complaints AND lawsuits
CFT Complaint of August 2016 to DOE
On December 15, 2014 the California Federation of Teachers and AFT 2121 filed a new complaint against the ACCJC with the ACCJC and the U.S. Department of Education. The new complaint includes new violations of regulations including many revealed in the People vs. ACCJC lawsuit.
On November 25, 2013 the CFT and the San Francisco City Attorney both, and independently, filed Motions for Preliminary Injunction against the ACCJC in order to stop ACCJC from removing the accreditation of City College of San Francisco. See below and to the right.
CFT and AFT 2121 File Law Suit Against ACCJC
My April 30, 2013 Complaint and Third Party Comment
The RP Group Report of Differences in Accreditation Agencies and Compliance Orientation of ACCJC
California Joint Legislative Audit Committee to audit ACCJC
Save CCSF Coalition law suit filed November 7, 2013
Dr. Robert Agrella Dr. Thelma Scott-Skillman
Special Trustee Interim Chancellor
Board of Trustees City College of San Francisco
City College of San Francisco
Dear Dr. Agrella and Dr. Scott-Skillman,
I am hereby demanding that your office provide me, under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250-6276.48), copies of the following documents and following information:
1. A copy of any review request, letter or appeal, or any other document submitted by City College of San Francisco (CCSF) or any of its employees, administrators, agents or legal counsel to the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) appealing the ACCJC's disaccreditation of CCSF.
2. Copies of any and all evidence, documentation, attachments or exhibits related to such a review letter or which accompanied the review letter or appeal to the ACCJC.
3. Copies of any correspondence between the CCSF and the ACCJC, or any of their respective officers, employees, agents or legal counsel, related to the review letter or appeal.
4. A copy of any bill, statements or requests for payment from the ACCJC to the CCSF for or related to CCSF's appeal, along with copies of any accompanying correspondence.
I request that your office provide this information and documentation as soon as it is able, and respond to this request within 10 days, but no later than September 1, 2013, as required by Government Code section 6253.
This requested information is subject to disclosure under the CPRA, with no exception of that Act allowing CCSF to withhold this public information.
If, however, you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested.
If you determine that any or all of the above-requested information is exempt from disclosure, pursuant to Government Code section 6255, please provide me, in writing, with your office's justification for such an exemption.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions about this demand, please do not hesitate to contact me at this email address.
Martin Hittelman August 22, 2013
Author of ACCJC Gone Wild
public records act request.doc
31K View Download
The letter from Department of Education to ACCJC to investigate the complaint
My Third Party to the Department of Education regarding ACCJC
Written Comments re: the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)
Submitted by: Martin Hittelman, Mathematics Professor Emeritus (Los Angeles Valley College), President Emeritus of the California Federation of Teachers
On August 13, 2013 Kay Gilcher, the Director of the Accreditation Group of the Office of Postsecondary Education, wrote to Barbara Beno of the ACCJC 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 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. This written comment directs itself at the large number of violations of 34 CFR 602 that have occurred around California over the last several years. I have documented these violations in the attached version of ACCJC Gone Wild. I had forwarded a complaint against ACCJC in the past and this is an enlargement of that complaint. I am attaching the latest version of ACCJC Gone Wild (with an index which includes the sections of 34 CFR 602 violated). I have also include a number of other items that evidence the violations made by ACCJC. I have a website entitled www.accreditationwatch.com. You may find other intems of interest at this website.
In addition to those violations cited by the Accreditation Group, I have also documented violations related to the following sections of 34 C.F.R:
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.
602.21 Review of standards.
602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have.
602.25 Due process
In addition, it appears to me that ACCJC does not satisfies §602.11 as it geographic scope of accrediting activities include California, Hawaii, and Guam – clearly not reasonably close to one another as required.
As it is not part of State government (which it appears it is proud of since it always claims it is not), it does include at least three states, and it does not cover the United States.
To illustrate the lack of consistency in application of standards, one need only look at the sanctions, Visiting Team reports, and how differently the satisfaction of deficiences were handled after Show Cause sanctions at City College of San Francisco, Solano Community College, Diablo Valley College, College of the Redwoods, and Cuesta College. More inconsistencies are clear when looking at the colleges that I have addressed in ACCJC Gone Wild.
Other violations are similarly obvious. I think it is time that ACCJC has its accreditation ability removed. It has harmed California ‘s community colleges enough already.