“It’s all behind a curtain”: Advocates For CCSF Castigate Accrediting Board For Secrecy

Attorneys argued in a daylong hearing today over whether a judge should block a decision made earlier this year by a regional commission to revoke the accreditation of City College of San Francisco.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow will decide at an unspecified later date whether to issue preliminary injunctions requested by City Attorney Dennis Herrera and two teachers’ unions who filed lawsuits to block the loss of the school’s accreditation.

The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges in July issued an order revoking City College’s accreditation effective July 31, 2014, citing issues with the school’s finances and governance structure.

The school has requested a review of the commission’s decision, a process currently under way, ACCJC officials said.

But Robert Bezemek, an attorney representing the California Federation of Teachers and the City College teachers’ union, American Federation of Teachers Local 2121, told Karnow today that the accrediting commission did not give the school proper due process before making its decision.

Bezemek said “a significant violation” occurred when an ACCJC evaluation report found 19 deficiencies with the school and the commission then increased that number to 30 at a June meeting without notifying City College of what the additional deficiencies were.

Bezemek cited other problems with the commission’s accrediting process, including an apparent conflict of interest in having commission president Barbara Beno appoint her husband to the team that evaluated City College.

He said the ACCJC’s decision has City College students leaving in droves, with enrollment down by as much as 30 percent since this time last year.

Deputy City Attorney Sara Eisenberg said it was important for the judge to make a decision on an injunction in the next two weeks because City College has an open enrollment period that ends on Jan. 8 and students would like more certainty on the fate of the school’s accreditation.

If the judge issued an injunction, it would remain in place until a trial is held in the case.

But Andrew Sclar, an attorney for the commission, said an injunction would simply “mask the problems with CCSF.”

Sclar said blocking the commission’s decision would “wreak havoc on the accrediting process” for panels around the country.

Another attorney for the commission, Philip Ward, said the threat of loss of accreditation was necessary to bring about change at the school.

“There has to be major reorganizing decisions at City College,” Ward said.

He said, “Nobody wants to see City College disaccredited … we’re trying to make sure it gets as good as it can be.”

Sclar said it was unprecedented anywhere else in the nation to have a third party like the city or a labor union bringing a lawsuit against a commission rather than the school itself.

City College special trustee Robert Agrella, who was appointed by California Community Colleges Chancellor Brice Harris to oversee the school after the July accreditation ruling, decided that City College would not pursue a lawsuit against the commission.

However, the attorneys for the plaintiffs said the lawsuit was necessary because the commission has been secretive about how it reached its accreditation decision as well as the process for how it will review the decision and how the school can appeal it.

“It’s all behind a curtain,” Bezemek said. “There’s no public hearings.”

He said, “They have to be subject to challenge when they’re given this much authority.”

Laurence Kessenick, an attorney for the commission, told reporters outside of court that the secrecy was “to make sure the process is fair to the institution” and “to protect the integrity of the process.”

Both sides will return to court on Monday for a hearing in which Karnow will decide whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring forward the lawsuit.

The commission’s attorneys have asked the judge to delay his decision on an injunction until after Monday’s hearing, but he did not indicate when he might issue his ruling.

Dan McMenamin, Bay City News

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • frenchjr25

    How about CCSF challenge the ability of a non-governmental body to decide if a university is worthy of accreditation?

    Who authorized this private business to have the power to close colleges and universities? CCSF needs to be publicly asking this very important question. Only the federal government should be accrediting colleges and universities.

  • Rik

    To use a colloquialism, the former comment by frenchjr25 is “right on”. Let’s look at two statements involving the ACCJC lawyers taken from the “Appeal” article above. Sclar said blocking the commission’s decision would “wreak havoc on the accrediting process” for panels around the country. This is exactly what NEEDS to happen and SHOULD happen to help education in America. The accrediting agencies are a large part of the problem. Recently in its regular report, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) in its statement regarding academic accrediting agencies recommended ” more public input and substantial modification in policies of these agencies to make them less intrusive, prescriptive, costly, and granular”. The alternative report of the same committee goes beyond that and calls the accreditation system in rhe United States “dysfunctional” and “broken”. So, Mr. Sclar without knowing it is also “right on,” the accrediting agencies need to undergo a little havoc in order to prevent them from terrorizing education in the United States and wasting precious funds on their own bloated operations, salaries, expense accounts, reimbursements, etc., etc., etc. ( Remember, one of the bills racked up by the ACCJC committee visiting CCSF was for $30,000 at the Union Square Handlery Hotel. Another involved ACCJC members and some CC Trustees staying at the Lake Tahoe Ritz Carlton. Thoroughly, unconditionally, and absolutely nauseating. The IRS should look in the the finances of all those involved.
    As for the statement attributed to Philip Ward that ” the threat of loss of accreditation was necessary to bring about change at the school”, one wonders how someone with such a fractured sense of logic ever passed the bar exam. It is equivalent to saying if you get a parking ticket a death sentence needs to be a possibility to prevent you from getting another one. Some of us would like to see a thorough investigation into who pays Messrs. Sclar and Ward and how they are paid. Perhaps the IRS has a solution?