BILL NUMBER: AB 1397	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MAY 5, 2015
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 14, 2015

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Ting
    (   Coauthor:   Assembly Member  
Santiago   ) 
   (   Coauthor:   Senator   Hall
  ) 

                        FEBRUARY 27, 2015

   An act to add Article 8 (commencing with Section 72800) to Chapter
6 of Part 45 of Division 7 of Title 3 of the Education Code,
relating to community colleges.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 1397, as amended, Ting. Community colleges: California
Community Colleges Fair Accreditation Act of 2015.
   Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under
the administration of the Board of Governors of the California
Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary
education in this state. Existing law specifies the duties of the
board of governors, including, among other duties, establishing
minimum standards for the formation of community colleges and
districts. Under existing regulatory authority, the board of
governors requires each community college to be accredited. Existing
law requires the accrediting agency for the community colleges to
report to the appropriate policy and budget subcommittees of the
Legislature upon the issuance of a decision that affects the
accreditation status of a community college and to report, on a
biannual basis, any accreditation policy changes that affect the
accreditation process or status for a community college.
   This bill would enact the California Community Colleges Fair
Accreditation Act of 2015. The act would require that  at
least 50%   an appropriate percentage  of each
visiting accreditation team from the accrediting agency for the
California Community Colleges be composed of academics, as defined.
The bill would prohibit persons with  a conflict 
 conflicts  of interest, as defined, from serving on a
visiting accreditation team.
   The bill would require the accrediting agency to conduct the
meetings of its decisionmaking body to ensure the ability of members
of the public to attend those meetings. The bill would require the
accrediting agency to preserve all documents generated during an
accreditation-related review, as specified. The bill would require
the agency's accreditation-related decisions to be based on written,
published standards in accordance with state and federal statutes and
regulations, as specified.
   The bill would authorize an institution to  file 
 submit  an appeal of a decision by the accrediting
 agency. The bill would provide that the appeal would be
heard by a panel appointed by the Chancellor of the California
Community Colleges.   agency to subject that institution
to a sanction of probation or a more serious sanction. 
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Article 8 (commencing with Section 72800) is added to
Chapter 6 of Part 45 of Division 7 of Title 3 of the Education Code,
to read:

      Article 8.  Accreditation


   72800.  (a)  (1)    
This section   This article  shall be known, and
may be cited, as the California Community Colleges Fair Accreditation
Act of 2015. 
   (b) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: 

   (1) The goal of accreditation is to promote and ensure higher
education quality through peer evaluation and review. 
   (2) The community college accrediting agency should be a
nonprofit, private educational association of regional scope,
responsible for developing evaluation criteria, conducting peer
evaluations, assessing whether criteria are met, and supporting
institutional development and improvement.  
   (3) The community college accrediting agency should have a
comprehensive and nondiscriminatory accreditation process that is in
compliance with the requirements of applicable federal and state laws
and regulations.  
   (c) This article shall apply only to accrediting procedures
regarding institutions located in California.  
   (2) 
    72801.    (a)    As used in this
article: 
   (A) 
    (1)  "Academic" means a person who is currently, or has
recently, directly engaged in a significant manner in postsecondary
teaching or research. 
   (B) 
    (2)  "Agency" means the accrediting agency for the
California Community Colleges. 
   (C) 
    (3)  "Near relative" means a spouse, including a
registered domestic partner, child, parent, sibling, person in an
in-law relationship, or a step relative in one of the relationships
referenced in this subparagraph. 
   (b) The agency shall operate only by policies that are in
compliance with the federal criteria for recognition of an
accrediting agency pursuant to Subpart 2 (commencing with Section
496) of Part H of Title IV of the federal Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended.  
   (b) 
    (c)  (1)  No less than 50 percent of each
  Each  visiting accreditation team sent out by the
agency shall be composed of  an appropriate percentage of 
academics.
   (2)  The agency shall establish and enforce procedures to
ensure that persons serving on visiting accreditation teams do not
have conflicts of interest.  No person may serve on a visiting
accreditation team who has a conflict of interest. For the purposes
of this paragraph, a conflict of interest is determined by any
circumstance in which an individual's capacity to make an impartial
or unbiased accreditation recommendation may be  affected by
  affected, including, but not necessarily limited to,
 any of the following: 
   (A) Prior, current, or anticipated affiliation with the
institution under review.  
   (B) 
    (A)  Paid service in any capacity to the institution
under review. 
   (C) 
    (B)  Serving as, or having a near relative serving as, a
current member, staff member or consultant of the agency's
decisionmaking body. 
   (D) 
    (C)  Serving as, or having a near relative serving as, a
current member, staff member or consultant of the institution's
governing body.
   (3) A prospective member of a visiting accreditation team shall
submit an appropriate disclosure form to the agency, declaring
 under penalty of perjury  that he or she does not
violate the visiting team conflict-of-interest criteria in paragraph
(2). Copies of these forms shall be provided to the institution under
review. 
   (4) Every member of the agency's decisionmaking body and staff
shall annually file a form that identifies all sources of earnings
that derive from the field of education, or from entities that
perform services for any community college located in California, or
from organizations that engage in any lobbying or representational
activities for California community colleges.  
   (c) 
    (d)  (1) The agency shall conduct its meetings so as to
ensure that those members of the public who desire to appear at 
open sessions of  agency meetings have an opportunity to attend
those  portions of the  meetings.
   (2) A sufficient length of time shall be allowed for public
comment at agency meetings, and no agency action related to an
institution's accreditation shall be made prior to the decisionmaking
body's taking of public comment.
   (3) The agency shall make an accreditation decision by a vote of
its decisionmaking  body in a public meeting. The vote of
each member of the decisionmaking body   body. The
outcome of the vote  shall be recorded and posted to the agency'
s Internet Web site. Minutes from  all open session  
portions of  the meetings of the decisionmaking body of the
agency shall be recorded and posted to the agency's Internet Web
site.
   (4) Any officer or employee of the agency with an actual or
appearance of a conflict of interest shall be disqualified from
participating in discussion and voting. For  the 
purposes of this clause, a conflict of interest  shall be
defined as any   is defined as any circumstance in which
an individual's capacity to make an impartial or unbiased
recommendation or decision may be affected, including by either 
of the following: 
   (A) Prior, current, or anticipated affiliation with the
institution under review.  
   (B) 
    (A)  Paid service in any capacity to the institution
under review. 
   (C) 
    (B)  Serving as, or having a near relative serving as, a
current member, staff member, or consultant of the institution's
governing body. 
   (d) 
    (e)  The agency shall preserve all documents generated
during an accreditation-related review, including, but not
necessarily limited to, email correspondence, for no less than 36
months after the completion of an accreditation-related review. All
reports, evaluations, recommendations, and decision documents
generated during an accreditation-related review shall be retained
indefinitely. 
   (e) (1) 
    (f)  The agency's accreditation-related decisions shall
be based on written, published standards, and shall be in accordance
with, and not be inconsistent with, state and federal statutes and
regulations. 
   (2) The agency shall afford appropriate deference to the
activities or operations of the institution under review that are
consistent with the requirements of the state law.  

   (f) 
    (g)  No revision shall be made by the agency to a
proposed visiting accreditation team report unless the revision is
shared with the members of the visiting accreditation team and with
the institution under review, and each is afforded an opportunity to
comment on the revision. 
   (g) 
    (h)  (1) A community college or a community college
district shall 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. The
institution under review shall be afforded adequate time to review
the reports before a meeting of the agency's decisionmaking body at
which a decision relating to the institution's accreditation is to be
made, which shall be no less than six weeks before the meeting. The
institution under review may respond to these reports in writing,
orally at the meeting, or in both of those ways.
   (2) Any visiting accrediting team recommendation for action shall
be shared with the institution under review at least six weeks before
a meeting of the agency's decisionmaking body, so that the
institution may decide whether and how to respond to the
recommendation. Any recommendation for action made to the agency's
decisionmaking body by a person employed by or representing the
agency, including its staff, agents, and employees, shall be shared
with the institution subject to the recommendation at least six weeks
before a meeting of the agency's decisionmaking body relating to the
recommendation. 
   (h) 
    (i)  (1) The agency shall have a written policy,
consistent with federal law, that does both 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.
   (2) The policy adopted under paragraph (1) shall be published, and
shall provide a process through which an institution may submit
applications for an extension, even if a decision has expressly
denied such an extension. An application for an extension, and the
decision of the agency as to the application, shall be made publicly
available. 
   (i) 
    (j)     (1)    Whenever the
agency's decisionmaking body issues a sanction of probation or a more
serious sanction, the institution subject to the sanction shall be
given written notice of the alleged sanctionable offenses or
deficiencies. The institution shall be afforded an opportunity to
submit an appeal of the decision to issue the sanction.  The
burden of proof for the agency to issue the sanction shall rest with
the agency.  
   (j) An appeal pursuant to subdivision (i) shall be heard by a
panel appointed by the chancellor. An institution filing an appeal
has the right to file an application to present new or additional
evidence to the panel. The panel shall, in its discretion, determine
whether to accept the new or additional evidence.  
   (2) A member of an appeal panel with an actual conflict of
interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, shall be
disqualified from participating in an appeal submitted pursuant to
paragraph (1). For purposes of this paragraph, a conflict of interest
shall be defined as any circumstance in which an individual's
capacity to make an impartial or unbiased recommendation or decision
may be affected, including by either of the following:  
   (A) Paid service in any capacity to the institution under review.
 
   (B) Serving as, or having a near relative serving as, a current
member, staff member, or consultant of the institution's governing
body.  
   (3) A prospective member of an appeal panel shall submit an
appropriate disclosure form to the agency, declaring that he or she
does not violate the conflict-of-interest criteria listed in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2). Copies of these forms
shall be provided to the institution that is making the appeal.