ACCJC to Who? Difficult?

Moves to change out of the ACCJC has gotten some wings.  The SF Examiner reports that:

A two-pronged plan to change the process of accrediting the 113 community colleges in California, including City College of San Francisco, will be presented to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors today.
The proposal to “fundamentally change” the accrediting process and structure of the state’s community colleges, including the possibility of using a new agency, is potentially the strongest stance to date against the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges.

Inside Higher Ed reports that many of the Presidents of the colleges voted for change.  The article states:

The majority of community college presidents in California voted yesterday to pull the colleges away from the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, while also working to reform the agency.
The presidents were presented with three options: sticking with the current accreditor, supporting "fundamental changes made to our accreditation processes and structures," or making their own suggestions.
California's community colleges have been on the path to either reform the controversial and unpopular ACCJC or find a new accreditor since the agency sanctioned City College of San Francisco in 2012.

It's clear that the moves against CCSF had a backlash.  It's also clear that ACCJC will do it's best to stay.  There are some problems like transitioning to a new body.  This was reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education.  They stated:

But the practical and political difficulties of finding or creating a new entity to accredit the nation's largest higher-education system, with 113 colleges and more than two million students, have tempered some of the calls to immediately move to another regional accrediting body.
At a recent meeting of the system's chancellors, campus leaders recognized that such a change could take five years or more, said Brian King, chancellor of the Los Rios Community College District.
In the short term, he said, campus leaders are trying to improve communication with the accreditor and take the lead in reforming its processes.
The final resolution is significantly different from a previous draft, which specifically called for a two-year timeline for the colleges to move to either the Western Association of Schools and Colleges' Senior College and University Commission or the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.