides ask the judge to say: Hey, all the facts are on my side, don’t bother with a trial – I win.
And most of the time, judges dismiss them.
What’s interesting the Herrera claim, written by Deputy City Attorney Sara Eisenberg, is how many of the facts in this case really are undisputed – and how they demonstrate the political goals of the ACCJC.
The motion for summary judgment also includes a scathing declaration by Brice Harris, chancellor of the state’s Community College Board of Governors, who says very clearly that the head of the ACCJC, Barbara Beno, mislead him, and that if he had known the actions she was going to take, he would never have agreed to let a special trustee take over the school.
One of the central elements of the city’s case is that the ACCJC changed its standards midway through the accreditation process. The agency listed a number of problems at the school when it first notified college officials that accreditation could be revoked, and City College immediately set about responding to those charges. But when the final decision was made, the ACCJC added a long list of new problems – things the school had never been given the opportunity to correct or answer.
Those facts are not in dispute.
Nor is the fact that all of this happened in the context of a heated political debate over the direction of community college education in California. The state was in the process of adopting new standards that were in conflict with the open mission of City College, which offers a wide range of classes to students who seek a two-year degree but also to students who seek career advancement, new skills, or academic enrichment.
Beno was a leader in the fight for the new standards, which focus on students seeking two-year degrees and the ability to transfer to a four-year college. City College students and faculty were among the strongest opponents.
Those facts are not in dispute.
Nor is the fact that the visiting team that did the accreditation reports failed to meet federal standards. Nor is the fact that pretty much everyone, including the state chancellor, thought that City College could appeal the accreditation decision on the basis of the long list of changes the school made in 2013.
But instead, the ACCJC refused to accept any record or account of those improvements and in essence said that nothing the school could possibly do (except to go back in time and change things from before the visiting team arrived) to avoid the loss of accreditation.
That left Harris a bit startled.
In his declaration, made under penalty of perjury June 10, 2014, Harris cites numerous meetings, phone conversations, and emails with Beno in which the ACCJC president made it clear that City College could regain accreditation “with the right leadership.” Her message, as Harris heard it: Replace the elected board with a special trustee, make all the recommended changes, and the ACCJC will restore full accreditation.
“If I had known on July 8, 2013, that the rules of the Commission were going to be later interpreted to preclude consideration of any progress made by City College after June 2013, and that there existed no opportunity to preserve the accreditation of City College once the Commission made its decision to terminate it, I would not have asked the Board of Governors to take the extraordinary step of setting aside the locally elected Board of Trustees and to elevate the special trustee to one with extraordinary powers. Every signal from the Commission’s President, Dr. Beno, was that there was an opportunity to save City College.”
So Harris did what he thought Beno wanted, and it made no difference.
There is no dispute that City College has met the vast majority of the demands of the ACCJC. There is no dispute that as of January, 2014, the school had provided ACCJC with clear evidence that it was in compliance with more than 90 percent of what the accreditors wanted.
In fact, the ACCJC’s own appeals board agrees that the new information ought to be considered before any final decision on accreditation.
The only issue, and one that Judge Curtis Karnow will address in August, is whether the ACCJC has any reasonable case that it did anything but rig the rules and try to shut down City College without due process or proper grounds.
And whether the federal Department of Education will take any steps to reign in what just about every political leader in California and Washington agrees is a commission out of control.
