Panel SF City College Accreditor's Auditor Is Attacking Public Education Again-Why?

ACCJC Sanctions CCSF Again: What is Wrong with this Action?

Summary:

The latest sanction of City College of San Francisco (CCSF) issued by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) shows the Commission taking the side of CCSF Chancellor David Martin who is in a power struggle with a few members of the CCSF Board of Trustees. The ACCJC’s “recommendations” represent an attempt to prevent the Board of Trustees from enacting policies that benefit students and the community that are contrary to the austerity goals of the Chancellor.

CCSF Chancellor Martin’s policies have been harmful to students and their education opportunities. His layoffs have had little justification as demonstrated by the faculty union’s (AFT 2121) alternative budget. Neither Martin nor his supporters ever disputed the claims of the union's budget that showed that the budget could be balanced, and that no layoffs and class cuts would have been necessary.

Hence, the latest action of the ACCJC is to stymie and prevent the Board from growing the college to benefit students and the community. It reflects a dislike for a democratically elected Board of Trustees, especially one that challenges and does not rubber stamp administration policies.


Details on the Latest ACCJC Sanction of CCSF

On January 16, 2024, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) once again sanctioned City College of San Francisco (CCSF) placing the college on warning and requiring it to align with three standards that are supposedly not being met by the Board of Trustees. If the Board fails to comply by January 2027, the Commission threatens to take “adverse action” without spelling out what that means. According to the ACCJC, the college met all of its other standards.

However, in its letter to Chancellor Martin, the ACCJC is directing the Board to “demonstrate compliance with the following standards”… in a “Follow-up Report” due by March 1, 2025 that is “followed by a visit by a peer review team” which suggests that compliance is required well before January 2027.

1. “consider the College’s long-range fiscal implications when making financial decisions in order to assure financial stability,”

2. “act in a manner consistent with its policies and bylaws,” and

3. “show that” they “allow the Chancellor to implement and administer Board policies without Board interference.”

The language here is obviously subject to different interpretations.



Background

The purpose of accreditation is to have outsiders examine an educational institution to see if it is doing a good job. This makes great sense. The problem arises when the accrediting agency abuses its power and seeks to impose its agenda on a college for purposes that go beyond making suggestions for how a college can improve upon what it is doing.

In 2012, the ACCJC issued its harshest sanction (short of closure) of “show cause” against CCSF. Under it, the college was required to prove why it should remain open. In their report, the 2012 ACCJC visiting team wrote on page 37

“The team concluded that the instructional programs in credit and non-credit programs provide high-quality instruction to meet the needs of the community while also demonstrating the college effort to meet the broad mission of the institution (II.A.1, II.A.2.c)”

That means the college exceeded the U.S. Department of Education guidelines that states that “the goal of accreditation is to ensure that the education provided meets acceptable levels of quality.”

Furthermore, on page 18 of the ACCJC team report “The [ACCJC] visiting team confirmed that City College of San Francisco provides comprehensive and accessible student services to its students.”

The ACCJC’s visiting team’s conclusion and affirmation might strike one as a description of a college that should be celebrated, not one threatened with closure. Yet, a year later, the ACCJC threatened CCSF with closure and the state chancellor’s Board of Governors responded by removing CCSF’s democratically elected Board of Trustees and taking over the college to clean up its supposed mess.

The threat and the entire accreditation process came across as a manufactured crisis. The ACCJC was viewed as an out-of-control accreditor (see the state auditor’s report on the ACCJC and ACCJC Gone Wild by Marty Hittelman). That position was further confirmed when a judge ruled the ACCJC had engaged in “significant unlawful practices” when threatening to close CCSF.

See summary of judge’s decision in a case brought by the San Francisco City Attorney against the ACCJC.

The consequences of the ACCJC’s actions, supported by the Community College State Chancellor, have been terrible for the college and what it offers. Thousands of classes have been dropped from the schedule, many programs such as the one serving older adults have been gutted, satellite campuses including the one at Fort Mason have been closed, and far fewer people attend as students and work at the college with the current size of faculty about half of what it was before the start of the crisis.

Chancellor Martin represents a continuation of chancellors brought to “lead” the college since the beginning of the accreditation crisis in 2012. All acted to downsize the college. For those students able to enroll in the classes they need, the programs and purpose of their education have been narrowed to focusing on job training and on completing requirements to get certificates and/or transfer to a four-year college.

Lifelong learning, taking time to explore different fields, gaining personal enrichment, and taking classes to become more well-rounded are discouraged.

Chancellor Martin, who began his tenure as chancellor in November of 2021, has been continuing what the ACCJC began in 2012. Soon after taking his position, he rejected a contract that had been recently negotiated with the staff and announced the laying off of some 60 staff members. Shortly thereafter, he called for laying off 50 full-time tenured faculty that was subsequently reduced to 38 (probably due to more retiring than expected and not being replaced), but also resulted in many part-time faculty losing their jobs. All of this was accompanied by reductions in the number of classes scheduled, harming student educational opportunities. The restored Board of Trustees accepted and/or approved of these decisions.

During this recent school year, 2023-2024, a few more classes have been scheduled, but their number remains below the number the year before Martin was hired.

The argument was made that the downsizing of the college had to happen in order to balance the budget and prepare for the college to have less revenue at the end of a hold harmless period that will soon end.

However, at the time in early 2022 when Martin was seeking to lay off 50 full-time faculty, AFT 2121 union leaders put forward an alternative budget that would be balanced in which none of the layoffs would have been necessary. Neither the administration nor the Board explained why that alternative budget was flawed and should not have been adopted.

What is key to growing the college and receiving more state revenue is to enroll many more students, but the possibility of that happening depends on more classes being scheduled. The approach of the administration under Chancellor Martin and his predecessors has been to do the opposite—make cuts that generally result in fewer students enrolling, harming the fiscal health of the college, and then using the decreased enrollment as an excuse to make still more cuts.

With the class cuts, many students can’t enroll in the classes they need to fulfill requirements which are often fully enrolled with waitlists. When they are able to enroll, the classes frequently have maximum enrollments that usually takes away from the quality of their education.



2022 Board Election

In November 2022, a year after Martin began working as CCSF’s chancellor, the people of San Francisco elected three new people to its seven member CCSF Board of Trustees known as “the slate,” and backed by the faculty and staff unions. Unlike previous boards, the newly elected board members were not oriented towards rubber stamping the decisions of the Chancellor. They favored expanding CCSF and its educational opportunities, putting them at odds with Chancellor Martin.

The ACCJC is obviously seeking to reverse the actions of the new Board members. What is noteworthy is that the chair of the ACCJC's visiting team, Erika Endrijonas, whose name adorns the cover page of their report, was quite controversial in her time heading Pasadena City College before being hired as the Superintendent/President of Santa Barbara City College in May 2023.

Both the Pasadena academic senate and full-time faculty expressed no confidence
in her leadership. See
https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/reaction-to-pcc-president-superintendents-impending-departure-varies-depending-on-whether-friend-or-foe#:~:text=Full%2Dtime%20PCC%20faculty%20affirmed,a%20contract%20extension%20for%20Dr
[hyperlink does not work]

Should a person with that record be empowered to lead a team passing judgement on board members of another college (who are supported by faculty) in a way that suggests she could have a personal stake in having a Board of Trustees that does not/can-not tell her how to do her job?


ACCJC Visiting Team Report

While critical of the CCSF Board of Trustees, the ACCJC 2024 team’s report is favorable toward the Chancellor. Many of the problems at the college for which the Chancellor is responsible are ignored or overlooked.

The ACCJC team spells out what is presumably the key “problem” they had with the Board of Trustees. It centers around a resolution passed by the Board calling for the rehiring of laid-off faculty. This resolution is mentioned numerous times in their report. On pages 51 they wrote

“…the Team found several instances where the Governing Board did not act in a manner consistent with its bylaws:

The passage and amendment of a resolution to rehire previously laid off faculty during the May 18, 2023 and July 27, 2023 Board meetings violated BP 1.02. This resolution charged the Chancellor with rehiring faculty and provided a timeline of when the rehires were “expected” to occur. BP 1.02, section A states, “(the Governing Board will) Determine broad general policies, plans, and procedures to guide its officers and employees.” BP 1.02, section H states, “(the Governing Board will) delegate authority in all administrative matters to the Chancellor, including, but not limited to, hiring or promotion of specific individuals. The resolution violated BP 1.02 as the Board was not determining “broad general policies or plans”; rather, the Board engaged in administrative decisions, which are not within their operational purview. Only the Chancellor has the “administrative authority in hiring or promotion of specific individuals.”

The reality is that CCSF’s Board of Trustees comes across as acting in a manner consistent with its bylaws that are cited by the ACCJC. Certainly, the board acted to have more faculty hired, not specific individuals, unless that means laid-off faculty who, under the union contract, must be hired first. The Board passed a resolution acting to meet the needs of students that could be viewed as the Board determining “broad general policies, plans, and procedures to guide its officers and employees” assuming the ACCJC actually prioritizes the needs and interests of students. What is unclear is how the ACCJC visiting team could conclude the Board was not following its policies other than to assert it has not done so. The ACCJC comes across preferring to empower the policies of the administration that deny students educational opportunities even though on page 50, the ACCJC team wrote that “The Governing Board has ultimate responsibility for educational quality…”

Again, with its resolution, the Board was directing Chancellor Martin to rehire unnecessarily laid off faculty so classes that students need to take are available. A prime example is the required English 1A class. All sections were fully enrolled, and many had full waitlists weeks in advance of the Fall 2023 term, and again for the Spring 2024 term. This meant that the needs of hundreds, if not thousands, of students that could add to the college’s enrollment were not being met and the Board sought, over the resistance of the Chancellor, to meet those needs. How terrible for them to do so! And this action comes across as a main reason for CCSF being sanctioned?

Further undermining their credibility, the ACCJC visiting team reports on page 19 that CCSF “demonstrates its commitment to students” shown “through its …available educational opportunities based on identified student and community needs with a high level of integrity and transparency.” What kind of school demonstrates a commitment to “student and the community needs” while at the same time it lays off faculty who could be teaching classes that students need that then become unavailable to many students because the chancellor and his team decided not to schedule enough sections? Then there are the many English as a Second Language classes with enrollments in excess of 50 students. What kind of opportunities and needed attention can students in such unreasonably large classes receive?

On page 26, the report authors assert “CCSF provides its students with schedule options that allow for the completion of certificates and degree programs within a timeframe that is consistent with established expectations for higher education.” And they go on to cite the offerings of English 1A as an example as if the number of classes scheduled are adequate to enable students to complete certificates and degree programs within an expected time frame.



Staffing Contradictions

The ACCJC team in its report is not consistent. On Page 33 “The staffing levels of the College are adequate,” (emphasis added)

On Page 37 “Based on employee comments and Team observations, staffing has not been sufficient to properly maintain the college’s main campus and its five other sites. The 2023-24 budget has authorized the hiring of additional staff, which may help to address the issue.” (emphasis added)

Yet, they essentially justify recent staff reductions as being realistic:

Pg 41 “the difficult decision to reduce staffing in 2022, and the adoption of a Board-approved plan to fully fund OPEB, the College had demonstrated planning that reflected a realistic assessment of resources.”

Page 40

“In 2020, the Board of Trustees adopted a Multiyear Budget and Enrollment Strategic Plan (MYBE) to better align expenditures with ongoing resources. Large staffing reductions were implemented in 2022 to help bring down expenditures in accordance with the MYBE. These reductions have helped to eliminate the operational deficit in the 2022-23 budget, but the MYBE still assumes ongoing enrollments of 18,000 to 20,000 FTES while the college is earning fewer than 14,000 actual FTES. To maintain sustainability, the College will likely need to make additional adjustments in future years.” (emphasis added)

This presumably means more layoffs and reductions in staff though they acknowledge, again, on page 37 that “hiring of additional staff…may help to address the issue” of insufficient staff.

What the ACCJC visiting team is saying is that the college needs fewer staff, the same number, and more staff. That is advice that might make one’s head spin!!. Did the team even read its own report?

On Page 40, they go on to criticize the Board for seeking to rehire laid-off faculty. “These actions suggest to the Team that the current Board is not committed to the MYBE plan, which was enacted to achieve long-term stability.” Again, the Board sought to meet student needs for more classes—isn’t that what a college should be doing?



Facilities

There have been serious problems with the college facilities.

See:

CCSF students jump from ‘one icebox to another’ in classes without heat

SF teachers wear triple shirts in ‘freezing’ college classrooms

CCSF Facilities Working Conditions 2022-2024

The ACCJC team report on page 36: “Evidence of the college’s responsiveness to safety concerns included the improvement of the air filtration system during the COVID pandemic.” See the entry in the above Working Conditions report on 1/19/24 concerning the Downtown Campus “There are only four air purifiers to serve 22 classrooms, plus meeting rooms, offices, computer labs, and the library. Downtown Campus windows do not open. Faculty have requested more air purifiers, but so far have received nothing at all.”

Yet, the ACCJC visiting team would have you believe that matters are fine.

From their report on page 36:

“III.B. Physical Resources General Observations: The College assures that it has safe and sufficient physical resources at all locations through planning and investment guided by its Facilities Master Plan (FMP). The buildings are constructed and maintained to ensure access, safety, security, and to provide a healthy learning and working environment.”

Tell that to students in classrooms with temperatures below 60!

Absent is any mention of the heating problems in many buildings throughout much of 2022-23 school year that continued into the fall. Are CCSF facilities actually being described in this report?



Declining Enrollment

What is troubling is that the ACCJC will cite CCSF’s declining enrollment as necessitating cuts without explaining why the administration’s actions and inactions over the years have resulted in lower enrollments. For many years, CCSF has had a user-unfriendly online registration system that discourages students from enrolling into classes. A printed class schedule has not been distributed throughout San Francsico as had been done for years. The schedule posted on the college’s website lists classes, but without an index. There has been the closure of CCSF sites throughout the city where classes are held that has reduced access to the college. With the numerous class cuts, the need for students with tight schedules are not being met.

The report goes on at Pg. 63 “b. The team verified that the college has experienced a significant decline in enrollment, which is critical to long-term resource availability.” Yet, again, the ACCJC is sanctioning and criticizing the college because the Board acted to reverse the decline in enrollment by rehiring laid-off faculty.

The visiting team also calls for diverting more money away from the current needs of students.

Page 42

“Further, the state Chancellor’s Office has recently raised the recommended district minimum reserve to “two months of general fund expenditures” which is equivalent to 16.67%. The College will need to review the Chancellor’s Office recommendation and consider the next steps to maintain sufficient reserves.”

When more money is placed into reserves, it results in fewer classes and services being offered.

Also reported on page 42,

“Through significant staff and expenditure reductions enacted in 2022, the College was able to budget a cash reserve of $17.5 million for the 2022-23 fiscal year, equal to approximately 10% of unrestricted general fund expenditures.”

And now, they are calling for more money to be put into the reserve fund.



Reduce Facilities?

While many facilities have already been closed harming enrollment, they call for further reductions in facilities.

Page 36 “While the College considers total cost of ownership in its facilities planning process, the College has identified a need to reduce its footprint to align staffing and costs with current enrollment needs.”

And Page 63 “c. The team verified that the college operates many sites across its service area, creating a large and costly operational footprint” that they obviously think should be reduced.

Budget

On pages 51-52, the ACCJC visiting team expresses disapproval of “final budget preparation and approval process has not occurred.” The actions of the administration on this issue have not always been helpful and desirable. They don’t even cooperate with each other. The judge in the unfair labor complaint filed by AFT 2121 noted in his decision dated April 24, 2023, that even a key administrative figure, the interim chancellor right before Martin began his job as chancellor, Diane Gonzales, who was the “District’s chief negotiator” was unable to obtain needed budget information.

From the decision P7 and 8

“HR [the administration side in negotiations] attempted to gather the information AFT requested, but faced several obstacles, chiefly from the District’s business office headed by Dr. Al-Amin. For example, AFT protested that the documents provided in response to the union request for information about sales tax projections were inadequate, and Gonzales, who agreed it did not explain the District’s projections, could not get an adequate explanation from the business office.” (emphasis added)

P 8 “Gonzales summarized the central problem during bargaining as follows:

“[W]e, HR and me personally, found it difficult to engage with AFT in good faith when I had to keep showing up for meetings with AFT without adequate financial information. So I either had no information or some information, but not adequate information. So in other words, if AFT had questions about particular budget documents, I needed to get more information from the budget office and there just wasn't that kind of cooperation occurring.”

Further, the judge stated, P 7

“Though the District’s budget expressed precise projections, Dr. Al-Amin was unable to articulate the District’s method for arriving at those numbers….the District’s budget projected sales tax revenue was 12.7 million and there was no way of explaining that projection from the documents provided.”

The judge ruled in favor of AFT 2121. Under the leadership of Chancellor Martin, the college spent money fighting this complaint. How could this wasteful expenditure be unmentioned in the ACCJC visiting team’s report especially given its budget concerns?



Other Problems Obtaining Accurate Budget Information

Throughout negotiations, a constant complaint from AFT 2121 leaders was their inability to get budget information needed for negotiations. Typical was what was reported in their October 24, 2023 bulletin. “About half of the session focused on the college’s budget–however, the District's bargaining team was unwilling to provide the information needed to begin salary negotiations.”

The most serious charge concerning the budget was put forward by the faculty union in a November 9, 2023 bulletin.

“We’re sorry to have to share with you that we have uncovered Management Fraud here at our college. We did not, initially, want to believe what our investigations had uncovered. But here are the facts.

There is clear evidence that Chancellor Martin and the District have engaged in what is technically referred to as Management Fraud, or “the deliberate material misstatement of financial statements by top management” (see more). Martin recently fabricated a budget policy document by inserting information he received in 2023 into a 2020 Board report. This created the impression that recent, unprecedented transfers from the General Fund were rooted in long-standing policy. They were not. (emphasis added)

Because of this evidence, AFT 2121 has filed yet another Unfair Labor Practice against the District for misrepresenting financial information. See the evidence and the Unfair Labor Practice here.”

However, Chancellor Martin has not responded publicly to this serious charge of committing fraud. This matter was unmentioned in the ACCJC visiting team report.



Other “Problems” Cited by ACCJC

OPEB is set up as a trust to be used to finance retiree health benefits instead of using the previous pay as you go system. That requires more money in the budget being withdrawn from educational programs. The ACCJC states that pg 65 “the college’s OPEB liability is $118 million.” This justifies more austerity and not meeting the educational needs of students. Could this be an excessive amount? It would certainly be unnecessary if we had a single payer medical system.

Minor problems that could quickly and easily be addressed

1. Chancellor Evaluation: Page 51 “The evaluation of the Chancellor has not occurred in accordance with BP 1.24.”

This is obviously something that should be done. However, given Martin’s plans to not seek renewal of his contract that was announced before the arrival of the ACCJC visiting team, how critical is this deficiency?

2. Setting Board Meeting Agenda page 52: “Based on Chancellor and Trustee interviews, the team found that agenda items were often placed on the agenda by the President of the Board of Trustees, without consultation with the Chancellor.”

Page 53

“AP 1.09 requires the Chancellor, in consultation with the Board of Trustees President, to determine items to be placed on the Board of Trustees Agenda. Based on interviews with individual Trustees and with the Chancellor, the Team found that Governing Board members often bypass the Chancellor and go directly to the Board President to place items on the agenda.”

Adding items to the agenda without doing so through the chancellor is presumably not a major problem and, perhaps, something the Board should be able to do. It can easily be addressed. Should it rise to a level in which it is cited as a reason for sanctioning the college?



Conclusion

The ACCJC’s report is not a sound and sensible document. The ACCJC has created another unnecessary crisis at CCSF that will harm students and their educational opportunities. During the accreditation crisis set off in 2012, there was talk of finding a new accreditor to replace the ACCJC—something that should have happened.