This is a copy of the first page, as publicly published by DEAC on February 27, 2017. They back dated it a year, then used an asterisk to correct the date. You can go look at it right now on their website. THIS IS IN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AS PUBLISHED. They didn't need an asterick, IT IS THE ORIGINAL PUBLICATION! Who does this. People are just magically going to go look at the asterisk and not be slanted? Bizarre. http://www.deac.org/UploadedDocuments/Public-Notices/022717_wlc_sco_summary.pdf
OMG I am being told that this is an update. They are going through their files and updating things, without versioning, and replacing publicly without reference to the original. I don't know which is true, but this is getting scary.
Just remember that court decisions are not about truth, justice or honesty, but instead, court decisions are about who can make the best case. That's one reason why they call it "arguing" (which is a legal term and not a lay term).
There is a reason why these dates are so meaningful, it is part of federal law, these would be bizarre typo's, and to consistent across all document and web pages. 34 602.20(a.2.iii) requires an accrediting agency to give a school like ours 2 years to address any items they tell us to. DEAC policy in practice has always split the two years. The first year the school is given a chance to work with the agency, ask questions, and go through a second visit with different people, in good faith and privately. If there are still problems after the second visit, the show cause is ordered for the second year, and the public is notified that the school may have problems. This also satisfies 34 602.17 and 34 602.18. They back dated the show cause a year to skip the entire due processes with us, and jumped straight to show cause. That's why they back dated it, they felt pressure to have a school on show cause for their NACIQI metrics (or something), and believed we were an easy target and either no one would notice or care. The problem for them is that in so doing, they have violated federal law, the three I mention here, which we identify in our complaint.
The other piece to this that has always puzzled me is why did they issue the show cause order on February 27 instead of February 26. The DEAC handbook says they must publish the actions from commission meetings within 30 days of the meeting. Why wait 31? Sure the 26 was a Sunday, but the reg doesn't say 30 days except on Sundays. To meet the reg they should have published on Feb 24. Seems like a small thing, right? They really didn't wait one extra day, they waited three. Then I realized it coincided with the executive directors travel schedule, and by waiting, even though it violated their own internal standards, she directed them to wait so that she could be out of the country when the order was given. Then I realized that while true, there was another reason, too. They we're pushing to get past the NACIQI public comment deadline. That's why they wrote in their letter that we had to wait nine days before we could ask a question, and they waited until past the public comment date to respond.
It shows you how bad I am at this i had just linked to the public show cause letter. I honestly never expected them to edit a public record without posting a revision history to the document. I was able to find the original public document that was up for 11-weeks where they stated they meet to vote on show cause in January 2016. Notice no asterisk. Just getting it out there that they edited the public document on or about May 17, 2017.
