Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 1 of 24

Transcription

1 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 1 of STEPHEN P. BERZON (SBN 46540) EILEEN B. GOLDSMITH (SBN ) PEDER J. V. THOREEN (SBN ) MEREDITH A. JOHNSON (SBN ) REBECCA C. LEE (SBN ) Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, California Telephone: (415) Facsimile: (415) sberzon@altber.com egoldsmith@altber.com pthoreen@altber.com mjohnson@altber.com rlee@altber.com ROBERT J. BEZEMEK (SBN ) DAVID CONWAY (SBN ) Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek A Professional Corporation The Latham Square Building 1611 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 936 Oakland, California Telephone: (510) Facsimile: (510) rjbezemek@bezemeklaw.com dconway@bezemeklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs [Additional Counsel on following page] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AFT LOCAL 2121, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 4:16-cv HSG STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST ACCJC PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; [PROPOSED] ORDER 28 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST ACCJC; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 4:16-cv HSG

2 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 2 of KENNETH E. KELLER [SBN 71450] kenneth.keller@pillsburylaw.com PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: (415) Facsimile: (415) THOMAS H. SLOAN, JR. [SBN 58322] tsloan@ksrh.com TRACY M. CLEMENTS [SBN ] tclements@ksrh.com ETHAN I. JACOBS [SBN ] ejacobs@ksrh.com KELLER SLOAN ROMAN LLP 555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: (415) Facsimile: (415) LAURENCE W. KESSENICK [SBN 45433] SCOTT C. KESSENICK [SBN ] KESSENICK, GAMMA, & FREE, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3880 San Francisco, CA Telephone: (415) Facsimile: (415) Attorneys for Defendant Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST ACCJC; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 4:16-cv HSG

3 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 3 of STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), Plaintiffs California Federation of Teachers; AFT Local 2121; Palomar Faculty Federation/AFT Local 6161; San-Jose Evergreen Federation of Teachers/AFT Local 6157; Mendocino Federation of Teachers/AFT Local 6322; Tim Killikelly; Alisa Messer; Shannon Lienhart; Karen Saginor; and Augusta Goldstein (collectively Plaintiffs ); and Defendant Accrediting Commission for Community & Junior Colleges ( ACCJC ) hereby stipulate to the dismissal, with Court approval, of Plaintiffs claims in this action against ACCJC as follows. 1. Plaintiffs and ACCJC have entered into a Settlement Agreement of Plaintiffs claims in this action against ACCJC. The Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated by reference into this Stipulation in its entirety. 2. Upon approval by the Court of this Stipulation, Plaintiffs claims in this action against ACCJC shall be dismissed with prejudice. 3. Notwithstanding the dismissal of Plaintiffs claims against ACCJC in this action, Plaintiffs and ACCJC have agreed and requested that this Court retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); O Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995). 4. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Parties to this Stipulation shall bear their own attorneys fees and costs as against each other. 5. This Stipulation shall have no effect on Plaintiffs claims against any other party to this action that is not a party to this Settlement, including but not limited to any claims for recovery of attorneys fees and costs. [ALL SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST ACCJC; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 4:16-cv HSG

4 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 4 of Dated: August 7, 2017 Dated: August 7, 2017 STEPHEN P. BERZON EILEEN B. GOLDSMITH PEDER J. V. THOREEN MEREDITH A. JOHNSON REBECCA C. LEE Altshuler Berzon LLP ROBERT J. BEZEMEK DAVID CONWAY Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek By: s/ Eileen B. Goldsmith j Eileen B. Goldsmith Attorneys for Plaintiffs KENNETH E. KELLER Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP THOMAS H. SLOAN, JR. TRACY M. CLEMENTS ETHAN I. JACOBS Keller Sloan Roman LLP LAURENCE W. KESSENICK SCOTT C. KESSENICK Kessenick, Gamma & Free LLP By: s/ Kenneth E. Keller Kenneth E. Keller Attorneys for Defendant ACCJC 28 3 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST ACCJC; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 4:16-cv HSG

5 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 5 of ATTESTATION I hereby certify that the content of this document is acceptable to all signatories and that I have obtained their authorization to affix their respective electronic signatures to this document. By: s/ Eileen B. Goldsmith Eileen B. Goldsmith STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST ACCJC; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 4:16-cv HSG

6 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 6 of [PROPOSED] ORDER This judgment of dismissal of Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Accrediting Commission for Community & Junior Colleges ( ACCJC ) is entered pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which is incorporated herein as though fully set forth, and attached as Exhibit 1 to this Order. The Court orders the parties to the Settlement Agreement to perform all of their obligations thereunder. The Court retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over this case, the Plaintiffs, and Defendant ACCJC for purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); O Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs claims against Defendant ACCJC in this action are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs and ACCJC shall bear their own attorneys fees and costs in this action as against each other. This judgment of dismissal shall have no effect on Plaintiffs claims against any other Defendant in this action, including but not limited to any claim for recovery of attorneys fees and costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:, 2017 Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. U.S. District Judge STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST ACCJC; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 4:16-cv HSG

7 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 7 of 24

8 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 8 of 24

9 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 9 of 24

10 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 10 of 24

11 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 11 of 24

12 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 12 of 24

13 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 13 of 24

14 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 14 of 24

15 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 15 of 24

16 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 16 of 24

17 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 17 of 24

18 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 18 of 24

19 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 19 of 24

20 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 20 of 24

21 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 21 of 24

22 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 22 of 24 The Two-Year Rule and Extension for Good Cause January 2017 U.S. Department of Education regulations require accrediting agencies to require institutions with deficiencies to come into complete compliance within two years of the deficiency or the agency must act to terminate accreditation. Therefore, the Commission is changing its action letters and practices of tracking institutional performance to note the date deficiencies were identified by the Commission and the date by which the deficiency must be corrected. Readers should identify for the Commission the date at which deficiencies were first noted by the Commission and a required completion date. No longer than two years may be ordinarily granted for completion of changes necessary to fully resolve deficiencies except if the Commission, after providing two years, decides to grant extension for good cause. Department regulations allow an accrediting agency to extend the time given for good cause. The ACCJC has submitted and received acceptance of four such good cause reasons for extension of the time to complete the work necessary to comply with Eligibility Requirements (for colleges already accredited), Accreditation Standards and Commission policies. A Good Cause extension may be made if: 1. Resolution of the identified deficiency reasonably would take more than two years to complete. In such situations, the Commission will monitor the institution s progress and find it satisfactory. For example, an institution may need more than two years to address a decline in fiscal reserves, and its consequent impact on fiscal stability, by restoring reserves, building enrollments to gain more revenues, arranging a sale of the institution, etc. 2. It is necessary to provide time for an institution to resolve a deficiency through necessary sequential steps mandated by other controlling agencies. For example, an institution that needs to build new facilities may be required to seek state approval for facilities development before building design by an architect, both necessary before building can commence. This process could take more than two years. 3. It is necessary to provide reasonable time for an institution that has indicated it has retained or had imposed outside, credible third-parties as consultants or aides who have the capacity and authority to resolve deficiencies. For example, an institution may seek the assistance of an auditing firm or a state controller to assist in resolution of fiscal matters, or may seek a State Monitor to guide an executive or governing board in better practice. 4. It is necessary to provide reasonable time as an institution waits for an outside agency or organization to resolve matters that are affecting an institution s compliance with Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards and Commission policies. For example, a federal college might have to wait for a federal agency to take action on some specific aspect of

23 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 23 of 24 operations in order to resolve a deficiency; in some cases, an institution might have to await resolution of legal issues in order to take necessary steps to resolve deficiencies. 5. The institution has completed a great amount of work on needed changes, and only a small number of issues remain. The Commission believes additional time is reasonable, and grants no more than one year to complete the work. For example, an institution has approved offering a new academic program. Additional time is required to develop and implement assessment plans, secure faculty commitments, and clarify enrollment requirements as essential to meet the Standards. In all cases where the Commission decides to extend the time given an institution, the Commission s action must establish an expected completion date. The notation of the extension and the completion date will be identified in the Commission s action letter. A Commission decision to extend the time permitted must weigh the consequences for students and the public of such an extension. The Commission has informed the Department of Education that it will not extend the time necessary to correct deficiencies that have substantial negative impact on educational quality or institutional integrity. In all such actions, regardless of the cause of the deficiency or the means of addressing it, institutions will be given no more than two years (and reasonably might be given much less) to resolve such deficiencies. The U.S. Department of Education Two-Year Rule 34 C.F.R (a),(b) Two Year Rule: U.S. Department of Education regulations expect accrediting agencies to require institutions with deficiencies under any standard to come into complete compliance within a time period not to exceed two years of the deficiency or the agency must act to terminate accreditation. There must be a clear delineation by the Commission of when an issue moves from monitoring to time-limited full resolution (when the clock is ticking ). Department regulations allow an accrediting agency to extend the time given for good cause. Use of extensions should not be automatic; they are to be used infrequently and judiciously. In all cases where the Commission decides to extend the time given an institution, the Commission s action must establish the reason for extension, the length of the extension, and the date by which the institution must be in compliance with the Standard(s). CONSIDERATIONS PRIOR TO GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF THE TWO-YEAR RULE - A Commission decision to extend the time permitted must weigh the consequences for students and the public of such an extension. - The Commission will not extend the time necessary to correct deficiencies that have substantial negative impact on educational quality or institutional integrity. In all such actions, regardless of the cause of the deficiency or the means of addressing it, institutions will be given no more than the initial two years (and reasonably might be given much less) to resolve such deficiencies. - The ACCJC has submitted and received acceptance of four such good cause reasons for extension of the time to complete the work necessary to comply with Eligibility Requirements (for colleges already accredited), Accreditation Standards and Commission policies. 2

24 Case 4:16-cv HSG Document 116 Filed 08/07/17 Page 24 of 24 REASONS ESTABLISHED BY THE ACCJC FOR POSSIBLE EXTENSION: 1. Resolution would reasonably take more than two years to complete. Resolution of the identified deficiency reasonably would take more than two years to complete. In such situations, the Commission will monitor the institution s progress and find it satisfactory, but for the needed additional time. For example, an institution may need more than two years to address a decline in fiscal reserves, and its consequent impact on fiscal stability, by restoring reserves, building enrollments to gain more revenues, arranging a sale of the institution, etc. 2. Time is necessary for an institution to complete sequential steps mandated by other controlling agencies. It is necessary to provide time for an institution to resolve a deficiency through necessary sequential steps mandated by other controlling agencies. This process could take more than two years. For example, an institution that needs to build new facilities may be required to seek state approval for facilities development before building design by an architect, both necessary before building can commence. 3. Reasonable time is necessary when there are credible third parties who have the capacity and authority to resolve deficiencies. It is necessary to provide reasonable time for an institution that has indicated it has retained or had imposed outside, credible third-parties as consultants or aides who have the capacity and authority to resolve deficiencies. For example, an institution may seek the assistance of an auditing firm or a state controller to assist in resolution of fiscal matters, or may seek a State Monitor to guide an executive or governing board in better practice. 4. Reasonable time is necessary as the institution awaits resolution of matters by an outside agency or organization. It is necessary to provide reasonable time as an institution waits for an outside agency or organization to resolve matters that are affecting an institution s compliance with standards. For example, a federal college might have to wait for a federal agency to take action on some specific aspect of operations in order to resolve a deficiency; in some cases, an institution might have to await resolution of legal issues in order to take necessary steps to resolve deficiencies. 5. Considerable work has been accomplished, and an additional year is granted. The institution has completed a great amount of work on the needed changes, and only a small number of issues remain. The Commission believes additional time is reasonable and grants no more than one year to complete the work. For example, an institution has approved offering a new academic program. Additional time is required to develop and implement assessment plans, secure faculty commitments, and clarify enrollment requirements as essential to meet the Standards. 3