Herrera's office alleges that the ACCJC's intention to revoke the accreditation of San Francisco City College was motivated by political bias, failed to respect the institution's right to due process, was tainted by the commission's conflicts of interest and was the product of failure to follow procedures required by law.
The city attorney is arguing that these deficiencies run afoul of California's Unfair Competition Law in the Business and Professions Code. "Attorneys for the ACCJC argued that it is not a commercial enterprise or business that would be covered under the business code because it is a nonprofit public-benefit corporation," reported the San Francisco Examiner. "But the City Attorney's Office asserts that because the commission charges for membership fees and accreditation services, its practices do fall under the business statute."
City College was slated to lose its accreditation effective July 31 after the commission evaluated the school as deficient in multiple areas, including administration, finances, and governance. But Karnow issued an injunction in January preventing the revocation of City College's accreditation from taking effect until after the trial.
Sclar, the ACCJC's attorney, said the city attorney's office is arguing that there wasn't enough notice to correct deficiencies and that the commission's procedures were improper. He said the commission gave City College "multiple notice" and that the school "had the opportunity to be heard."
Sclar said that when students attend an accredited college, they have the right to know that their institution meets a certain standard and that it is the commission's job to judge that.
