BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1397|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1397
Author: Ting (D) and Bonta (D), et al.
Amended: 7/8/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-3, 7/15/15
AYES: Runner, Block, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak
NOES: Liu, Hancock, Monning
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 8/17/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-18, 6/4/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Community colleges: California Community Colleges
Fair Accreditation Act of 2015
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill establishes the California Community
Colleges (CCC) Fair Accreditation Act of 2015 and requires the
accrediting agency for CCCs to meet specified operational
standards.
ANALYSIS: Existing law confers upon the CCC Board of
Governor's (BOG) the ability to prescribe minimum standards for
the formation and operation of community colleges and exercise
general supervision over the community colleges. (Education Code
§ 66700 and § 70901)
As such, regulations (Title 5 California Code of Regulations §
AB 1397
Page 2
51016) have been adopted to require each community college
within a district to be an accredited institution with the
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)
determining accreditation.
This bill establishes the CCC Fair Accreditation Act of 2015 and
requires the accrediting agency for CCCs to meet specified
operational standards. Specifically, this bill:
1) Establishes the following requirements for the accrediting
agency's decision making body and visiting teams:
a) Requires each visiting accreditation team to have an
appropriate share of academics and defines academics to
mean a person who is currently, or has recently directly
engaged in a significant manner in postsecondary teaching
or research.
b) Requires the agency to establish and enforce
procedures for the purpose of ensuring that accreditation
team members do not have conflicts of interest and
prohibits any person from serving on a visiting team who
has a conflict of interest defined as any circumstance in
which an individuals' capacity to make an impartial or
unbiased recommendation may be affected by:
i) Paid service in any capacity to the institution
under review.
ii) Servings as, or having a near relative serving
as, a current member, staff member, or consultant of
the agency's decision-making body or the institution's
governing body.
iii) Candidacy for employment at the institution
being evaluated.
iv) A written agreement with an institution that may
create a conflict of interest or appearance of a
conflict of interest with the institution being
evaluated.
v) Having a personal or financial interest in the
ownership or operation of the institution being
AB 1397
Page 3
evaluated.
vi) Receipt of honoraria, honors, or awards from the
institution being evaluated.
vii) Other personal or professional connections that
would create a conflict of interest or the appearance
of a conflict of interest.
c) Requires a prospective member of a visiting team to
submit an appropriate disclosure form to the agency
declaring that he/she does not violate the conflict of
interest criteria. Requires copies of these forms to be
provided to the institution under review.
d) Prohibits revisions from being made by the agency to a
proposed visiting accreditation team report unless the
revision is share with members of the visiting
accreditation team and with the institution under review,
and each is afforded an opportunity to comment on the
revision.
1) Requires all of the following for meetings of the
accrediting agency for CCCs:
a) Members of the public who desire to appear at open
sessions agency meetings must have an opportunity to
attend those portions of the meetings.
b) A sufficient length of time must be allowed for public
comment, and public comment must be allowed prior to
action related to an institution's accreditation.
c) Accreditation decisions must be made by a vote of the
accrediting agency's decision-making body in a public
meeting. The outcome of the vote and minutes from the
meeting must be recorded and posted to the agency's
Internet Web site.
d) Prohibits any officer, employee, representative, or
consultant of the agency with an actual or appearance of a
conflict of interest, as specified, from participating in
discussion and voting.
AB 1397
Page 4
1) Requires the agency to preserve all documents generated
during an accreditation-related review, including but not
limited to, email correspondence, for no less than three
years after the completion of an accreditation review.
Requires all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and
decisions documents generated during an accreditation related
review to be related indefinitely.
2) Requires the agency's accreditation-related decision to be
based on written, published standards in accordance with
state and federal statutes and regulations.
3) Establishes the following due process requirements:
a) A community college or a community college district
must be given advance notice of proposed visiting
accreditation team reports so that the college or district
may respond to correct factual errors or dissent from
conclusions.
b) The institution under review must be afforded adequate
time to review the reports at least six weeks prior to a
meeting of the agency's decision-making body at which a
decision relating to the institution's accreditation is to
be made.
c) Any visiting accrediting team recommendation for
action must be shared with the institutions under review
at least six weeks prior to a meeting of the agency's
decision-making body.
d) Any recommendation for action by a person employed or
representing the agency, as specified, must be shared with
the institution at least six weeks before a meeting
relating to the recommendation takes place, as specified.
1) Requires the agency to have a written policy, consistent
with federal law, that does all of the following:
a) Identifies a period for an institution to correct any
deficiencies that have prevented the institution from
receiving full accreditation.
b) Provides criteria for altering that period.
AB 1397
Page 5
c) The policy must be published, and must provide a
process through which an institution may submit
applications for an extension, even if a decision has
expressly denied such an extension. The application for an
extension and the decision related to the extension shall
be made publically available.
1) Requires all of the following in regards to the agency's
appeals process:
a) Provides that when a sanction of probation or a more
serious sanction is issued by the agency's decision making
body an institution shall be given written notice of the
alleged offenses or deficiencies.
b) Provides that the institution must be afforded an
opportunity to submit an appeal of the decision to issue
the sanction.
c) Prohibits a member of an appeal panel with actual
conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of
interest, as specified, from participating in an appeal
that a member of an appeal submitted per the process
described above.
d) Requires a prospective member of an appeal panel to
submit an appropriate disclosure form, signed under
penalty of perjury, to the agency declaring that he/she
does not violate the conflict of interest criteria.
Requires copies of these forms to be provided to the
institution making the appeal.
1) Expands the scope of the crime of perjury thereby imposing a
state-mandated local program and specifies, that no
reimbursement is required by this act pursuant the California
Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a
local agency or school district will be incurred because this
act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or
infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction,
or changes the definition of a crime or infraction, as
specified.
2) Specifies that the article is only applicable to accrediting
AB 1397
Page 6
procedures regarding institutions located in California.
3) Specifies that an agency shall only operate by policies that
comply with the federal criteria for recognition of an
accrediting agency pursuant to the federal Higher Education
Act of 1965 relating to accrediting agency recognition, as
specified.
4) Defines various terms for the purpose of this bill.
5) Makes a variety of legislative findings and declarations
regarding the scope and responsibility of the community
college accrediting agency.
Comments
1)Need for the bill. According to the author, California has a
flawed community college accreditation process and given the
significant role an accreditor has in the success of
California's community colleges it is incumbent upon the state
to ensure that the accreditation process is fair, objective,
and transparent. The author further notes that the United
States Department of Education (USDE), the California State
Auditor and a California Superior Court have cited a number of
deficiencies in the processes and determinations of the ACCJC.
This bill seeks to establish processes under which the
community college accreditation agency should operate.
2)Accreditation. Accreditation is a voluntary, non-governmental
peer review process used to determine academic quality.
Accrediting agencies are private organizations that establish
operating standards for educational or professional
institutions and programs, determine the extent to which the
standards are met, and publicly announce their findings.
Under federal law, the USDE establishes the general standards
for accreditation agencies and is required to publish a list
of recognized accrediting agencies that are deemed reliable
authorities on the quality of education provided by their
accredited institutions. The National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity advises the USDE on
whether accrediting entities' standards are sufficiently
rigorous and effective in their application to ensure quality
of the education. To meet that standard, accrediting entities
AB 1397
Page 7
must demonstrate compliance with all the criteria for
recognition.
The ACCJC is the regional accrediting agency for community
colleges in the western region (California, Hawaii, and U.S.
territories). Commission membership consists of the
institutions ACCJC has accredited; the 19 commissioners are
elected by a vote of the presidents of the member-colleges and
serve up to two three-year terms.
The ACCJC bylaws govern, among other areas, commission
meetings, responsibilities of commissioners, and the appeal
process for institutions appealing a denial or termination of
accreditation. The ACCJC bylaws may be amended by a majority
vote of the Commissioners. Under ACCJC bylaws, the President
(Chief Executive Officer) is appointed, and may be removed, by
the Commissioners. The President is responsible for general
supervision, direction, and control of ACCJC operations.
3)Accreditation of California community colleges. After an
initial accreditation, colleges must have their accreditation
reaffirmed every six years. This process includes a
self-study, a site visit by a team of peers, a recommendation
by the visiting team and an action by the ACCJC. In addition
to these core components, colleges must submit a midterm
report every three years and annual progress reports. The
college/district may also have to submit follow-up reports and
host visits as required by the Commission. There are three
levels of sanction prior to termination of accreditation:
Warning, Probation, and Show Cause. Follow-up reports and
accreditation visits are required to retain full
accreditation.
Many California community colleges have faced various levels
of accreditation sanctions. Most recently, the sanctions
imposed on City College of San Francisco have drawn attention
to ACCJC and its accreditation process. The heightened
attention lead to an audit by the California State Auditor,
who on June 26, 2014, issued a report on CCC Accreditation.
This audit report provided both a review of the ACCJC and the
accreditation process in general, as well as a more in-depth
examination of recent events related to City College of San
Francisco. The report raised some concerns of the ACCJC and
the accreditation process and made a series of recommendations
AB 1397
Page 8
to address the identified concerns.
After the release of the State Auditor's report, the
Chancellor's Office reconvened its Accreditation Task Force
consisting of community college stakeholders. The
Accreditation Task Force is charged with providing input
through a report to the Chancellor's Office regarding the
accreditation process, including addressing the State
Auditor's recommendations. The Accreditation Task Force held
its final meeting at the end of May and is in the process of
finalizing and submitting its final report later this year.
The recommendations from the taskforce may help shed light on
issues and present potential recommendations for future
legislative review and action.
4)Unintended consequences? This bill proposes a number of
statutory requirements on the make-up of accreditation
visiting teams, public meeting procedures, maintenance of
accreditation review documents, due process and appeals,
policies and procedures. As previously indicated, accrediting
agencies are private membership-based non-profit organizations
recognized by the USDE. While these agencies provide
accreditation of public institutions, they are not themselves
public entities. The ability of the state to enforce
statutorily imposed requirements is limited as accrediting
agencies could simply choose not to provide accreditation of
community colleges.
This bill makes its provisions applicable only to accrediting
procedures for institutions located in California. Federal
regulations (34 CFR Section 602.18) require accreditors to be
consistent in applying standards to all of its member
institutions and to make decisions regarding accreditation on
the basis of the agency's published standards. Arguably, the
provisions in this bill could be perceived as giving CCC
greater influence over accreditation decisions than other
colleges in the accreditor's membership.
Federal regulations (34 CFR Section 602.14) also require
accrediting agencies to be separate and independent of other
organizations, including groups within its membership. The
provisions in this bill may raise concerns regarding the
ability of the accrediting commission to independently and
effectively conduct its work.
AB 1397
Page 9
As noted in a recent letter to ACCJC, the USDE expresses
"serious concerns" regarding the ability of an accrediting
agency to enforce its standards effectively, as required by
the USDE's recognition criteria. It indicates that the
timeline established in this bill prior to making a decision
appears to interfere with an accrediting agency's ability to
act swiftly in taking enforcement action. Federal regulations
require that if the accrediting agency's review of an
institution is not in compliance their standards, the agency
must immediately initiate adverse action against the
institution or program. This bill requires that the
accrediting agency operate only by policies that comply with
the federal criteria for recognition of an accrediting agency.
The USDE indicates that only it can interpret and apply its
recognition criteria.
NOTE: See Senate Education Committee analysis for full
discussion.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According the Senate Appropriations Committee there is no direct
and certain cost to the state:
1)Potential costs to the extent fees are increased by the ACCJC
to modify systems to conform to this bill. Though community
colleges pay these fees, they are not reimbursable pursuant to
state mandate law. Instead, increases in fees could put
pressure on colleges' budgets which are largely funded by
Proposition 98 General Fund.
2)CCC student eligibility for state and federal financial aid
could potentially be compromised to the extent the USDE does
not recognize the ACCJC due to this bill's provisions that may
conflict with federal accrediting agency recognition
requirements. This could create a significant General Fund
cost pressure to backfill any loss in funding.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/15)
AB 1397
Page 10
Bay Area Council
California Community College Independents
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
State Center Federation of Teachers
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/19/15)
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
Association of California Community College Administrators
Community College League of California
MTI College
North Orange County Community College District
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-18, 6/4/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper,
Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mayes,
McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Patterson,
Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas,
Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Weber, Williams,
Wood, Atkins
NOES: Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez, Dahle,
Gallagher, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Lackey, Mathis, Melendez,
Obernolte, Olsen, Steinorth, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Kim
Prepared by:Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. / (916) 651-4105
8/19/15 20:39:15
AB 1397
Page 11
**** END ****