(ODA) Oregon being sued by Kennedy Western University

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Fred Wilkinson, Oct 14, 2004.

  1. Fred Wilkinson

    Fred Wilkinson New Member

    Why is the OFFICE OF DEGREE AUTHORIZATION (ODA) being sued by Kennedy Western University?

    See News Story: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1091534116270940.xml

    Basically, a law against listing an unaccredited degree on a resume is unconstitutional.

    Could it be because the ODA are breaking their own rules?

    see: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_583/583_030.html

    (3) This rule applies to any school offering degrees and credits from within Oregon to recipients anywhere, and it applies to

    any person assisting such a school. The rule further applies to any school offering degrees and credits from outside of

    Oregon, in connection with learning or evaluation meant to occur within this state, if there is any person assisting the

    school from within this state in any way, formal or informal, and it applies to every such person assisting the school.

    He is a few of my thoughts.

    So schools appearing in the controversial "Oregon List" are legal outside of Oregon? Providing they do not operate in Oregon.


    As a matter of practical rather than legal limitations, the rule will not be applied to a school that offers degrees or

    credits from outside of Oregon and is unassisted within the state, so that any concomitant learning or evaluation not

    occurring outside of Oregon is accomplished exclusively through private interstate communication (e.g., internet, mail,

    telephone, fax) in which the student acts entirely alone within this state.


    Again, providing they do not operate in Oregon, they are legal, and should not even appear on the list in the first place.


    Some interesting facts from meetings attended by the ODA Adminstrator. Alan Contreras.

    Minutes from Meeting 308

    Alan Contreras will report on the Office of Degree Authorization’s (ODA) major deductions stated in the Co-Chairs’ budget.

    Brian plans to attend the final work session and testify that the Commission needs the proposed unidentified administrative

    reductions of $100,000 in General Funds to pay staff in order to administer ODA programs and continue providing the same
    efficient level of service.


    Only $100,000 to send out 12 letters a year to possible unaccredited degree holders living or working in Oregon. Not a bad price. No, wait, that is just the staff wages. Let's see how much the paper, envelopes and postage cost. (for the 12 letters

    a year proof) see here: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1091534116270940.xml



    Elizabeth Large plans to attend the July Commission meeting to present an update on the status and final disposition of the

    Benton trial after the expected decision in mid-July. Alan Contreras reported on the continued misconception that a large

    portion of the ODA general fund budget could be reduced and replaced with a fee structure through which ODA would charge fees

    for the degree validation enforcement aspect. Alan communicated in a memo to the LFO that the bulk of the ODA Division costs

    cannot be covered by fees charged to callers reporting degree violations and will require general fund support.


    I thought the original idea of the ODA was to prevent possible holders of unaccredited degrees getting raises and/or costing
    the State of Oregon money in some way? Okay, so the ODA sends about 12 threatening letters a year. Let's just assume that
    all 12 had access to $1000 extra per year because of the unnaccredited degree. So that´s $12.000 saved right?


    Costs include revalidation enforcement, *Alan’s wages*, support staff wages, office space, supplies, etc. Alan will outline the functions currently provided and give examples of what would be lost if the general fund appropriation is reduced and switched to a fee structure. Before final decisions are made, Brian will present this letter to the full legislature for their consideration on behalf of the entire Commission.


    So the State of Oregon has maybe saved $12,000 but it has cost them $88,000. Strange logic.


    Alan reported a substantial increase in the degree program reviews that are fee supported. Patty asked whether other
    institutions besides ITT Technical Institute are increasing the number of degree programs available. Alan responded that the
    University of Phoenix has been adding roughly one new program a year.


    1 program a year? That is $1000 to $5000 only. Still doesn't explain blowing $100,000 of taxpayers money.


    Office of Degree Authorization General Fund appropriations were $232,333; expenditures were $143,936.
    Summary: ODA is under budget for expenditures; variance is offset by Policy and Research expenditures. Figures for Policy and
    Research were not included in this report but will be reported next quarter.


    Well that doesn't explain where the money is going. Unless they are buying their envelopes and paper from NASA or sponsoring
    a couple of hours of the Iraq Conflict.


    Office of Degree Authorization Other Fund appropriations were $108,560; expenditures were $215,505. Summary: The increase in expenditures was due to payroll reclassifications and corrections. Revenues are above biennium budget.


    Has Alan given himself a healthy pay rise? May explain the figures.


    Minutes From Meeting 270

    Mr. Contreras reported the following:- ODA is operating within its budget, and is running ahead of schedule in program review.


    Hmmmm. we have since discovered it isn't, see meeting 308 above


    Mr. Contreras expects a new program proposal in two or three months from a midwife training school.

    Hmmmm. so we are getting our monies worth then?


    Several degree validation cases have arisen, and most have been resolved. A few cases may take a year to resolve.


    Hmmmm. Oh no, you mean the Oregonians need to fund this madness for even longer? Or will it end with the Kennedy-Western University court case against the ODA? When it is proved (like it was in Florida) that this whole ODA idea is swiss cheese.

    Full of holes.

    I was particularly amused by Alan Contreras'statements about bogus degrees costing the taxpayer money. The ODA, isn't costing the taxpayer, apparently.


    Administrator of the ODA (nice job if you can get it).

    Thoughts please.

    Let's just stick to the legal facts too.
  2. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Hmmm an obvious troll that mixes apples and oranges and then implies that something is wrong when it doesn't add up to how many bananas are claimed.
  3. oxpecker

    oxpecker New Member

  4. Fred Wilkinson

    Fred Wilkinson New Member

    Fact is Fact

    A Troll? Hmmm. Looks like you need to do your research Bill.

    If issuing facts makes me a troll, I am guilty.
  5. Fred Wilkinson

    Fred Wilkinson New Member

    ODA are being sued, FACT!

    Yes, I know what "we" are usually interested in on here Mr Oxpecker, but I am just interested in the facts mate.

    The ODA is a clone of a similar problem in Florida, that was shut down by a court ruling as unconstitutional. FACT.

    The ODAs days are numbered. LIKELY
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Mr. Wilkinson, who has no other track record on this board, seems bent to predict the future of the ODA. Fine. He might be right. But he might be wrong. So we're left with his opinion. But who is he? No one known here, nor known for any other issue. Take it or leave it.

    Whether or not the ODA is on firm constitutional grounds, the fact remains that the degree mills identified by the ODA are, indeed, degree mills. That won't change.
  7. Fred Wilkinson

    Fred Wilkinson New Member


    What is it with this board? Why is everyone fixated on who I am?

    First Dr John Bear "googles" me to discover who I am.

    (content deleted by moderator)

    I am just interested in the provable facts. I have no track record here, because I am a new member. Did your opinions have no worth here when you first joined Mr Douglas?

    Petty, just plain petty mate.
  8. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Re: Fact is Fact

    No, it is your twisting of facts and obvious attempts at trying to excite with emotion rather than reason that brands you a troll.
  9. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Re: Rubbish

    "Mr Wilkinson" is just one of the posters from the closed "Collegehints" board having fun. His faulty logic and poor reasoning is rather humorous. I mean really, how could one person get so many ideas and concepts wrong?! Lol. :D :D :D
  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Re: Rubbish

    Actually, you don't offer "facts," just your low opinion of the ODA. Fine, but excuse others for not accepting that.

    As for my opinions when I first joined this board, it's a different story. Like many of us, I was posting on this subject for years before the establishment of this board. In addition, I'm known to several members outside of our interactions here. Finally, it helps to have actually done something in this field, which I'd been doing for decades.

    Rich Douglas, Ph.D.
  11. oxpecker

    oxpecker New Member

    Well, I welcome Fred to the board. A breath of fresh air for this stale environment.
  12. Fred Wilkinson

    Fred Wilkinson New Member

    Re: Rubbish

    Strange reaction. Dr John Bear is allowed to google up what he likes on anything and anybody and post it here without moderator interaction regardless of the source or legitimacy of the information.

    When I did the same and researched "Dr John Bear" in google groups, that gets deleted.

    Unusual reaction.
  13. Fred Wilkinson

    Fred Wilkinson New Member

  14. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Rubbish

    No, you are once again twisting the truth over the boundary into falsehood. You stated a lie as if it were fact. You then tried to distance yourself from the libelous lie by stating you didn't care whether it or not it was true. Twisting of the truth is not against the TOS except in this case when you were doing it to try and spread libel, which is against the TOS.
  15. Fred Wilkinson

    Fred Wilkinson New Member

    I Apologise

    I had no idea that using the internet as an information source to judge an individual or school was not tolerated here.

    I have seen so many unmoderated examples of this in the past few weeks, I automatically assumed it was okay.

    Sorry once again.
  16. Fred Wilkinson

    Fred Wilkinson New Member

    regarding the TOS

    Dear Moderator,

    I have just read the TOS.

    I noted the section

    "are welcomed but personal attacks, flooding, spamming, shilling, or the posting of potentially libelous or defamatory information is not."

    Yet you allow posters to label a school a degree mill with no legal proof.

    In your opinion as a moderator, is that potentially libelous?

    I need to know that logical moderation does happen here.

    I never came here to hassle people, I came here to enjoy logical discussion.

  17. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Re: regarding the TOS

    Man, Wilkenson stop it. You ARE killing me! You didn't come here to hassle people?! LOL! YOU are KILLING ME!
    :D :D :D
  18. Fred Wilkinson

    Fred Wilkinson New Member

    Re: Re: regarding the TOS

    Feel the same about you Dave.

    However, that was a question for the Moderator.

  19. Chip

    Chip Administrator

    If we believe that a given post is libelous, we will remove it. So, for example, if someone said "John Bear is in jail for running a fake school" then we'd obviously remove the post because I saw John Bear a week ago and he wasn't behind bars.

    On the other hand, if someone says "St. Regis is a fraud" then we'd be inclined to let it stand because there is adequate evidence that would permit that person to draw that conclusion. It's still their opinion, and perhaps not the official position of DegreeInfo, but unless we receive a formal complaint from the school itself, we generally don't remove posts offering negative opinions about schools, unless the opinions are clearly factually incorrect.

    Also, personal attacks are a lot more distasteful to us than comments about less-than-wonderful schools, so those will tend to get removed very quickly.

    Shilling and trolling are also heavily discouraged, and will often simply get the abuser's posting privileges suspended.

    I hope that answers your questions.


  20. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    Re: regarding the TOS


    Dude, I am not a moderator and do not always agree with the way some people handle post like yours, but if you come in criticizing everyone here then you are not going to be around here long. I think you made some interesting points and should be given a chance before the troll, shill, etc. name calling begins, but you should not take offense when people start giving you facts about schools that cannot be disputed.

    With that said, posters can label any school a degree mill, and it is up to other posters to provide evidence either for or against the school in question. Whether a school is considered a diploma mill or not depends on the definition, however, there is plenty of evidence that KWU is far from being a credible university. Whether KWU is a diploma mill or not is debatable, but there is a lot of evidence that KWU does not operate close to how legitimate online "universities" operate.

Share This Page