Now that City College of San Francisco has applied for “Restoration Status” there is an urgent need for a closer examination of this unnecessary and flawed policy. We need the ACCJC to answer basic questions.
We need answers about the development of “Restoration Status” as a policy and the preposterous sham of the “remand” process that ended with the ACCJC denying CCSF’s Appeal. Who examined what new CCSF evidence? How long did anyone deliberate? Was there any deliberation?
We need answers to why “Restoration Status” sets up rules for CCSF to be shut down even if it meets a standard of “substantial compliance.” Other colleges remain open if they meet the “substantial compliance” standard. What is the logic of this policy? We need answers to why “Restoration Status” has no further right of appeal or review.
We need answers to why CCSF was not simply given a two-year “good cause” extension. The Department of Education in a letter to Leader Pelosi has stated that the ACCJC already has the authority to grant a two-year “good cause” extension. They have done this for many other colleges. Why not CCSF? Why was there any need at all to create “Restoration Status” for CCSF? We need answers to know what is the basic criteria for accepting CCSF to be in “Restoration Status”. There is no manual. If we are not accepted into “Restoration Status” will we be disaccredited. How will we know what criteria or processes exist to determine this?
We need answers to know if creating “Restoration Status” was part of a legal strategy to avoid going to trial in the Herrera lawsuit. The ACCJC has already used this new policy and the appeal “remand” to ask for the lawsuit by City Attorney Dennis Herrera to be stayed and ultimately dismissed.
We believe that the answers to these questions will expose the ACCJCs continued disregard for the future of the 80,000 students of CCSF.