Question about standards for degree programs.

You're still stretching things.

 

kc,

Let's say you open a business. You get a license from the city or county your business is in. Does the city operate your business?

OSHA comes by periodically to inspect tha you have a safe working environment for your employees. Does OSHA operate your business?

You decide to get ISO9001 registered. An ISO9001 registrar sends auditors to inspect your business periodically. Does the ISO committee operate your business? Does the registrar?

Let's assume your business makes electrical products. In the U.S. electrical products must be certified by an independent lab to be used in a work place. Those are the UL safety standards. If you get UL certification on your products, UL will send auditors to your business every 3 months to make sure your product still meets the standard. Does UL operate your business?

The answer to all is no.

 

My example is only an illustration to explain the meaning of operation from the angle of law. You are right. Allowed to operate and taking operation is NOT equal in legal consequence. The penalty of allowing the operation is equal or even more than the one to operate the crime.

Therefore, in this case, the State government has liabilities to the public of the State or even the whole country since it delegated its authority to the educational institutions to grant degree programs. For individual one institution, its liability may limit to its students, while the State government may face liability of the students of the State/country because the government is implementing a state policy.

 

Try to think from legal manner.

If you cannot get a license to open the business, can you operate your business? If your electrical products cannot get the UL certification, can you produce and operate your business without such certification? ... etc.

Your above examples are good illustrations to explain the government does not physically take operations in your business. However, without its approval, there are NO operations at all!

It is unrealistic for government to participate, provide and operate in every business PERSONALLY like education of this case. Therefore, it needs to have statutes for different business sectors to meet the requirements of the business.

As your example of opening a business, a license must be required to open a business. Specific license, i.e. other additional requirements, may be required for specific business sectors, e.g. certification of electrical products in your case. So, if I get a license approval from the Florida State educational dept. to open a private university granting degree programs, will the degree programs be ILLEGAL to use in Florida or other states because the government does not operate and provide the degree programs PERSONALLY on day to day but ALLOWS the educational institutions to operate?

Under US educational system, unlike that of UK, legal degree programs may NOT be accredited degree programs.

 

And as I said.

Allowed to operate (business license, UL approvals, etc.)

and operate (owning a business, board of trustees for a university, etc.)

are different.

If the statute had said

"Allowed to operate by a state government" or

"Received approval to operate by a state government."

I would agree with you, but since it doesn't, I don't agree with you.

 

I am. You're the one giving extra definitions to words and adding words to the statute that aren't there.

Yes, but if I don't come in and OPERATE my business, is the state going to operate it? Nope.

Also, by your thinking, if a customer gets hurt on business property or get hurt by a product my business makes, they should not just sue my business, but sue the city, county, state, OSHA, UL and every other entity that had ever given my business a registration or license.

Right, they don't provide and operate every business. They ALLOW TO OPERATE business. But in the instance of State Universities (i.e. University of Florida), the STATE appoints a board of trustees that is "the institution's legal owner and final authority." The STATE OPERATES a state university, but they ALLOW TO OPERATE a business licensed in the state.

Illegal to use in Florida, might be acceptable in other states. Unless of course, your institution was approved by the "Committee for Independent Education" in Florida. That would be acceptable under 817.567 (1) (d).

I don't know if that's true or not, but I know that you would not be allowed to sit for the bar exam in Florida. Which means, you can have that unaccredited legal degree, but you sure wouldn't be able to practice. At least not legally.

 

If the terms of a statute do not specify in detail, interpretation is always going to the court/law professionals with supporting cases/evidences/or other related law concept. Please read below term again.

An institution is that:

(b) Provided, operated, and supported by a state government or any of its political subdivisions or by the Federal Government;

It is NOT specific enough. You and others have your intention to interpret ONLY government owned, operated and funded institution included in above term, while I have my interpretation of an institution is legally provided, operated and supported by the government. They are two different interpretations. Therefore, I did not add extra definitions to above term but in different interpretation from yours.

If it is ONLY referring to government owned, operated and funded institution, please list out the related evidences or other provisions of this statute.

Furthermore, the above term is required to be redrafted in more specific way if it is really referring to ONLY government owned, operated and funded institution. There are a lot of public utilities, e.g. telephone, housing authority ... etc, that are not operating by the government but by government to assign private corporation to operate. We cannot say their services are not supported, provided and operated by the government.


Referring to your business license issue above, if you commence a business but do not operate, you still bear all liabilities of the business. You are still responsible for the public including the gov't. Under the law concept, you actually are operating your business BUT WITHOUT activities only!

Referring to your above case of customer hurt by your products, under the law concept of negligence and tort, if it can prove related parties, including government, committed negligence, the customer has the right to sue you, related parties and the government for his/her damage.

Also, I wish to elaborate your logic with the use of State approval institution of BPPVE as example. If it is wrong, please correct me.

State approval institution without accreditation of BPPVE or OTHER STATES is illegal in Florida, while institution with approval of Committee for Independent Education in Florida is legal in California, assuming California is allowing approved institutions from other states. So, any discriminations here? Any unfairness and injustice among the States? No any federal educational law in USA to balance such kind of conflict? It seems a big problem in US legislation system if they cannot be resolved.

By the way, I don't intend to take practice in Florida and USA since its legal system is not world wide common due to its uncountable bugs as compared with UK! What we are discussing here may be a good illustration for the muddle of US legislation system!

 

It is very specific. You are reading more into that sentence than what is there.

OPERATE does not equal ALLOW TO OPERATE.

I don't have to, because it is quite clear in it's wording.

But, in any case chapter 775 states-

(1) The provisions of this code and offenses defined by other statutes shall be strictly construed;

Chapter 775 and chapter 817 are both part of Title 46 of the Florida Statutes. Title 46 covers CRIME.

Does the State of Florida OPERATE St. Leo's University? No, the state doesn't. The State of Florida ALLOWS St. Leo's University to operate. Two very simple but very different sentences. As I said before, the statute DOES NOT SAY ALLOWED TO OPERATE.

No, it does not have to be redrafted because it is very clear. You are misinterpreting it by assuming ALLOW TO is in the sentence and it isn't.

BTW, telephone, electric, other utilities in the U.S. in many instances are private corporations. The government sets standards and regulations, but doesn't operate them. So, no the government doesn't provide or operate them. The housing authority on the other hand, Federal Housing Authority (FHA) is a government entity and therefore is operated by the government.

I don't get what you are trying to say in that paragraph.

In some rare instances, if the government can be proven to be negligent in allowing a business to operate, yes, it can be sued. However, under your argument, in every single instance the government assumes liabilities of the business. That is not correct.

States are considered separate entities. I'm simplifying here, but in general, there are certain powers that are granted to the Federal government. All other powers are granted to the State governments and the people. The States have the power to set their own laws for certain things. Legal age to drive, punishment for crimes not covered under Federal crimes, occupational licenses, etc. For example, to get a real estate license in Florida requires a certain amount of schooling and continuing education. Florida has reciprocity agreements with about 10 other states where a Florida RE license is valid in those states and their RE license is valid in Florida. However, if your from a state that does not have a reciprocity agreement with Florida, then if you move to Florida and want to sell real estate, you have to sit for the Florida real estate exam.

So it is possible for your scenario to exist where California would accept a degree granted in Florida and Florida would reject a degree granted in California and VICE VERSA.

 

If you say I assume ALLOW TO in the sentence, you may assume PHYSICAL/GOVERNMENT FUNDED ... etc in the sentence too.

As I explained before, under the law concept, operation may have its implied meaning of indicating that a right or liability has been created for a party, irrespective of the intent of that party, because it is dictated by existing legal principles.

Referring to the negligence principle, if the terms of statute is proved to be negligent, those who are suffered can sue the government. Therefore, the legistration process of each statute must be careful, i.e. all the terms must be specific and detailed enough. All statute issued will have liability to the public. Try to see the web page of BPPVE again and read below paragraph:

The Bureau establishes educational standards that are intended to serve as the minimum standard for instructional quality and institutional stability for private postsecondary schools in California. The Bureau responds to student complaints and oversees a fund designed to help reimburse a student's tuition if a school closes unexpectedly. The Bureau is also responsible for approving education and training programs for veterans.

The above paragraph expressively explain the Bureau being liable to the students. For example, if an institution is closed down without refunding tuition fees to the students, they can claim their damage from the Bureau due to its negligence to oversee the closed down institution.

 

No, I assume no such thing. The statute states:

(b) Provided, operated, and supported by a state government or any of its political subdivisions or by the Federal Government;

Let's break that down. It is the same as

"Provided by a state government, operated by a state government and supported by a state government."

Let's take another look at the purpose of the statute. Under your interpretation, Florida accepts degrees as valid from an institution in another state that is licensed to operate in that state. So, if I go to Georgia and get a license to open a school and only grant degrees to Florida residents, I could grant Masters in Engineering to Florida residents for $20.00 and according to you, they would be accepted under this statute. I can tell you right now that no judge would accept that arguement.

 

A school can close down for a myriad of reasons, not just being a substandard school. BTW, the above paragraph does not say that BPPVE assumes the liability of the school. Tuition is revenue. Not a liability of the school. BPPVE has that fund to PROTECT students tuition. The above paragraph does not imply that the BPPVE assumes negligence if a school closes either.

 

As I described before, if the school is closed down unexpectedly and does not refund the tuition fee to the students (As you know, tuition fee is paid in advance before the class commencement), under this situation, the school should refund the fee to the students (i.e. a liability of the school in financial and legal aspects). Assuming the school does not do such refunding due to financial crisis, where can the students collect back their paid fees? They will claim their fees back from BPPVE since the Bureau oversees a fund designed to help reimburse a student's tuition if a school closes unexpectedly. If the fund is insufficient for such refund/reimbursement due to something wrong, BPPVE is liable to the unrefunded students.

Under the law concept, if you have authority to approve something, there should have responsibility, i.e. liability in legal term, to its consequences derived. Therefore, may I refer back to your below earlier response:

" In some rare instances, if the government can be proven to be negligent in allowing a business to operate, yes, it can be sued. However, under your argument, in every single instance the government assumes liabilities of the business. That is not correct. "

In rigid term, government should assume all legal liabilities of every statute/law it issued/raised to the society.

If I refer back to the term of 1(b) we have argued, legality rather physical measurements (i.e. substance over form) must be the first priority for interpreting agreement/law/contact or other legal documents. For example, if an institution is funded by the government but does not have legal license to operate degree programs but it did, it is illegal (i.e. substance) even if it is funded by the government (i.e. physical form). However, if an institution has educational license to operate degree programs but without any government support, it is still legal unless you can say it is under unlawful operation in USA.

In our discussion, we are discussing the legality of degree programs rather than accreditation in Florida state. Therefore, if this State explains degree programs operating by other state legally approved universities are unlawful in this state but they are under lawful operations in USA, it seems to be quite unreasonable and illogical. There will cause another civil war in USA but in legal field this time.

 

As I explained before, my interpretation is different from yours. In your opinion, provided, operated and supported by a state gov't are ONLY referring to public or government owned schools, while mine is an institution provided, operated and supported by the government IN LEGAL COMPLIANCE, i.e. including private one.

For state educational laws, I think there should have some laws imposed by Federal government to balance the interests of each state. Therefore, referring to your above case of setting up school in Georgia that may hurt interest in Florida, it should have Federal government laws to resolve the problem. Otherwise, as I mentioned in earlier thread, we can only sing a song of "God bless America" for its confused legal system!

 

kc,

Let's take a look at some other statutes dealing with education in Florida.

Title 48 K-20 Education Code

Under 1000.21 Systemwide Definitions, the statutes define State Community Colleges and State Universities, by listing each institution. These are all of the colleges and universities that are run by a board of trustees appointed by the state.

Under Chapter 1004 Public Postsecondary Education, there are sections that cover State Universities and Community Colleges. But none covering private institutions.

Private institutions are covered by Chapter 1005 NonPublic Postsecondary Education. Under section 1005.02, there is an interesting definition.

"Independent postsecondary educational institution" means any postsecondary educational institution that operates in this state or makes application to operate in this state, and is not provided, operated, and supported by the State of Florida, its political subdivisions, or the Federal Government.

According to you, if an institution is licensed in the state, it is therefore provided, operated and supported by the state. In that case, the above definition makes no sense. There would be no such thing as an independent postsecondary educational institution.

However, if we look back at my side of the argument, the above definition makes perfect sense. Because I have said that a private institution (in other words, an independent postsecondary institution) is NOT provided, operated or supported by the state.

 

Thank you very much. That is what I needed! Under the law concept, the terms of a statute and its meaning will be interpreted by the court/law personnels, if it is NOT specific enough. Therefore, without above definition, the sentence of 1(b) you had described before ACTUALLY is NOT specific enough. That was WHY I had already asked you to list out any supporting evidences. It will be fine now for the above definition to form part of the sentence of 1(b).

However, it does not still solve the problem yet! Perhaps, the subsequent problems caused may be MORE SERIOUS! This statute, unless having very good and solid supporting reasons behind, will be challenged by other states in ground of discrimination and equity. It may cause a lot of appeals to federal government due to discrimination and unfairness.

Terriorism is NOT the enemy of USA BUT its own legal system in a mess is the real enemy! If one holding legal degree in a state can become unlawful in another of the same country, then, the educational and legal system of a state can be overturned by others! I think USA should change to SSA (Separated States of America).

 

I am not an Attorney, but I see the statute (817.567) as being in opposition to the Florida State Constitution, SECTION 4.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes#A01S04
Constitution of Florida.

SECTION 4. Freedom of speech and press.--Every person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory is true and was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.
History.--Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.

Yet this statute (817.567) surely states that by saying or writing, that a degree holder has a degree that is accredited by a National Accrediting Association will be deemed of performing a criminal act, as where the same degree is valid in most all other states of the Union and even recognized by the United States Department of Education as defined in section: 1005.02

817.567 Making false claims of academic degree or title.--

(1) No person in the state may claim, either orally or in writing, to possess an academic degree, as defined in s. 1005.02, or the title associated with said degree, unless the person has, in fact, been awarded said degree from an institution that is:
(a) Accredited by a regional or professional accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation;

1005.02 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, the term:
(1) "Accreditation" means accredited status awarded to an institution by an accrediting agency or association that is recognized by the United States Department of Education and that has standards comparable to the minimum standards required to operate an educational institution at that level in this state.

Is the Legislature of Florida indicating through The Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation that a Nationally Accredited degree is substandard and should be placed along side a non-accredited degree?

What does this say about the statute?

Does this agree with the Constitution of the said state?

It seems to me that this statute was written by a Legislature that was influenced by the lobbying power of the Professional Organizations and the Regional Accrediting Organizations.

Just my thoughts and opinion!

Bill

 

Bill,

I'm simplifying a lot, but in general, the freedom of speech article in the Florida constitution permits free speech as long as the facts of the speech are true or based on truth in an opinion. That is why there are "false claims" acts. To punish those who try to profit from a false claim and then claim freedom of speech. There have probably been several hundred court cases covering false claims and the freedom of speech clause.

There are several states that have laws concerning the claim of having a degree. Oregon has some of the strictest. Florida has a strict law, but it is rarely, if ever, enforced.

Ken

 

But if I claimed a Nationally Accredited degree, there would not be any "false claim." Yet it is seen as none compliant within the statute.

Bill

 

Well, that is where the small conundrum occurs between the definition of "degree" in a later chapter and the implied definition of a legal degree in section 817.

This brings up a little known fact that few people outside of the legal profession know about. In the case of a criminal proceeding and there are two conflicting laws or definitions, the least restrictive of the two is used. In all other cases, the most restrictive definition is used.

So, if you came to Florida and used your NA degree. In the extremely unlikely chance you got arrested and charged, you would probably have your case dismissed. Unless, of course, the Judge is an idiot.

 

This is the sticky point, accredited by a regional or professional accrediting agency.
For what reasons is a Nationally Accredited degree excluded from the statute?

Is the Legislature of Florida indicating through The Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation that a Nationally Accredited degree is substandard and should be placed along side a non-accredited degree?

As I said before, it seems to me that this statute was written by a Legislature that was influenced by the lobbying power of the Professional Organizations and the Regional Accrediting Organizations, not because a Nationally Accredited degree was seen as substandard.

Bill