Over two years ago back in 2013, The Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges set in motion efforts to shut down City College on the grounds that it had not met its requirements for accredited status. Yet even with the ruling of an appointed Superior Court Judge, like Karnow, City College of San Francisco’s second change is only tentative.
Even before court proceedings were over that Friday, both The City Attorney’s Office and The ACCJC released information to the press, each stating their position in the matter. City Attorney Dennis Herrera presented evidence that The ACCJC did not follow regulations of having the required number of academics on the ACCJC’s visiting teams back in 2012 when it evaluated the college. Herrera pointed out that the accrediting board violated Federal Regulations by not giving the college due process in the accreditation process; the ACCJC failed to properly notify City College of its pending decision to terminate accreditation status and The ACCJC did not pay enough attention to its conflict of interests with its own commissioners.
Judge Karnow sided with Herrera’s evidence by granting a new accreditation option. But the Judge disagreed with Herrera that having the husband of ACCJC president Dr. Barbara Beno on the evaluation team created a conflict of interest.
Reading the press releases by the ACCJC and Herrera’s office was a bit confusing. Even placing them side by side showed each had a different view on what happened in court that Friday. For City Attorney Herrera, the judge cited ‘significant unlawful practices.’ While in the ACCJC’s info released to the press the headline read, ‘Judge’s decision largely discounts City Attorney’s accusations against the ACCJC.’
Speaking on behalf of ACCJC president Barbara Beno, media contact Eliza Chan said,”We are extremely gratified. That, after a full evidentiary hearing and extensive briefing by the attorneys, Judge Karnow essentially found that the ACCJC did not do anything wrong with respect to its decisions regarding the accreditation of CCSF. Judge Karnow’s decision has largely discounted the far-reaching accusations of the City Attorney against ACCJC, including suggestions that Dr. Barbara Beno improperly influenced the decision on CCSF.”
Yet in his statement to the media, which his staff sent directly to this reporter, City Attorney Dennis Herrera said, “I’m grateful for a tentative ruling that vindicates our view of the accrediting commission’s unlawful conduct in evaluating City College.” Herrera went on to explain…”This should serve as a loud, unequivocal wake-up call to accreditors — that they are subject to laws, and will face consequences for breaking them.”
Herrera did note some disappointment as he said. “Though Judge Karnow didn’t go as far as we asked in terms of his proposed remedy, I am impressed with his thoughtful proposal for a tough, enforceable injunction that forces ACCJC to correct its violations and assures City College its due process rights.”
Even with Judge Karnow hearing the two sides, this ‘injunction’ and ‘tentative decision’ still does not resolve the issue of the college being in full compliance for its accreditation.
While Karnow did find that the Marin County based accrediting board had violated certain federal regulations under the ‘common law fair procedure,’ “the evidence does not support a finding of any unfair practices,” wrote Karnow. Yet, as reported by the San Francisco Examiner the Judge did find that some of The ACCJC’s actions were strong enough to warrant a chance to respond.
When this reporter first followed the accreditation situation more than two years ago, City College administrators and trustee members assured all requirements would be met in time for the ACCJC’s deadline.
But instead of everything being resolved, the rift between City College and the ACCJC got worse. When City Attorney Herrera stepped in to file litigation, all became critical.
Oddly, days before the court proceedings with Judge Karnow, the ACCJC announced to the press on Wednesday that it, “considered and granted Restoration Status to the City College of San Francisco (CCSF), effective immediately.”
As pointed out by The San Francisco Examiner, “restoration status” is still not full accreditation. Under Restoration Status, City College will remain accredited and have two years to come into full compliance with all Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies. the College which serves over 70,0000 students will next be reviewed by ACCJC in January 2017.
How this will all get resolved for that deadline is difficult to say. What is still a mystery, especially to those of us outside of the inner circles of the Community College of California system, how did it get this bad? And, why did it get this far off the path? Is it all about money and budgets and who in these inner circles gets funded? Clear answers are not easily given. And, when explanations are provided they are hard to understand, especially to those it matters the most, the students.
How is this conflict, this discord between the College and the accrediting board helping the students? What purpose does it have to further higher education? Especially at a time when public education in this nation is at its most vulnerable, shouldn’t all educational entities work together?
Even Deputy City Attorney Sara Eisenberg made mention
in her talks with The Guardsman, (City College’s news paper) that City College of San Francisco operates as its own entity with its own rules. Yet even so, City College must maintain Federal standards. How did it get so off course? Or is there some inner conflict within the powers that City College has?
Also as reported by the SF Examiner, Eisenberg did say that the situation as it has been brought before the Superior Court could impact school accreditors across the nation.
If so, that is scary. I say this because, if schools like City College have a vision or a mission that comes into conflict with an accrediting board, then does that mean litigation and court proceedings will follow?
Our nations public schools have enough troubles as it is. If something like accreditation has to be questioned frequently, then how will our educational system continue to function efficiently? Think about it…if this case with City College of San Francisco sets a norm, then what?
This type of long and drawn out conflict will cause all sorts of problems with our public college system. And, ultimately the students, the future of us as a nation will suffer most.
It will be interesting to see how this conflict between the ACCJC and City College plays out.
Meanwhile as City Attorney Hererra said, “City College has been a cornerstone of educational promise for generations of San Franciscans, and Judge Karnow has proposed a thorough, novel and influential ruling that powerfully affirms the importance of a fair and lawful accreditation process — not just for City College of San Francisco, but for all educational institutions in California.”
“While I’m grateful for this proposed ruling, I’d reiterate a point I made when I first filed suit: nothing about our case should distract or delay City College from doing all it can to solve problems that potentially threaten its existence.” “Should this decision stand, as we expect, it will offer City College another option for a life-saving reprieve. We will have affirmed the college’s right to a fair and lawful accreditation process. But City College’s future is in City College’s hands. And we must be vigilant to ensure that our cherished college isn’t vulnerable to similar injustices in the future.”
To follow the latest details of this case visit the San Francisco City Attorney’s office web site.
