Measure B requires two-thirds’ voter support. If adopted, it would provide $19 million a year, up from the present $15 million.

The selling points for the measure build off the idea that the community college has turned the corner from its recent problems with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, which has voiced concerns since 2011 that the college has few internal financial controls, has spent money in unfocused ways and has provided inadequate student services. Voters are also told that CCSF is actively trying to shore up its funding by recruiting foreign students — especially from Asia — who pay far more in tuition, much as the University of California system did beginning 10 years ago.

But Measure B critics offer evidence that undercuts the assertion that the college’s biggest problems are mostly behind it.

The accreditation commission still has not given its blessing to CCSF; a final decision on whether to revoke accreditation is expected in January. And claims that CCSF had developed much better financial controls were undercut by a December 2015 San Francisco Chronicle report that detailed seemingly profligate spending by college officials.

While college trustees defended President Virginia Parras’ trip to China, Taiwan and Vietnam as a smart student recruitment effort, the Chronicle found heavy spending by school officials at local restaurants with little documentation of any benefit that accrued to CCSF. Such documentation is supposed to be mandatory and seems certain to be viewed by the accreditation commission as evidence its years of admonitions have not worked.

Enrollment plunging and faculty fleeing

The Chronicle reported this month that the accreditation flap had taken a harsh toll on enrollment, which has plunged from 84,000 full- and part-time students in 2012 to the present 62,000. Meanwhile, state aid meant to help stabilize the college is going away. After getting a total of $69 million last fiscal year and this fiscal year, CCSF has been told to expect no such funding in 2017-18.

But CCSF’s headaches don’t stop there. The high cost of housing is making it difficult for the college to attract and retain teachers and staff. The extra $4 million that the new version of parcel tax would generate annually is going to be used to address this problem.

One of the strategies that state officials have undertaken to help CCSF caught the eye of Inside Higher Education, a national journal. In January, it noted that the California Community College’s Board of Governors endorsed dropping the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges as the agency handling accrediting for CCC’s 113 campuses based on a critical report from a CCC task force.

The move prompted criticism from one accreditation veteran, noted Inside Higher Education. 

“There’s no short-term solution other than CCSF getting its act together and getting accredited by [Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges], and it appears the commission is hanging tough and not changing its position,” said Ralph Wolff, former president of the WASC Senior College and University Commission, the main community college accrediting oversight agency in the Western U.S.

The unusually complex background to the Measure B vote may make its approval unlikely. But there’s another daunting factor facing proponents: In addition to the 17 state ballot measures on the Nov. 8 ballot, San Francisco voters will be asked to consider 25 city and regional ballot measures. Most election observers think the more decisions that more voters have on ballot measures, the more likely they are to vote no — or to not vote at all — on many proposals.

The move to get a new accreditation plan in place could take a decade, while the state’s 2.1 million community college students look for guidance in a complex system.

The fatal action for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges was its challenge to City College of San Francisco. The commission in 2012 began raising concerns about financial and governance practices at the college and at one point threatened to revoke the college’s accreditation, landing the two parties in court.

City College has acknowledged its precarious financial position and its revolving door of administrators. The school has pruned expenses and tightened its finances, according to a bond filing issued earlier this year.

Which leaves the state with a black eye in terms of accreditation of community colleges. Is the accreditation commission being punished for doing its job? Or was it unfairly severe in its application of standards?

Need for Accreditation

Accreditation is crucial for most institutions as it is required to access federal student loan money.

The state’s community colleges have seen a decline in enrollment over the past five years and faced an $18 million revenue decline in 2014, although state legislation propped up the San Francisco Community College District — of which the City College is part of — through additional funding last year.

The commission has been on the radar of the California Community Colleges Board of Governors for over a year.

In a report issued by a review committee from the community colleges board, the fate of the accreditation board was sealed.

From the report:

“Between 2009 and 2013 the ACCJC issued 143 sanctions out of the 269 accreditation actions it took. This sanction rate is approximately 53 percent, compared to approximately 12 percent sanction rates within the other six regional accreditors. The quantity and frequency of sanctions issued by the ACCJC, in conjunction with other controversial actions and practices of this accreditor, have led to frequent calls for reform of the accrediting process from member institutions of the ACCJC.”

The accreditation commission responded with a four–page announcement of new practices and noted that as of 2014, there were 30 percent fewer benchmarks required for approval.

“The new standards will be the basis for comprehensive institutional evaluations for reaffirmation of accreditation beginning spring, 2016,” a spokesman for the commission said.

The commission also announced it would host annual conferences for schools to receive input and answer questions about the accreditation process. The first conference is to be held in October 2016.

RELATED – State agency struggling to police for-profit colleges

The commission is part of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, one of six regional groups in the U.S. that are charged with ensuring higher education institutions adhere to standards that begin at the federal level. The accreditors are overseen by administrators at the U.S. Department of Education and a board called the National Advisory Committee on Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility.

In addition to angering the state community college board of governors, the accreditation commission in California has drawn the ire of teachers unions and their powerful allies. The California Federation of Teachers filed a lawsuit against the commission to keep the San Francisco City College open and registered a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education against the commission.

The American Federation of Teachers said the commission has “failed to focus on improving learning and academic achievement.”

Democratic U.S. Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Jackie Speier and Anna Eshoo called the ACCJC’s actions “outrageous.”

The commission is accused in one complaint of “extensive financial and political relationships with advocacy organizations and private foundations representing for‐profit colleges and powerful student lender interests.”

The commission accepted a $450,000 grant from the Lumina Foundation for Education, a group that has endeavored to change community college education and create a more universal accreditation system. Some onlookers have noted what they call the libertarian roots of Lumina.

But the practice of accreditation stems from federal regulation, which has increased in recent years. Community colleges in the U.S. collectively spend up to $6 billion to keep in compliance, according to a Vanderbilt University study. The study also listed 29 categories that colleges and universities are subject to monitoring and reporting.

Community colleges are subject to review every six years.

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com.