Columbia Pacific Alumni Starting Civil Suit Against CA

I'm curious, if you would like to share, whether the lawyer is taking this on contingency or if he/she is requiring money up-front. I would guess, as with most cases of this nature, that it will be a rather expensive process.



Tom Nixon

 

Good points, David. We have no dispute with any degrees awarded post-1997. What I mean to say is that probably would not be part of a suit. The suit references the legal degrees only (as far as I know).

CPU's attorney has informed us that there is no related statute of limitations.

David, what is the basis of your relationship with Sheila Hawkins?

CPU believes, as does an independent education consultant who has worked for the Bureau, and examined the state report in 1995, that CPU was in compliance but that the reapproval process was railroaded through at a swift speed and the reapproval committee was not properly briefed nor did they understand CPU's model. I suggest that you read the independ consultant's report, which I shall post below.

* Here is the link to the independent consultant's report, which refutes the Bureau's findings. He has also worked for the Bureau on the new regulations of 1989 (the one's that CPU was allegedly not in compliance with).

http://www.altcpualumni.org/chronicles/cpurespb.pdf


* Here are the independent consultant's credentials:

http://www.altcpualumni.org/chronicles/smithbio.pdf


* Here is some other info about the independent consultant's corporation:

http://www.altcpualumni.org/chronicles/ameriedu.pdf


* Here is the Bureau's report from the visiting committee, failing CPU's re-approval application:

http://www.altcpualumni.org/chronicles/cppverptb.pdf


Tom:
Yes, the case will be taken on by retainer and will most likely
carry on for a long time. But we are up for the journey.

 

Mr. Boyd,

I agree absolutely with your analysis.

I HAVE been a litigator. I still don't see where CRU grads whose degrees are deemed "legal" have standing to sue the State, or even CPU for that matter.

The claimed loss, as I understand it, is really in the nature of defamation, that is; because the State closed CPU, their degrees are perceived as being less valuable than they otherwise would be.

I wish them luck and, if they asked me, I'd advise them that this looks like a loser suit. Things said and actions taken by Courts are immune from suit for libel. That immunity is absolute for all practical purposes. Testimony given in the course of administrative and judicial procedings is immune.

Finally, even if they DO get a hearing, they will have the greatest difficulty showing that they've suffered any damages.

My humble opinion.

 

Nosborne and David:
I'm quite happy to have your analyses and hope from more from informed sources. I'll take these back to the alumni group as a "devil's advocate" perspective. Having alyernative persoectives can only enrich the process.

So, let me get this right. Nosborne is an experienced litigator, and David is an attorney that has no experience in litigation but has a relationship with Sheila Hawkins of the CA Bureau? Is this correct? I'll suggest that CPU alumni members check out the unfolding of this discussion and use it in initial conversations with their counsel.
Thanks,
Earon

 

I first met Ms. Hawkins when she conducted a site visitation at Taft University in the late 1980’s. For many years, she headed the Degree Granting Unit of the CPPVE/BPPVE. I served on many state site visitation review teams during these years as well as being appointed to the Subcommittee that made recommendations on regulations for degree granting institutions.

There were times when I did not agree on certain issues with the CPPVE but I never found them to be unreasonable.

The CPPVE Report and Institutional Response were interesting. I wasn’t aware Les Axelrod was the Council representative on the CPU visit. Mr. Axelrod also lead a site review team at Taft.

I have met Dan Smith, the consultant, once or twice. He’s a qualified consultant. But keep in mind, like an attorney, he’s a hired gun attempting to put the most favorable spin for his client’s benefit.

IMHO, the approach to the Report taken by CPU guaranteed their eventual demise. Rather than admit their shortcomings, the response simply addressed a number of alleged errors in fact and ignored the obvious violations of law. CPU never admitted they were not in compliance with some major regulations. Had the Report emphasized that steps were being taken to come into compliance, the end result may have been different.

 

More to the point, David is President of WH Taft University in California.

 

Earon,

Thank you for posting the various links. while I am not a lawyer, but based on what I have read on the visiting committee report, it seems to me the committee attempted to enforce the standards and the school in question was unable to demonstrate compliance to many of the identified standards at the time of the institutional evaluation.

I am impressed that California actually enforced its standards. The enforcement process seems rigorous. If these requirements are still applicable today, then, I have more appreciation for the CA approved schools that are currently in operation. The question becomes why was CPU responses to the committee report not good enough? I am sure there are many opinions out there.

I did not know that a student could not graduate with a Ph.D in less than 3 years under the California code. It was a good job that the committee was able to identify data that was contrary to the state requirements.

All I wish you is utmost good luck on your group legal proceedings. Thank you.

 

David Boyd: "IMHO, the approach to the Report taken by CPU guaranteed their eventual demise. Rather than admit their shortcomings, the response simply addressed a number of alleged errors in fact and ignored the obvious violations of law. CPU never admitted they were not in compliance with some major regulations. Had the Report emphasized that steps were being taken to come into compliance, the end result may have been different."


Cehi: Excellent summation. Thank you.

 

Now comes the INEVITABLE disclaimer!

I am not a California attorney. The CPU alumnae have retained California counsel who I presume does know what he's about. I invite interested persons to use my comments to ask questions of California counsel, not to assume that my comments are to be taken as legal advice.