Save City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Lawsuit Against the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)

Save CCSF Coalition v. ACCJC, No. Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400 NEIL SATTERLUND, SBN 286673 SIEGEL & YEE 499 14th Street, Suite 300 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners SAVE CCSF COALITION, MADELINE MUELLER, WENDY KAUFMYN, LESLIE SIMON, VINCENT TARIKHU FARRAR, MONICA COLLINS, THEA MATTHEWS, SHANELL WILLIAMS, MARTIN MADRIGAL, ITZEL CALVO MEDINA, and ARLA ERTZ

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

SAVE CCSF COALITION, MADELINE MUELLER, WENDY KAUFMYN, LESLIE SIMON, VINCENT TARIKHU FARRAR, MONICA COLLINS, THEA MATTHEWS, SHANELL WILLIAMS, MARTIN MADRIGAL, ITZEL CALVO MEDINA, and ARLA ERTZ, Plaintiffs and Petitioners, vs. THE ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES, WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES Respondent and Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CCP § 1085]

Plaintiffs and petitioners Save CCSF Coalition, Madeline Mueller, Wendy

Kaufmyn, Leslie Simon, Vincent Tarikhu Farrar, Monica Collins, Thea Matthews,

Shanell Williams, Martin Madrigal, Itzel Calvo Medina, and Arla Ertz (“Petitioners”)

hereby petition this Court for a peremptory writ of mandate under Code of Civil

Procedure section 1085, directed to Respondents and Defendants the Accrediting

Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

College ("ACCJC"), and hereby complain against Respondents and Defendants as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. The Community College of San Francisco ("CCSF") is committed to its mission

of providing everyONE who is able to learn with open access to education. Its

accrediting agency, ACCJC, contends that the sole purpose of a community college is to

serve as a feeder system for four-year degrees. Because of its disapproval of CCSF's

philosophy, and not because of any inherent problems with CCSF, ACCJC decided to

revoke CCSF's accreditation. ACCJC imposed this harsh sanction arbitrarily, using

lawless methods and ignoring the findings of its own review committees to withdraw

CCSF's accreditation.

2. Petitioners are employees and students of CCSF. They bring this action seeking

a writ of mandate against ACCJC to protect their interest in CCSF's continued existence.

They should prevail because ACCJC's decision-making process was marred by conflicts

of interest, numerous violations of applicable regulations, and sustained disregard of its

own policies. ACCJC abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required

by law, and mandamus should lie compelling it to forbear from revoking SFCC's

accreditation.

PARTIES

3. Petitioners are faculty, staff, and students of CCSF, and each therefore has a

beneficial interest in CCSF's continued accreditation.

4. Petitioner Save CCSF Coalition is an unincorporated association of CCSF

faculty, students, employees, and members of the community committed to retaining

CCSF as a valuable asset of the San Francisco community.

5. Petitioner Madeline Mueller, music department chair, has been a faculty

member at CCSF for almost 50 years. She has observed a long history of state, national

and international acclaim for City College and its very successful students. Ms. Mueller

has researched, written and lectured extensively, outlining ACCJC's unwarranted and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unethical attack on public education, especially its attack on CCSF. She believes the

Commission is acting in cooperation with a larger greed-based agenda heavily funded by

private foundations such as Lumina. Part of this agenda is to diminish or even destroy

public colleges in order to drive students into ever increasing student loan debt,

frequently incurred at inferior private for-profit institutions. Ms. Mueller believes that

City College must be saved, must remain affordable, and its excellent reputation must be

maintained.

6. Petitioner Wendy Kaufmyn has been a full time instructor in the Engineering &

Technology Department since 1983. She takes pride in being at a college that gives

opportunities to students who otherwise might not be able to pursue an engineering

career. She takes pride in working at a college that offers opportunities to diverse and

marginal communities that have no other place to go. Ms. Kaufmyn has been working

extensively with the Save CCSF Coalition, to defend CCSF, and public education in

general, from the forces that want to downsize and privatize it.

7. Petitioner Leslie Simon is a resident of the City of San Francisco. Ms. Simon is a

Women’s Studies instructor at City College of San Francisco where she has taught since

1975, when she came to the college to teach a course she designed called “Poetry for the

People.” Currently, she coordinates the college’s campus-wide sexual violence

prevention program. Ms. Simon believes that that she will be negatively impacted by a

closure of the college because it would mean the end of programs she has been working

on for nearly 40 years that reach immigrants, low-income people, trauma survivors,

people with disabilities, people of diverse cultures and ethnicities, and formerly

incarcerated people.

8. Petitioner Vincent Tarikhu Farrar is the chair of the African American Studies

department at CCSF, where he has taught for 22 years. His student population includes

the most marginalized and vulnerable students. If CCSF is closed, he fears that a critical

lifeline to that population will be severed. Mr. Farrar believes that such a closure would

be a criminal assault on the future of more than 80,000 current students, and the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

greatest injustice to the countless thousand future students for whom the realization of

dreams was most tenuous.

9. Petitioner Monica Collins is employed in the financial aid office. As an employee

of CCSF, she will suffer great hardship if CCSF loses its accreditation. As a result of the

looming de-accreditation, CCSF has already begun suffering from reduced student

enrollment, which has caused it to begin cutting salaries and laying off employees.

10. Petitioner Thea Matthews is enrolled as a student at CCSF, as she has been for

the past seven years. Ms. Matthews is a native resident of the city of San Francisco, and

is a member of the Save CCSF coalition. Ms. Matthews believes that she, along with

thousands of college students, will be negatively impacted by the ACCJC’s actions to

shut the college down. CCSF provides Ms. Matthews, as well as thousands of other

poverty-stricken minority students, the opportunity to have a college level education.

11. Petitioner Shanell Williams is a resident of San Francisco, California. She is

Student Trustee for City College of San Francisco and in this role represents all 85,000

students in the district. Ms. Williams believes that the Accrediting Commission for

Community and Junior Colleges through issuing the "show cause" sanction caused the

administration to change the mission of City College of San Francisco which will

disproportionately impact the most marginalized communities in the Bay Area.

12. Petitioner Martin Madrigal is a student at CCSF, an Associated Student Council

Senator, and a member of the Save CCSF Coalition. Mr. Madrigal believes the ACCJC’s

sanctions have caused students to endure an atmosphere of negative uncertainty and

ominous doubt. He further believes that the ACCJC’s sanctions have adversely impacted

educational resources for college students from all walks of life, which will in turn create

further obstacles in their educational goals.

13. Petitioner Itzel Calvo Medina is a student at CCSF, where he is a member of

Students Advocating for Equality and Voices of Immigrants Demonstrating Achievement.

He believes that if CCSF loses its accreditation, his undocumented community will lose

access to affordable higher education.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14. Petitioner Arla Ertz is a former student, who secured her first job as a San

Francisco City Gardener as a result of her horticultural training at CCSF. She intends to

continue to avail herself of CCSF’s unique opportunities for learning, and would suffer a

deep loss should this indispensable resource be lost.

15. Student petitioners each have a beneficial interest in their education, which

would be severely reduced in value if CCSF were to lose its accreditation. Higher

education institutions routinely allow incoming students to transfer credit for past

coursework if and only if the credit comes from an accredited institution. If CCSF loses

its accreditation, petitioners' past CCSF course credits would therefore become

essentially valueless.

16. Respondent ACCJC is a nonprofit corporation, organized under the Nonprofit

Public Benefit Law of the State of California, with its principal office in Novato,

California. It is authorized by the U.S. Department of Education, through the Higher

Education Opportunity Act of 2008, to accredit community colleges and other associate

degree granting institutions in the Western region of the U.S. It is one of seven regional

accrediting commissions nationwide.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17. The Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action. Respondent's wrongful

behavior took place in California, and petitioners each have a beneficial interest in

petitioning this Court to redress that behavior.

18. Venue is proper in this Court because the ACCJC was sitting in San Francisco

when it decided to revoke CCSF's accreditation. Many of the acts complained of

occurred in the City and/or caused injury to citizens of the City.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

19. CCSF opened in 1935, with a student body of 1,100. Enrollment, which had

grown to 8,400 in the fall of 1962, rose dramatically when the "Baby Boomer"

generation began graduating from high school, and reached 17,763 students in 1971.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20. In 1970, the College separated from the San Francisco Unified School District

and became part of the newly formed San Francisco Community College District

("SFCCD"). Its new chancellor, Louis F. Batmale, instituted an original education

program to bring relevant credit and non-credit classes to San Francisco's adult

population. By the time he retired in 1977, CCSF had over 60,000 enrolled students.

21. CCSF's academic programs and services to the community have been expanding

ever since, in keeping with the college’s established commitment to make educational

opportunities available to San Franciscans of all races, classes, and ages.

22. CCSF's 10 campuses and more than 100 instructional sites now serve a highly

diverse, all-ages student body of more than 85,000. Its offerings are geared to both

students seeking to earn an associate's degree and transfer academic credits to a four-

year bachelor's degree program and students seeking to acquire valuable career,

vocational, and life skills. Its largest department, English as a Second Language,

provides free, noncredit classes to about 20,000 students a year.

23. CCSF has an abiding, long-standing commitment to an "open access" mission,

codified as "the commitment of the State of California to provide an appropriate place in

California higher education for every student who is willing and able to benefit from

attendance." Cal. Educ. Code § 66201.

24. The ACCJC is comprised of a Commission of nineteen part-time voluntary

Commissioners, and a paid executive Staff of five vice presidents and one president.

25. In 2010, a special task force of the California Community College's Consultation

Council ("CCCCC") complained to the United States Department of Education ("DOE")

that ACCJC failed to implement "clear and effective controls" against undue influence by

the leadership of other organizations and that ACCJC's Commissioner selection process

was vulnerable to conflicts of interest, or the appearance thereof. DOE upheld the

complaint, noting that the committee that selected the Commissioners was often chaired

by people who were already sitting Commissioners. ACCJC amended its bylaws in

response.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26. The ACCJC has been designated by the State Board of Governors of the

California Community Colleges ("the BOG") as the accreditor for California's community

colleges, granting them sole and absolute discretion to set standards and make decisions

about community college accreditation. ACCJC therefore wields the power of life and

death over all California community colleges.

27. ACCJC has a history of strongly supporting a shift from the "open access" model

of community colleges to a junior college model of maximizing the rate at which

students earn associate's degrees. The Lumina Foundation, an organization with ties to

for-profit colleges and the private student loan industry, has facilitated this policy

through generous donations to ACCJC's parent organization, the Western Association of

Schools and Colleges ("WASC"). Accordingly, the ACCJC strongly supported a suite of

policy changes created by the BOG's Student Success Task Force, which would strip

financial aid from students who take too long to earn a degree, students whose grades

dropped below a certain threshold, and students who did not designate an approved

"program of study."

28. CCSF stakeholders, including students, faculty, and members of the Board of

Trustees, sharply criticized the Task Force recommendations, saying that they were

contrary to CCSF's open access model in ways that would harm CCSF's most vulnerable

students. The Academic Senate's Executive Council, the CCSF Board of Trustees, and

many students and faculty formally repudiated the recommendations. Nevertheless, to

great opprobrium, the BOG voted to adopt the recommendations on January 9, 2012.

The California legislature began to consider S.B. 1456, which would enact the

recommendations.

29. A pitched battle between ACCJC and CCSF ensued in the California legislature.

ACCJC president Barbara Beno wrote to the Senate Education Committee urging it to

support S.B. 1456, and CCSF and other open access advocates lobbied against the bill.

CCSF succeeded in eliminating the maximum unit cap, as well as the requirement that

students identify a specific program of study upon enrollment.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30. Throughout the spring and summer of 2012, CCSF stakeholders fought the bill,

and ACCJC president Barbara Beno continued to write letters to legislators urging them

to support it.

31. Meanwhile, ACCJC was in the process of evaluating CCSF for reaffirmation of

its accreditation. In a closed session on or around June 6, 2012, ACCJC voted to require

CCSF to show cause why its accreditation should not be withdrawn within a year. The

written decision repeatedly denounced CCSF's open access mission, and the

accompanying report said that the "college has not demonstrated the will to reexamine

the scope of the college's mission… there is no process to reduce the scope of programs

and services provided across the service area."

32. The DOE would later find, in a letter sent August 13, 2013, that the decision did

not comply with 34 CFR § 602.18(e), requiring that accrediting agencies provide

institutions with detailed written reports that clearly identify any deficiencies in the

institution's compliance with accreditation standards. Specifically, the DOE found that

ACCJC’s 2012 recommendations to CCSF were unclear as to which were required to

bring CCSF into compliance with standards, and which constituted advice as to how

CCSF might improve upon institutional effectiveness regarding standards that were

already met. The DOE also found a violation of 34 CFR § 602.13(a)(3), which requires

accrediting agencies to have a number of academic personnel on their evaluation, policy,

and decision-making bodies. Finally, the DOE found that the appointment of Barbara

Beno's husband to the 2012 Evaluation Team ran afoul of CFR § 602.13(a)(6)'s

requirement to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.

33. As ACCJC required it to do, CCSF submitted its Show Cause report on March 15,

2013. ACCJC then assembled a Show Cause Visiting Team to inspect CCSF.

34. Six of the nine members of Team were affiliated with organizations that had

publicly supported the Task Force recommendations. Nevertheless, the team concluded

that CCSF had met or was on the way to meeting all of ACCJC’s recommendations. The

Show Cause Visiting Team's report concluded that, of the 14 recommendations made by


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the 2012 Evaluation Team, CCSF had fully addressed four and partially addressed the

rest. CCSF was expected to fully address some, and was found to have made "significant

progress" on others; overall, the visiting team was "impressed by the engagement and

responsiveness of the entire college community to take corrective measures to meet the

ACCJC Accreditation Standards and Eligibility Requirements in response to the

Commission directives."

35. CCSF, without knowing which of the 14 recommendations counted as orders

and which counted as advice, responded to each of them to an extent that favorably

impressed the visiting team. This degree of progress would have saved any other school

with Show Cause status. But ACCJC was put in a position that gave it the opportunity to

punish those who criticized its politics, and it took the opportunity.

36. Without explanation, ACCJC overruled the team that had actually inspected

CCSF, declaring that CCSF had in fact fully met only two of the recommendations and

had partially met only one. For example, Standard I.B.2 reads, “The institution sets

goals to improve its effectiveness consistent with its stated purposes. The institution

articulates its goals and states the objectives derived from them in measurable terms so

that the degree to which they are achieved can be determined and widely discussed. The

institutional members understand these goals and work collaboratively toward their

achievement.” The Visitation Team reviewed CCSF’s progress towards meeting Standard

1.B.2 in its Show Cause Evaluation Report, and found that “the revised program review

system has strengthened the ability of the college to use both qualitative and

quantitative data, as is evident from the quality of the program reviews and the use of

those reviews to develop prioritized lists of resource requests. Conclusion: The college

meets the standard.” In its Termination Letter, ACCJC declared that CCSF had failed to

meet Standard 1.B.2, without any explanation of its decision or evidence to support its

conclusion.

37. ACCJC’s Commission overruled its own 2013 evaluation team by adding eleven

violations of ACCJC’s non-academic standards not found in the evaluation team’s


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

report. ACCJC’s rules allow this practice only when the college is first given written

notice and an opportunity to respond to the new charges in writing. The rules also

require the final decision on such added charges to be postponed to the next regular

ACCJC meeting, currently scheduled for January 2014. ACCJC failed to do so.

38. ACCJC also based its decision to terminate CCSF’s accreditation in part on

ACCJC “team reports” and letters from President Beno, criticizing CCSF for not paying

money into a prefunded retiree health benefits trust. ACCJC began to examine

prefunding of pension plans in 2004 and placed rapidly increasing stress on this

unwritten criterion. Several of ACCJC’s efforts to coerce colleges into prefunding their

estimated future pension liabilities referred to one specific trust, the Community College

League of California Retiree Health Benefits Program Joint Powers Authority. ACCJC’s

Vice Chair, Steven Kinsella, is a founder of this trust and one of its trustees. ACCJC

Commissioner Frank Gornick is another trustee, as are many of the ACCJC’s team

leaders and members. ACCJC is thus in the practice of using its sanction authority to

coerce the schools within its power into giving money to a business concern which it

prefers. On information and belief, it does this because its decision-makers are

beneficiaries of that concern, collecting fees from every college that joins the trust. In

total, those fees amount to approximately $140,000 a year.

39. On June 7, 2013, ACCJC voted in another closed session to terminate City

College's accreditation, effective July 31, 2014.

40. Since then, CCSF's enrollment has plunged, wreaking financial havoc since state

funding is dependent on the number of students enrolled. Loss of accreditation will

terminate state and federal funding outright, which CCSF is unlikely to survive.

41. CCSF has never before faced any sanction, including the lower “Warning” and

“Probation” sanctions ACCJC had at its disposal. ACCJC took the virtually

unprecedented step of imposing the death sentence against a first offender, motivated

primarily by CCSF's actions in publicly criticizing ACCJC's politics.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42. CCSF has been treated uniquely harshly by ACCJC. In the past five years, six

California colleges have been placed on Show Cause sanction. None of them had its

accreditation terminated, even though Show Cause evaluations found that several had

neither resolved all noted deficiencies nor fully addressed all recommendations. When

ACCJC found evidence that other schools had made progress on Show Cause

recommendations, ACCJC actually removed those schools from Show Cause and placed

them on lower sanctions, pending resolution of remaining issues. But when ACCJC's

own 2013 visitation team told ACCJC that CCSF had made significant progress towards

addressing the 2012 Review Team's concerns, ACCJC moved CCSF from "Show Cause"

to "accreditation revoked." The only notable distinction between the six other colleges

and CCSF is that CCSF has a history of publicly disagreeing with ACCJC's politics.

43. As the DOE found, ACCJC failed to comply with 34 CFR § 602.15(a)(3),

requiring that “[t]he agency has academic and administrative personnel on its

evaluation, policy, and decision-making bodies, if the agency accredits institutions.” The

DOE explained that this “criterion expects a good faith effort by the agency to have both

academic and administrative personnel reasonably represented,” and “[o]ne

academician on an evaluation team comprised of eight and sixteen individuals, as was

the case for the April 2013 and March 2012 evaluation teams, respectively, of CCSF, is

not reasonable representation.”

44. The DOE also found that ACCJC failed to comply with 34 CFR § 602.15(a)(6),

requiring the agency to have “Clear and effective controls against conflicts of interest, or

the appearance of conflicts of interest, by the agency's-- (i) Board members; (ii)

Commissioners; (iii) Evaluation team members; (iv) Consultants; (v) Administrative

staff; and (vi) Other agency representatives.”

45. In addition, the DOE found that ACCJC failed to comply with 34 CFR §

602.18(e), requiring an accrediting agency to “[p]rovide[] the institution or program

with a detailed written report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution’s

or program’s compliance with the agency’s standards.” Specifically, DOE held that “[b]y


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

using the term recommendation to mean both noncompliance with standards and areas

for improvement, the agency does not meet the regulatory requirement to provide a

detailed written report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution’s

compliance with the agency’s standards.”

46. DOE cannot rescind ACCJC’s decree disaccrediting CCSF. Its only remedy is to

revoke ACCJC’s accreditation, which it is currently considering.

47. ACCJC’s decision to place CCSF on Show Cause status was also a violation of its

own policies governing that decision, since the ACCJC Policy on Commission Actions on

Institutions Section IV(C) says that Show Cause status is appropriate only when “the

Commission finds an institution to be in substantial non-compliance with its Eligibility

Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies, or when the

institution has not responded to the conditions imposed by the Commission.” The

Visitation Team report found that the institution had responded strongly to the

conditions imposed by the Commission, yet ACCJC voted to terminate CCSF’s

accreditation without any explanation or evidence.

48. Mandamus should lie as a result of ACCJC's violations of applicable law,

regulations, and ACCJC policy.

49. Under common law due process principles, these constitute a failure to proceed

as required by law. Courts have held that common law due process requires

the accrediting body's decision not be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law” or reached “without observance of procedure

required by law.” Courts also hold that due process requires an agency to follow its own

rules.

50. Since ACCJC committed multiple violations of both its own rules and of

applicable laws and regulations, it has failed its common law due process obligations

with regard to both CCSF and those who are benefited by CCSF.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

51. ACCJC's various improper acts also violate California Business and Professions

Code § 17200, which prohibits any "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or

practices."

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Writ of Mandate—Code Civ. Proc. § 1085)

52. Petitioners reaffirm and reallege all of the above paragraphs 1 through 51 and by

this reference incorporate them as if fully set forth herein.

53. ACCJC had a legal, ministerial duty to proceed in a manner required by law

when evaluating CCSF’s accreditation, to refrain from arbitrary, capricious action, and

to base its decisions on evidence. ACCJC abused its discretion and violated its legal

duties by deciding to revoke accreditation in an arbitrary, capricious manner, without

observance of the procedure required by law. Specifically, ACCJC erred by failing to

follow applicable statutes, regulations, and its own rules against the appearance of

conflicts of interest. It also erred by arbitrarily and capriciously overturning the findings

of its own visitation team, without any evidence to support their decisions. These

failures, which resulted in the flawed decision to revoke CCSF's accreditation, directly

harmed petitioners, and constitute a violation of ACCJC's duty to them under law and

under the principles of common law due process.

54. Petitioners have a direct pecuniary interest in the issuance of a writ of mandate,

apart from that of the public at large, in that if this petition is granted, they will retain

their jobs and/or student status at CCSF, and/or the value of the course credits they

have received from CCSF.

55. Petitioners do not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Petitioners

are informed and believe that there are no available legal procedures to redress the

harm they will suffer if their requested relief is denied. Petitioners are informed and

believe that they do not have access to any administrative procedures to address those

harms.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unlawful business practices—Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200.)

56. Petitioners reaffirm and reallege all of the above paragraphs 1 through 55 and by

this reference incorporate them as if fully set forth herein.

57. The ACCJC has violated this law by engaging in unlawful, unfair, and/or

fraudulent acts, including but not limited to:

a) Unfairly evaluating CCSF while engaged in a public political fight with it;

b) Unfairly appointing President Barbara Beno's husband to serve on the 2012

Evaluation Team;

c) Unfairly filling a voting majority of the 2012 Evaluation Team and the 2013

Show Cause Visiting Team with individuals affiliated with organizations that endorsed

ACCJC's side of its political struggle with CCSF;

d) Unlawfully violating 34 CFR § 602.15(a)(3) by failing to ensure reasonable

academic representation on the 2012 and 2013 teams;

e) Unlawfully violating 34 CFR § 602.15(a)(6) by failing to establish clear and

effective controls against conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest,

and by appointing President Beno's husband to serve on the 2012 Team;

f) Unlawfully violating 34 CFR § 602.18(e) by failing to inform CCSF which of

its recommendations indicated noncompliance with an accreditation standard, and

which presented an opportunity to improve upon standards with which CCSF already

complied.

g) Unlawfully violating 20 USC § 1099b(a)(4)(A) and 34 CFR § 602.18 by

applying and enforcing accreditation standards hostile to, rather than encouraging of,

the open access mission encouraged by the California legislature and embraced by

CCSF.

58. ACCJC's practices, as set forth in this complaint, constitute unfair business

practices because they offend established public policy and cause harm that greatly

outweighs any benefits associated with those practices.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, petitioners pray for relief as follows:

1. For a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining

respondent from taking any action pursuant to its Decision pending trial.

2. For a declaration that respondent has violated its duty by deciding to de-accredit

CCSF other than in the manner required by law, and without substantial evidentiary

support.

3. For a peremptory writ of mandate to be issued under the seal of this Court

commanding respondent ACCJC to vacate and set aside its decision to de-accredit

CCSF, and to re-evaluate CCSF's status in the manner required by all applicable laws,

regulations, and policies.

4. For their costs of suit.

5. For reasonable attorney's fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

6. For other equitable or legal relief that the Court considers just and proper.

Dated: November 4, 2013 SIEGEL & YEE By________________________ Dan Siegel Attorneys for Petitioners

SAVE CCSF COALITION, et al.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFICATION

I, Wendy Kaufmyn, the undersigned, say:

I am a Plaintiff and Petitioner, and a member of Plaintiff and Petitioner Save

CCSF Coalition. I have read the above VERIFIED PEITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085), and I am familiar with its contents. I am

informed and believe that the matters stated therein are true and on that basis verify

that the matters stated therein are true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the

laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct and that this verification

is executed on November 7, 2013, in San Francisco, California.

____________________________

WENDY KAUFMYN


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, NEIL COLIN SATTERLUND, declare as follows:

I am over eighteen years of age and a citizen of the State of California. I am not a

party to the within action. My business address is 499 14th Street, Suite 300, Oakland,

CA 94612.

On November 7, 2013, I served copies of the following documents:

1. Plaintiff’s Notice of Depositions

on the parties by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes with first class postage

thereon fully prepaid and depositing the same in the United States mail at Oakland,

California, addressed to: Dale Allen, Jr.

Kevin Allen Low, Ball & Lynch 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed

November 7, 2013, at Oakland, California.

__________________________

Neil Colin Satterlund

Documents

Save City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Lawsuit Against the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)