BILL NUMBER: AB 1397	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  SEPTEMBER 4, 2015
	AMENDED IN SENATE  JULY 8, 2015
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MAY 28, 2015
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MAY 5, 2015
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 14, 2015

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Members Ting and Bonta
   (Coauthors: Assembly Members Gipson, Mullin, Santiago, and Wagner)

   (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Hall, and Nielsen)

                        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 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 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 post the agenda of the
meetings of its decisionmaking body on its Internet Web site, and to
mail that agenda to specified officers of affected institutions, no
less than 30 days before a public meeting of that body.  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 the shortening of the time periods
required by the bill with respect to certain actions of the agency
only pursuant to a written declaration made, under penalty of
perjury, by the chief executive officer of the agency, as specified.

   The bill would authorize an institution to submit an appeal of a
decision by the accrediting agency to subject that institution to a
sanction of probation or a more serious sanction. The bill would
require a member of a panel that would hear one of these appeals to
file a specified disclosure form under penalty of perjury. By
expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
   The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


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) 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.
   72801.  (a) As used in this article:
   (1) "Academic" means a person who is currently, or has recently,
directly engaged in a significant manner in postsecondary teaching or
research.
   (2) "Agency" means the accrediting agency for the California
Community Colleges.
   (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) It is the intent of the Legislature that the provisions of
this article shall be implemented in a manner that complies with
pertinent federal statutes and regulations. 
   (c) (1) 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, including,
but not necessarily limited to, any 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 agency's decisionmaking
body.
   (C) Serving as, or having a near relative serving as, a current
member, staff member, or consultant of the institution's governing
body.
   (D) Candidacy for employment at the institution being evaluated.
   (E) 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.
   (F) Having a personal or financial interest in the ownership or
operation of the institution being evaluated.
   (G) Receipt of honoraria, honors, or awards from the institution
being evaluated.
   (H) Other personal or professional connections that would create a
conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
   (3) A prospective member of a visiting accreditation team shall
submit an appropriate disclosure form to the agency, declaring 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.
   (d) (1) The agency shall conduct  its meetings 
 the meetings of its decisionmaking body  so as to ensure
that those members of the public who desire to appear at open
sessions of  agency   those  meetings have
an opportunity to attend those portions of the meetings.  No less
than 30 days before each meeting of the decisionmaking body of the
agency, the agency shall make an agenda for that meeting available to
the public by posting the agenda on its Internet Web site and by
other appropriate means. This agenda shall include the street address
of the meeting site. The agenda shall be mailed, no less than 30
days before each meeting, to the chief executive officer and the
accreditation liaison officer of any applicant, candidate, or
accredited institution that is listed on the agenda in connection
with any matter to be considered at the meeting. 
   (2) A sufficient length of time shall be allowed for public
comment at  agency meetings,   meetings of the
agency's decisionmaking body,  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. 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, employee, representative, or consultant of the
agency with an actual or appearance of a conflict of interest shall
be disqualified from participating in discussion and  voting.
  voting by the agency's decisionmaking body.  For
purposes of this clause, a conflict of interest 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
any 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.
   (C) Having served on the most recent evaluation team of an
institution being considered.
   (D) Candidacy for employment at the institution being evaluated.
   (E) 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.
   (F) Having a personal or financial interest in the ownership or
operation of the institution being evaluated.
   (G) Receipt of honoraria, honors, or awards from the institution
being evaluated.
   (H) Other personal or professional connections that would create a
conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
   (I) Any other relationship that would impede an individual's
objectivity.
   (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.   for two full accreditation cycles, for
14 years, or for the retention period required for that document by
the federal government, whichever period is longest.  
   (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.
 
   (g) 
    (   f)  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. 
   (h) 
    (   g)  (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. 
   (3) The time periods for advance notice established pursuant to
paragraph (1) and for the review period established pursuant to
paragraph (2) may be shortened only pursuant to a declaration made by
the chief executive officer of the agency. This declaration shall
include, but not be limited to, a statement that exigent
circumstances exist and the time periods established by law impair
the agency's ability to act swiftly in taking action for the
preservation of the public good. This declaration shall be in
writing, signed under penalty of perjury, and shall specify the
exigent circumstances necessitating expedited action by the agency.
The declaration shall be posted on the agency's Internet Web site,
and, as soon as is practicable, a copy of the declaration shall be
delivered to the affected institution. 
   (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.
   (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.
   (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 any 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.
   (C) Having voted or had the opportunity to vote, as a member of
the agency's decisionmaking body, on the sanction being appealed.
   (D) Having served on any team, review committee, or body on behalf
of the commission that was involved with the action of the
commission being appealed.
   (E) Current service on the commission.
   (3) A prospective member of an appeal panel shall submit an
appropriate disclosure form, signed under penalty of perjury, to the
agency, declaring that he or she does not violate the
conflict-of-interest criteria listed in subparagraphs (A) to (D),
inclusive, of paragraph (2). Copies of these forms shall be provided
to the institution that is making the appeal. 
   (k) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision
of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application. 
  SEC. 2.  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of 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, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.