Time bomb goes off in Houston

This is from the Houston Chronicle for Tuesday, June 26, 2001


Chief faces dismissal for education claims

Staff

DICKINSON - Police Chief Ron Morales faces possible dismissal tonight because he obtained a degree by correspondence from an unaccredited Louisiana college.

Auditors said Morales got $5,600 in additional pay based on procurement of a bachelor of science degree from now-defunct Columbia State University, a diploma mill barred in August 1998 from continuing to do business in Louisiana.

Morales was placed on administrative leave Thursday after City Manager Ivan Langford could not obtain transcripts to back up education information Morales listed in personnel records. He was enrolled in the correspondence college from November 1997 to June 1998.

Morales has asked that the issue be discussed in City Council's open session at 7 tonight.

 

According to tonight's 10PM news - the city council had a predictable outcome - they waffled - nothing was done. Situation is stil in limbo. TV interviews revealed a difference of opinion - some said he should be fired for frauding the public trust; others said he has been a good Police Chief and should be allowed to stay.

 

What a crock.

When public officials refuse to punish someone, particularly someone in law enforcement, for failure to follow the law (or, in this case, administrative policies), it sends a terrible message to the public.

Also, ten bucks says that the guy was *not* enrolled for 8 months... he probably did like every other Columbia State person and received one book from Columbia State that was marginally related to his topic, wrote a book report which some $8/hr untrained shipping clerk graded, and he got his degree.

Maybe those who feel outraged about this situation might drop an email or two to the good people on the Dickinson city council with some links to articles about Columbia State

 

Why does THIS surprise you when we allow the highest law enforcement official in the US (Bill Clinton) to get away with lying under oath to a grand jury, lying to the american people, and demonstrating serious lack of ethical behavior? The powerful have a way of protecting one another.

 

Aren't we reaching just a bit here? Maybe this guy learned it from famous Presidential liars like Nixon, Reagan, Bush the Old, and Bush the New.

Or, perhaps, this whole notion is absurd, and we ought to stick to the degree mill facts.

Rich Douglas

 

Well, if we are going to stick with presidential liars, then we HAVE to create a non-partisan list. Let's add Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and Gore (his campaign was famous for (un-necessary) un-truths.)

(Not picking a party, just wanted to balance the list.)

 

Back to Morales:

Poking around the Houston Chronicle website, I found the following in "Area Briefs" at http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/954295

I hope the use of the past tense does mean that Morales is no longer receiving the additional pay.

I'd be a little perturbed if our local police chief had such a degree and said that he had thought it was ok; I'd be wondering if he was naive or cynical. Then again, it's easy to forget how very naive people can be about higher education if they're not somehow involved in it. I've showed non-wonderful school websites to my sisters and they thought they looked ok until I began to point out that the claimed accreditation was from a bogus entity, that there were no faculty or administration listings, etc. Often, if the information is presented as coming from an educational institution, people forget that you can't believe everything you read.

------------------
Kristin Evenson Hirst
DistanceLearn.About.com

 

The Houston case serves as a reminder that the Columbia State situation has not yet come to court. When it does (based, at least, on prior diploma mill cases), the alumni files will become public record, and, oh my, heads will roll. The Columbia State revenues were in the vicinity of $70 million. At (estimate) about $2,500 per client, that would suggest nearly 30,000 time bombs ticking away.

As I understand it, the Feds are moving slowly on Columbia State because (a) the amounts involved are so large, (b) there appears to have been significant money laundering, and (c) founder Ronald Pellar seems safely in federal prison for a long time based on conviction for his prior phony school compounded by his escape and something to do with jury tampering.

 

When did they finally arrest Peller?

As to the Chief: If he thought that this school was authentic than I do in fact question his analytical skills. Detectives work for this guy?

Next question: Was the issue here accreditation or the fact that this school was an obvious sham?

 

An obvious fraud, I'd say, fake transcripts and the whole enchilada.

Like many crooks, what has put the fraud away for the longest is his attempts to avoid prosecution not his degree mill activities.

 

Has anyone ever been convicted of "attending" or obtaining a degree from a diploma mill?

Unless the Chief misrepresented the accreditation status of Columbia State, where's the cause of action? Many employers have loose or no standards regarding the accreditation status of a school.

I fear Western Governors University will make closing diploma mills even more difficult. If they can award accreditied degrees based on "competency" and offer no instruction, who's to say someone else can't?

 

Many of us don't have a problem with schools which do not provide instruction. After all, Thomas Edison State College didn't until fairly recently. The problem is more how the prior learning/competency is quantified.

For example, at TESC you can complete a portfolio which demonstrates competence. In most cases you will actually have to demonstrate that you can do what you say you do.

The alternative would be a place where competency is demonstrated either through taking someone's word or through a resume. Either is unacceptable as a measure of achievement.


Tom Nixon

 

It is not against the law to buy a useless piece of paper. Maybe a seemingly minor point but a very important difference as far as the law is concerned.

In the past it has been far more common to convict people of using phoney medical degrees. This is much more dangerous to the public welfare so I think it's understandable.

It's theoretically possible for an employer to complain to the authorities and ask that an employee using a degree mill be arrested for defrauding the company. It's also possible to take the employee to civil court to try and recover wages paid under false pretenses. What usually happens is that the employee is just fired. If the candidate hasn't yet been hired then, the resume would likely just be quietly placed in the trash.

 

Rich,

I believe your political ideology is clouding your judgement. Ex-pres Clinton was the only sitting president ever convicted by a federal judge for lying - for which he was forced to pay a sizeable fine but ws given a pass by the american public and by congress. Throughout all the blatant corruption, lapses of ethical conduct and scandels, we were being told constantly that we need to separate the man's actions (his character) from his job performance. But, if we give people like Clinton a pass on character and ethical issues (as well as law-breaking activities), then we should also give this law enforcement offical a pass as well. What's the difference? Is this man doing his job well? If he is then "who are we to question his personal behavior"? Maybe he, too, has a >60% job approval rating.

 

I realize idealogues have trouble with simple truths, but here's one: whatever a sitting President did or did not do has no bearing on what some cop did with his degree mill diploma. That's all I was pointing out. The rest of this drivel about politics is OT.

Rich Douglas

 

And again, my main point to all of this is that individuals with political power have a way of protecting each another. Maybe the city council is waiting to collect additional data, or, maybe they just want to protect him. So, they stall and hope this mess passes with time as people (and the press) loose interest. The Clinton analogy was just too good to pass up.

 

Bob, please keep it semi on-topic. If you'd like to argue politics, please take it to e-mail. Thanks!

Bruce

 

I'm not arguing politics. I'm simply pointing out that people in powerful positions are often protected by other people in powerful positions and ex-pres Clinton provides a classic example. The comment that "the city council waffled" clearly shows this occuring with respect to the law offical in question. (By the way, what ever happened to lady exposed by Levicoff who possesses the degree mill Ph.D. and was teaching at a RA school? Could this be another example of the powerful protecting one another?)

Many members on this board seem quick to expose those public officials (including educators) who possess illegal degrees and/or are conducting themselves unethically. I don't take issue with the board members doing so. But, things like "high level of job approval", "good customer satisfaction", "knowledgeable in his/her subject area", etc., all seem to be areas where some degree mill holders (and yes, politicians) get a pass - at least from some people who possess some common ideological, philosophical, financial or, power interests.

Kind regards,

Bob

 

Which has *nothing* to do with distance learning, and your discussion is therefore off-topic. Bruce has already asked you nicely, and I'm making a second request: If you wish to continue this topic discussion, please take it to private email.

Thanks.

Chip

 

I don't remember seeing whether the Chief's employer required an accredited degree or not.

But assuming for the sake of argument that accreditation wasn't explicitly required, there still might be a cause of action. If the pay incentive was part of a program to encourage employees to receive additional education, then trying to pass a degree that didn't involve any education could arguably constitute fraud. I'm not an attorney, but I think that one could probably make that kind of argument.

That argument probably wouldn't work when degrees from "less than wonderful" non-accredited schools are involved, because the defendant could still point at an instructional program and work done (such as it was). But a mill that simply sells degrees couldn't do that.