NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
October 1, 2009
Nevada Commission on Postsecondary Education
The Commission on Postsecondary Education will conduct a quarterly meeting on November 3, 2009,
commencing at 9:00am, at the Las Vegas office of the Nevada State Contractor’s Board, 2310 Corporate
Circle Drive, Suite 200, Henderson, NV 89074 and teleconferenced to the Nevada State Contractor’s office in
Reno, 9670 Gateway Drive, Suite 100, Reno, NV 89521. With the exception of posted hearings, the
Commission reserves the right to take agenda items out of order to accomplish business in the most efficient
manner.
Item
Action
Info
General Business
1. Call to Order ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
2. Open Meeting Compliance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
3. Roll Call ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
4. Adoption of Agenda -------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
5. Approval of Minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
6. Administrator’s Report -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Applicants for Provisional Licensure
7. Healthcare Preparatory Institute ---------------------------------------------------------- x
8. Limotech ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
9. Phlebotomy Learning Center of Las Vegas -------------------------------------------- x
10. Right Touch Phlebotomy Training -------------------------------------------------------- x
11. Southwest School of Gaming ------------------------------------------------------------- x
Applicants for Full Term Licensure
12. Emergent Medical Technologies (recommend extension) --------------------------------- x
13. Las Vegas Colon Hydrotherapy School (recommend full term licensure) --------------- x
14. Medical Skills for Life (recommend full term licensure) --------------------------------------- x
Appeal of Licensure Determination
15. California Security Institute Nevada/Vance Wharton --------------------------------- x
Comments
16. Public ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
17. Commission --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Adjournment
This meeting begins at time posted above and continues according to the agenda until adjournment. Persons who have business before
the Commission are responsible to see that they are in attendance at the time such business transpires. In order to be considered by the
Commission, provisional applicants and applicants for new programs in licensed schools must be represented at the meeting.
This agenda was mailed to groups and individuals as requested and posted at the following locations:
Commission on Postsecondary Education, 3663 East Sunset Road, Suite 202, Las Vegas, NV
Nevada Department of Education, 700 East Fifth Street, Carson City, NV
Nevada State Contractor’s, Reno, 9670 Gateway Drive, Suite 100, Reno, NV
Elko County Library, 720 Court St., Elko, NV
Goldfield Public Library, Corner of Crook and Fourth, Goldfield, NV
Notice: Members of the public who require special accommodations or assistance at the meeting are requested to notify the Commission
on Postsecondary in writing at 3663 East Sunset Road, Suite 202, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120, or by calling 486-7330, or via E-Mail to
bshanteler@cpe.state.nv.us. Please notify the agency no later than 10 working days prior to the meeting to allow time to secure any
necessary equipment or provisions prior to the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE COMMISSION ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
November 3, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting, held at the Nevada State Board of Contractors, Henderson, Nevada, (and via teleconferencing to
their Reno office) was called to order by Vice Chair Andriola at approximately 9:00a.m. Mr. Perlman certified
compliance with the Open Meeting Law. Vice Chair Andriola requested a roll call. Ms. Shanteler complied. A
quorum was present.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Commissioner Andriola, Vice Chair
Commissioner Chairez
Commissioner Clark
Commissioner Lynch
Vice Chairwoman Andriola welcomed the newly appointed Larry Clark to the Commission. Mr. Clark stated his
background and that he had been before the Commission many times and was looking forward to serving.
COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED*
Commissioner North
Commissioner Russell, Chair
*Note: One position remains vacant
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE
Mr. Tim Breen, Education Specialist
Mr. David Perlman, Administrator
Ms. Bonnie Shanteler, Compliance Audit Investigator
Mr. Bruce Reumann, Education Specialist
Mr. Robert Whitney, Deputy Attorney General
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
See attached sheet
AGENDA
Commissioner Andriola requested that items 12 through 14 be considered as one motion and as recommended
by staff. Motion to adopt as recommended by Commissioner Lynch; second by Commissioner Chairez.
Unanimous.
MINUTES
Vice Chair Andriola requested correction to add the name of the commissioner commending then Vice Chair
Russell.
Motion to adopt by Commissioner Lynch; second by Commissioner Chairez. Unanimous.
Commissioner Chairez asked for an update on Mr. Vance Wharton and CSI Security. Vice Chair Andriola
suggested that since it was an agenda item, the discussion could be deferred until that item was heard.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Mr. Perlman told the Commission of the legal filings by Brent Lovett who stopped training students at Live
Production Institute almost a year ago. Mr. Lovett’s filing for appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court is delaying
payment from the bond for the students who paid cash or took out loans. He said it would be mid-December
before the court could act.
Mr. Perlman told the Commission that the issues with the CSB School of Broadasting’s bond were resolved and
that the trustee would not pursue collection of loans made by the now-closed school. He said the bonding
company would pay the remaining seven students. Vice Chair Andriola asked if all students were refunded and
what the total amount was. Mr. Perlman stated that the final payment from the bonding company would satisfy
all students and that there had already been one payment of about $101,000, a second of about $73,000 and
the last would be about $45,000.
Mr. Perlman told the Commission that funds ($700) from American School of Dealing’s bond had been received
and paid to the sole student.
Mr. Perlman concluded with the up-to-date enrollment figures for the July-September 2009 quarter of 9,409
students with eight schools still not reporting.
Commission on Postsecondary Education
November 3, 2009
Page 2
PROVISIONAL LICENSURE
Healthcare Preparatory Institute
Motion:
Grant a 12-month provisional license to the Healthcare Preparatory Institute for Medical Billing
and Coding; Medical Front Office; Medical Back Office; Massage Therapist; and, Phlebotomy
programs, contingent upon receipt of a $46,000 bond, facility and staff information, completion
of a facility review and that the bond be adjusted if more than five students per program were
enrolled per year.
By:
Commissioner Chairez.
Second:
Commissioner Lynch.
Result:
Passed unanimous.
Testified:
Mr. Josh Taves; Ms. Deborah Tapert
Discussion:
Mr. Taves told the Commission he operated schools in Georgia related to computer training
and had developed the five medical-related programs to meet the market in Nevada.
Commissioner Chairez asked how students would find employment since there were already
established schools offering similar programs. Mr. Taves stated the class sizes were small (five
students) so the school could focus on quality and that Las Vegas had a need for trained
individuals. Commissioner Lynch asked if he would relocate to Nevada and Mr. Taves stated
he would not for at least the first year but after that, he would obtain a condominium and divide
his time as needed between Nevada and Georgia. Commissioner Lynch asked about his
contracted obligation with his prior company to provide support, how students would be funded
and questioned information on the budget estimate. Mr. Taves said that was for about 100
hours a month but was declining as he has provided adequate training to them. He said that
he would be providing in-house loans and would also use private lenders until he became
accredited and had access to Title IV funding. He said that the budget estimate was for three
instructors total because they could be cross-utilized in more than one program.
Commissioner Clark asked if enrollments would be capped and asked why there was a
requirement for an admissions counselor but funding was not provided for in the budget
estimate. Mr. Taves said that they would teach only one class of five and not enroll any more
students until the first class graduated. He stated that Ms. Tapert would be the local director
and serve as admissions counselor. She told the Commission she had experience teaching
preschoolers to adults and had worked in a postsecondary school as the registrar and
financial aid director. Ms. Andriola asked if the applicant would consider adjusting his bond if
enrollments increase and Mr. Taves agreed.
LimoTech
Motion:
Testified:
Discussion:
None. Applicant voluntarily withdrew application based on insufficient financial information.
Mr. Joseph McDonald; Mr. George Gardner; Mr. Lawrence Cavanagh
Mr. McDonald introduced himself and Mr. Gardner and Mr. Cavanagh. Commissioner Chairez
questioned the need for the training and asked was the starting salary was. Mr. McDonald
said that the industry had a high turnover rate because drivers were not properly trained and
that law enforcement gave out numerous citations which could be avoided if drivers were
properly trained. He stated that most drivers were paid on a commission basis but some
companies paid salary, too. He said starting salary was about $30,000. Commissioner Lynch
stated her concerns throughout the discussion that the financial statement and budget estimate
did not support the school. She questioned the lack of facility and vehicle costs as well as a
low estimate for insurance. Mr. McDonald said the school would operate out of local hotel
conference rooms and that if the school was licensed, the owners would provide more funding
for the facility and vehicles. Mr. Cavanagh stated he had family members who managed local
hotels and could get them a good rate. Commissioner Chairez echoed Commissioner Lynch’s
concerns and stated that they needed to provide the Commission with a revised budget
estimate and financial statement showing factual data. Commissioner Clark asked if the 40
hours of training for $600 improved the chances of employment and which regulations were
taught. Mr. McDonald said that most employers just do the driving part of the training and their
program included NAC 700 requirements and federal regulation requirements. Vice Chair
Andriola asked the applicants if they would consider voluntarily withdrawing the application and
resubmitting it with more detailed financial information. She and Commissioner Lynch
commented that they should work with staff and perhaps other schools.
Commission on Postsecondary Education
November 3, 2009
Page 3
Phlebotomy Learning Center of Las Vegas
Motion:
Grant a 12-month provisional license to the Phlebotomy Learning Center of Las Vegas to offer
a phlebotomy program, contingent upon receipt of a $20,000 bond, facility information and staff
information and completion of a facility review.
By:
Commissioner Lynch.
Second:
Commissioner Chairez.
Result:
Passed unanimous.
Testified:
Ms. Lauren Schlicht
Discussion:
Ms. Schlicht told the Commission she operates a phlebotomy school in Denver, Colorado, and
decided to open a school in Las Vegas. She said she had applied last year but there were
issues with obtaining a bond that have now been resolved. Commissioner Lynch asked how
waste disposal was handled, where students could complete the externship portion of the
program and how the school would fare financially if enrollment projections were not met. Ms.
Schlicht told the Commission she would contract with a disposal company; that she was
waiting for Commission approval to contract externship sites; and, that this was an investment
and the Denver school could provide any additional funding shortfall. Commissioner Chairez
commented that there were several other schools offering similar training and asked how
students would be solicited and how students would be screened. Ms. Schlicht said they have
an interview process that takes about 30 minutes which includes showing the prospective
student the work that will be taught. She said they advertise mainly at job fairs and on the
web. Commissioner Clark asked if Karen Cross would be the on-site director and what her
background was. Ms. Schlicht indicated Ms. Cross would be the local director and she had
about six years experience with an aviation school.
Right Touch Phlebotomy Training and Support
Motion:
Grant a 12-month provisional license to Right Touch Phlebotomy Training and Support to offer
a phlebotomy program, contingent upon receipt of a $30,000 bond, completion of a facility
review and hiring of administrative staff.
By:
Commissioner Lynch.
Second:
Commissioner Chairez.
Result:
Passed unanimous.
Testified:
Ms. Souraya Pinkston
Discussion:
Ms. Pinkston told the Commission of her background and experience, stating she has provided
training to corporate students, has many contacts within the industry that employs
phlebotomists and has established contact with Job Connect and the Workforce Investment
Board to train their clients. Commissioner Chairez questioned students’ job prospects and Ms.
Pinkston responded that there was a high turnover in the industry and that training would help
students get placed. Commissioner Lynch asked about the facility, disposal of waste and her
ability to teach and maintain administrative capabilities by herself. Ms. Pinkston answered that
she has an office set up as a lab and a training room that will accommodate about 30 people.
She said she has donated equipment in working order and currently disposes of waste by
taking it to a business that uses a waste disposal service. She told the Commission she feels
that she has the time to run the school – students will have her cell phone number and she will
set up interviews with prospective students. She said classes meet for four hours, twice a
week, leaving her adequate time for records and filing. She said she has volunteers who can
help if needed. Commissioner Chairez questioned the financial information, stating that there
were hardly any expenses and commented that she was concerned that students could suffer
from a one-person operation. Ms. Pinkston said her facility lease was only $400 a month and
she had no other expenses. She stated that she had a back up instructor. Commissioners
discussed the issue of a single person operation: Vice Chair Andriola commented on the fact
that it is difficult to run a school with a single person, students could suffer if something
unexpected happened, that administrative capabilities were an important part of a school’s
operation and relying on volunteers was not a good business decision. She asked if the
applicant would be amenable to posting a $30,000 bond. Commissioner Chairez stated that
the plan of operation did not indicate a one person operation and commented that if a student
had an issue with her, there was no one else to help the student resolve the issues.
Commissioner Lynch commented that it could be difficult to provide one-on-one time for any
student who needed additional help. Ms. Pinkston stated she already pays $150 a month to a
bookkeeper who will also keep books for the school. She said she would get a higher bond if it
was possible.
Commission on Postsecondary Education
November 3, 2009
Page 4
Southwest School of Gaming
Motion:
Grant a 12-month provisional license to the Southwest School of Gaming to offer a Blackjack,
Roulette, Baccarat, Carnival Games, Pai Gow Poker, Craps and Poker programs, contingent
upon receipt of a $10,000 bond which must be increased if enrollments exceed those on the
budget estimate, an amended budget estimate, facility information and completion of a facility
review.
By:
Commissioner Chairez.
Second:
Commissioner Clark.
Result:
Passed unanimous.
Testified:
Ms. Meghan Smith
Discussion:
Ms. Smith provided information to the Commission on her experience in education. She
explained her goal was to enroll college students in one-month summer programs similar to
education abroad and that she was going to offer only Carnival Games and Poker.
Commissioner Chairez inquired about the applicant’s experience and questioned having seven
games with only two instructors. Ms. Smith said the two instructors would be teaching three
games as the other four were submitted for approval to accommodate approval from the
Gaming Control Board. She said she had been a dealer since 2003 and has taught adult
courses and helped run a school in Thailand. Vice chair Andriola asked about advertising
expenses and Ms. Smith said that she was using the Internet, having metatags placed to have
her program linked. She also plans on getting articles in numerous college newspapers.
Commissioner Clark stated there are costs associated with the Internet and that her
competition could have million dollar advertising budgets. He asked if plans had been made
for housing students who came to Las Vegas for training. Ms. Smith said she wanted to just
see how it goes for the first enrollments and could adjust as needed. She stated she was
going to contact UNLV to see if dorm rooms, which become vacant during the summer, could
be rented and was going to contact local apartment complexes. There was general discussion
on the actual number of students the school would enroll. Ms. Smith said that there would be
20 enrolled for June and 20 enrolled for July, all taking two courses as one program. Vice
Chair Andriola asked if the Commission would consider raising the bond to $20,000 and stated
the Commission needed a realistic budget estimate. Ms. Smith requested the bond be kept at
$10,000. There was discussion on the information contained in the budget estimate which
showed a cost for instructors that would not be needed but also would result in less revenue
since the courses they were to teach would not be offered. Vice Chair Andriola commented
that the budget estimate would balance with removal of the expense for instructors and lost
classes.
PROVISIONAL TO FULL TERM
Emergent Medical Technologies
Motion:
Extend the provisional license through November 30, 2009.
By:
Commissioner Chairez.
Second:
Commissioner Lynch.
Result:
Unanimous.
Las Vegas Colon Hydrotherapy School
Motion:
Grant full term licensure.
By:
Commissioner Chairez.
Second:
Commissioner Lynch.
Result:
Unanimous.
Medical Skills for Life
Motion:
Grant full term licensure.
By:
Commissioner Chairez.
Second:
Commissioner Lynch.
Result:
Unanimous.
Commission on Postsecondary Education
November 3, 2009
Page 5
HEARINGS
California Security Institute Nevada/Vance Wharton
Motion:
That the California Security Institute Nevada appeal be denied and the decision of the
Commission be upheld, it is a school and needs to be licensed in the state of Nevada and
therefore all operations of that school should cease and desist at this time.
By:
Commissioner Lynch.
Second:
Commissioner Chairez.
Result:
Unanimous.
Discussion:
See attached transcripts.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMMISSION COMMENT
Commissioners commented on California Security Institute. See attached transcript.
ADJOURNMENT
Commission on Postsecondary Education
Transcripts of Meeting Held November 3, 2009
Appeal of Licensure Determination – California Security Institute
The following transcripts were transcribed from audio tape recorded during the Nevada Commission on
Postsecondary Education’s meeting conducted on November 3, 2009. This portion of the meeting was the
hearing on the administrator’s determination that the California Security Institute (CSI) and Vance Wharton
required licensure to operate in Nevada. CSI and Vance Wharton were represented by Ms. Ina Kupriyanova.
Vice Chair Andriola chaired the hearing. The following individuals were present:
Ms. Ina Kupriyanova, Executive Director, CSI, San Francisco Division
Ms. Clara Andriola, Chair
Dr. Maria Chairez, Commissioner
Mr. Nathan Clark, Commissioner
Ms. Ann Lynch, Commissioner
Mr. Robert Whitney, Deputy Attorney General
Mr. David Perlman, Administrator, Commission on Postsecondary Education
Ms. Andriola:
We now move to item 15, the appeal of licensure determination for California Security
Institute, Nevada with the party, Vance Wharton. Is Vance Wharton here?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Hello, my name is Ina Kupriyanova and Mr. Wharton is not here and I’m here on behalf of
California Institute, Nevada.
Ms. Andriola:
May I get your name again please and would you spell it for the record?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes. First name Ina, i, n as in Nancy, a as in apple. Last name, Kupriyanova, k as in kite, u
is in united, p as in Peter, r as in Robert, i, y as in yellow, a as in apple, n as in Nancy, o, v
as in Victor, a as in apple.
Ms. Andriola:
Let me make sure I have that right: Ku, v as in Victor, r-i-y-a-n-o-v-a?
Ms. Kupriyanova: K-u-p as in Peter, r as in Robert . . .
Ms. Andriola:
Oh, okay, thank you.
Ms. Kupriyanova: And you got the rest.
Ms. Andriola:
Thank you. And may I ask what your position is in reference to California Security Institute?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes, I am the executive director for the San Francisco division.
Ms. Andriola:
May I ask why Vance Wharton did not attend?
Ms. Kupriyanova: I was appointed by the board of directors to attend this meeting so I personally don’t know
why he’s not here.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Is Vance Wharton still associated with California Security Institute?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Let’s see. I think yes. I think yes, so he is. So we don’t have anything saying he’s not
working for us anymore. So he’s still with us.
Ms. Andriola:
So he is still employed by California Security Institute of Nevada?
Ms. Kupriyanova: It’s still pending because basically, ah, he was contracted by us to work as a program
director for California Security Institute in Nevada and now I understand that our status here
is pending. So, his employment is pending as well.
Ms. Andriola:
So his employment is pending based on the outcome of what happens here?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes.
Ms. Andriola:
So he is not employed technically by California Security Institute, then?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Technically not.
Ms. Andriola:
That’s what I am hearing, technically?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay, so now that we’ve established that relationship, what I’d like to ask if I may, is to have
Mr. Perlman, you know, share with us, why we are here, please.
Mr. Perlman:
Thank you madam chair. First off, I’m kind of confused. Everything I have shows Mr.
Wharton as the owner of CSI. So I’m not sure where, this other institution comes from. And
why wouldn’t Mr. Wharton be here representing himself as, as the company, when he’s the
only one I’ve ever dealt with. I’ve never had any dealings with any other executive board or
corporation or anything of that nature. And all the documentation, excuse me, all the
documentation just shows him on there.
Ms. Kupriyanova: I think it was, I actually don’t know personally what was going on between you and Mr.
Wharton and what kind of recommendation he presented you. But as it was suggested in
your letter, I’ve made everything available. The corporate charter is about our corporation so
I’ve made nine copies for each commissioner as you.
Mr. Perlman:
Okay. All right, but to make this a little shorter then, if the AG would stop me at any point.
Basically, there was a document filled out by Mr. Wharton – it’s our licensure eval form, and
it shows, ah, it takes the points of the law that say if you do these things then you are
considered a postsecondary educational institution. And if you’re so identified, then, I think
it’s NRS 394.415 says, you must be licensed by the Commission to operate. Mr. Wharton
knew of all this, actually I want to say since December of ’08, um, and he has never asked to
appeal that determination. So if we could just turn this into why you don’t think you have to
be licensed, and start from there, I believe the Commission is absolutely totally aware to
what Mr. Wharton was doing (tape changes sides).
Considered a postsecondary
educational institution based on the provisions of NRS 394, 099 and 098, and the definitions
that you would find in there that are referred to in those two statutes. So if the Chair would
like then, to keep this short, unless the Commission doesn’t understand why this is a school
or why I, my determination was that it is a postsecondary educational institution. I mean I
can go into detail, but I’m sure everyone here is aware of that. And then, the, um, CSI, um,
I’m not going to try to pronounce your last name, um, but the representative from CSI can
present to the Commission why it’s not a private postsecondary educational institution. And
then we can go from there.
Ms. Andriola:
I would appreciate that. I believe everyone has received the information and we certainly
discussed this at length, so I would hope that the Commission body would, ah, allow us, to,
to have, Ms. Inya,?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Ina.
Ms. Andriola:
Speak, I apologize. I don’t think I can pronounce your name correctly and I do apologize.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Sure.
Ms. Andriola:
So if you would be so kind as to answer that question, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Perlman:
But, I would get her permission, is that okay to just to, are you, are you familiar with my
determination that you are a school?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes, I read all your letters and also we prepared the memorandum of the (unintelligible)
which I was advised by the corporate attorney to read for the record, so I can do that, so . . .
Would you like to ?
Mr. Perlman:
That’s up to the chair of the Commission, I was just making sure that you knew.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Oh yes.
Mr. Perlman:
That ah, basically this is an appeal of my determination that you’re required to be licensed.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes. So should I go ahead?
Ms. Andriola:
Thank you. Actually, before you read it, I’m just really curious.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Sure.
Ms. Andriola:
Just say yes or no. Are you, is your position based on what you’re going to read the
recommendation by your council into the record, are we proceeding with this appeal then?
Are you going to be sharing with us information why you should not be or do not fall within
the statute that’s outlined as being required to be licensed? Is that how you will be
proceeding?
Ms. Kupriyanova: I think it has both the appeal and to explain the explanation why we don’t need the licensed.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay, so that’s, that is how we’re proceeding, then, that’s your, your position that you’ll be
sharing the detail at this point will be that you are not, you do not agree with the
administrator’s position that CSI, California Security Institute, ah, is required to be licensed in
Nevada? Is that correct?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Please don’t get me wrong. We do not have to get a license, but as of today our program is,
we have to modify our program in order to meet the requirements to get a license as a
postsecondary educational institute.
Ms. Andriola:
Well let me ask it, let me ask the question a different way again.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Sure.
Ms. Andriola:
I’m not trying to prevent you from proceeding, and I will defer to the representative from the
Attorney General’s Office here today, he can interrupt me at any time. But if you’re talking
about considering having, submitting an application for licensure and, and agree that you’re
not to operate as an educational institution until such time as the application is submitted and
approved by this body, then that certainly is something I’m trying to understand. Are, are
you, are you going to be submitting an application to, to this body for, for consideration?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Oh, I’m sorry for misunderstanding. Ah, today we are not submitting our application today,
we are going to appeal that we need to get the license. Today, we are going to appeal that,
confusion made by Mr. Perlman, I’m sorry if I mispronounced the last name.
Ms. Andriola:
Ok. Well why don’t you go ahead and read what’s in the document you’re presenting to us?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Ok, thank you.
Dr. Chairez:
Did?
Ms. Andriola:
I’m sorry
Dr. Chairez:
Did you by chance bring copies of that?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Oh sure.
Ms. Kupriyanova: It might be, I’m thinking orally, it might be good to have visually as well.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Of course.
Dr. Chairez:
I’m sorry for interrupting you, but.
Ms. Andriola:
And it’s, it’s obviously, we don’t have, you can fax that document here. How long is it?
Ms. Kupriyanova: It’s one, two, three, it’s six pages.
Ms. Andriola:
If someone wouldn’t mind faxing it to us, here, we certainly can accommodate that and then
what’ll we’ll do to not hold up anything. We’ll go ahead and proceed with you reading it in
and when we get the fax we have that document with us as well. Just so we can conserve
time.
Mr. Perlman:
Do you have just your statement? Is it this right here?
Ms. Andriola:
Is that okay?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Oh yes, the statement is the first six pages.
Ms. Andriola:
Is?
Mr. Perlman:
The first six pages?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes.
Ms. Andriola:
I would defer to the attorney general in terms of if there’s a sentiment to not reading into the
record and just submitting into the record, I’d certainly would welcome that. I wasn’t sure
how many pages when you were talking about reading something you were talking about.
So I’ll defer to legal advice on that.
Mr. Whitney:
You know, either way would really be fine. Submission into the record would be ok, all right,
but either way, rather than having it read, but the Commission should really consider what
she has presented here, at least look at it and discuss it.
Ms. Andriola:
I appreciate that. Would you be able to articulate the position and then put in, submit the
document into the record to state the position of this appeal?
Ms. Kupriyanova: The position of this appeal that I said today that, we are not opposing that decision that we
would need to get a license to from the state of Nevada in order to operate.
Ms. Andriola:
On what basis?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes, this is why I’m saying that I probably need to read it or read a portion, because it’s self
explanatory.
Ms. Andriola:
If you would, if you would want to go ahead and just read the pertinent portion, that would be
very helpful.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Sure. Just one second. Yes, it’s page three. The California Security Institute ah, has never
set itself out as a school, college or university of any kind and in July of 2006, California
Security Institute had applied for a secondary education certification from the state of
California and was advised at that time that we did not qualify because it was only 20 hour
course and the curriculum is not technical nature but deals with the subject of common
knowledge. Like if you check our security, CSI Nevada’s security bible, if you’ll check your
materials and, I believe that Mr. Wharton earlier, has left a copy of that bible to Mr. Perlman.
For example the part of arrest is not more than citizen’s arrest. And so basically, what we
are teaching is the common knowledge for the common citizen. And the course does not
lead any employment, so it would be considered more as a seminar.
Ms. Andriola:
Any, any other pertinent basis than what we were cited from document referencing page
three? Anything else?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes. And its not privately owned, it’s a corporation, it’s non-profit corporation.
Ms. Andriola:
Could you repeat that, I’m sorry.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes, California Security Institute is not privately owned, it’s a corporation, it’s non-profit
corporation.
Ms. Andriola:
Anything else?
Ms. Kupriyanova: That’s it.
Ms. Andriola:
So the two points that you’re sharing with the Commission is that, based on CSI submitting
an application to California to rule that it didn’t qualify because it is not technical and fell
more into common knowledge, is, is one basis that you made. And then the second point I
understood and we heard from you is that CSI is a non-profit institution and based your
interpretation its not, qualified as a requirement to be licensed because it’s not privately
owned. Did I sum up those two points?
Ms. Kupriyanova: I’d also would like to add that based on NRS 394.099, section four it says that postsecondary
educational institution educates or trains or claims or offers to educate or trains students in a
program leading to work, employment at a beginning or advanced level. So we are not
leading toward employment. And also, subsection b says educational credentials – we don’t
or, there is no educational credentials. And, also, section c says credits that are intended to
be applied toward an educational credential awarded in another state which awarded in
another state which does not require the person to obtain a majority of the credits required in
that state and also, d, preparation for examinations for initial licensing in a profession or
vocation. So, we don’t offer that as well. So our program does not any initial license or
preparation for examination.
Ms. Andriola:
Is there any, any thing else that you’d like to share?
Ms. Kupriyanova: That’s it for now.
Mr. Perlman:
Madam Chair?
Ms. Andriola:
Yes.
Mr. Perlman:
Okay, first off, it might be common knowledge but generally speaking, if someone provides
training like you have to take a shower and not smell bad, comb your hair and brush your
teeth and shine your shoes before you do a job interview, we usually exempt training like
that. This program has never ever been presented as the way it was just described. I mean
if you look in your board materials, attachment N, page 7 of 25, security training curriculum
will offer a full training course. If you look on their web pages, it’s designed as a training
course. If you look in the want ads, over and over again, in protective services, free job
placement assistance. If this isn’t training for a job, then what is it? And the comment that
they are a non-profit corporation has no bearing on whether or not license is required. It has
no bearing on the definition of a private postsecondary educational institution. The
organization of the company or the individual, the entity if you will, has no bearing on
whether or not it meets the definition of private postsecondary education. And, gosh, what
else was I going to say? Oh, in the law, you have to meet four points. And the four parts of
the law, the one she that was saying they don’t issue an educational credential which is not
true because if you read the attending, the other definitions, an educational credential could
be basically an X on a document, an enrollment agreement. It could be a receipt for
education. But, but, regardless, if you look at NRS 394.099, you have to meet the first three
points of the law which basically is you charge tuition, you’re not licensed in the state by
another state agency or a federal, agency. I can’t remember the other, oh, you don’t train
your own employees. So, basically, if you had a company and you trained your own people,
you would be exempt from us, and that’s not the case. And in the other part, you just have
to meet one of those. There’s an ‘or’ in there, it’s not an ‘and.’ So, if it’s for training for the
beginning or advanced level, which this is, and I direct your attention to the ads that CSI did
run, then they’ve met all of number four. That’s all they have to do, so the, unfortunately, the
other parts do not pertain.
Ms. Andriola:
May, may I just ask a simple question? Are you currently operating in Nevada at this time?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Currently our office in Nevada is not actually, we do have a new address, so it’s not signing
up any students and we are currently not operating and what I would like to ask that I would
like to ask just not to shut down our location because we made our obligations to the former
students and as a courtesy we are hoping then to (unintelligible) and that to consider to
serve the people that were trained.
Ms. Andriola:
How many students have you already trained that you are serving now?
Ms. Kupriyanova: I don’t have that in front of me. I don’t have that knowledge to be honest with you.
Ms. Andriola:
Ok. And so if Mr. Wharton isn’t technically employed by you, all of the correspondence
represents that he was representing, CSI, so he is not technically employed by CSI?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Excuse me, he’s the program director. For the CSI Nevada.
Ms. Andriola:
He is then technically employed by CSI.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes. If you will not shut down our office in Nevada, we would like you to continue work with
the program director, so we would like him to continue to work here.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay.
Ms. Kupriyanova: So if, it’s, it depends on your decision, so, as you decide.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay. So. Okay, but I thought earlier, again I’m not trying to be be-laboring this point, but I
asked earlier on if Mr. Wharton was employed and you’re saying technically no and now
you’re saying yes.
Ms. Kupriyanova: No, no, I’m sorry, I guess, I’m sorry for interruption, I said I believe it was a
misunderstanding, so I felt ah, that you’re asking, is he currently working for the company,
but currently nobody’s in the office.
Ms. Andriola:
OK. Nobody’s working at CSI, no one’s doing any training at CSI right now?
Ms. Kupriyanova: No.
Ms. Andriola:
That’s what I’m to trying to establish.
Ms. Kupriyanova: No, no. Nobody’s doing any training..
Ms. Andriola:
So, so there’s no recruitment for students at this point, there’s no training that’s occurring,
there’s no advertising of any nature for CSI at this time, is the question?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Oh yes, we stopped the training and enrollment and everything in May 2009.
Ms. Andriola:
In May of 2009?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes, correct.
Ms. Andriola:
And, so, your basis for this appeal has been, you shared it and you certainly heard from Mr.
Perlman and I’m just going to ask a question, are you planning on submitting an application?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Oh yes. We are planning on submitting an application. Unfortunately our corporation
doesn’t have enough funds as of today. Because we required a CPA to do the to do the
audit report, and as it was requested from Mr. Perlman. And because we did it on an
emergency basis so we spent a lot of money on that. So as of today we don’t have that
fifteen hundred dollars. But as soon the funds will become available and in order to fulfill the
requirements we need to modify our program. And yes, we plan to submit an application for
license.
Ms. Lynch:
Madam Chair? I just, I, I’ve been reading through the material that was brought to us today
and the very end, on page six, the last paragraph, regardless of scenario that the board
chooses, California Security Institute, Inc., comes to you today fully prepared to submit the
application for postsecondary education at such time as the fifteen hundred dollar fee
becomes available. Thank you for your consideration. So it seems to me that that’s what
they would like for us to do, is to allow them time to submit their application when they’re
prepared financially.
Ms. Andriola:
Thank you. I appreciate that. We just got the fax and I haven’t had an opportunity to read it
but I do appreciate you pointing that out and I appreciate it’s not only in writing but verbally
submitted. So, I guess the question at hand is, if you’re technically appealing the
administrator’s decision, the basis that I just heard from Mr. Perlman is that the interpretation
of the statute in Nevada, actually still sees you as needing to be licensed. Is that a correct
summation, David?
Mr. Perlman:
I believe it is and I’ll tell you I’ve really got some difficulties, I’ve have a 2006 tax return, filed
by CSI, and it lists Vance Wharton as the executive director. And it also says ‘training and
education of professional security guard personnel.’ So I just don’t understand where this
applicant, something doesn’t jive here. And unfortunately I don’t know what to say about it.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Excuse me, you’re saying 2006?
Mr. Perlman:
Correct.
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yah, but 2006 is.
Mr. Perlman:
Well, that’s was the last document I have and there’s hardly any information. This company
has refused to do anything that’s required by any government body. I was present when Mr.
Wharton sat down with the Clark County Business license and they told him, yes, you have
to come down to get this done and he’s refused to do that. And I’ve been in discussions with
the same gentleman from County Business Licensing. So I’m just having a real hard time
putting this together. And I’d like to share also that this all started when the Department of
Veterans Affairs submitted a denial of benefits letter, which is an SOP – standard operating
procedure when there’s an unapproved program being, a claim submitted for. Someone
goes to school and they’re have VA educational benefits and that program’s not approved,
the VA says we can’t pay and here’s why, we get a copy of it. And here’s CSI on there, and
that’s where all this started. So obviously this is some kind a training program. So unless
they’re willing to stipulate they’re pulling out of Nevada and not going to do anything until
they get licensed from this Commission, issued a license, then you know I think that the
recommendation that I have, findings of fact, conclusions of law should be applied.
Ms. Andriola:
Well, and actually, with all due respect, that’s, that’s exactly what I was going to point out,
and it’s not that I’m trying to prevent any discussion from the Commission, but we have been
dealing with this – this not the first time that we have been dealing with this. And, I think that
it is important to give you the proper due process in terms of sharing your basis of appeal
and that’s why I was asking the administrator for clarification based on the information that
you shared, is there any indication that you would, not be required to be licensed. And in
fact, it appears that you are required to be licensed. So, having said that, is there anything
else that you would to add in terms of you appeal? In terms of any additional information
you’d like to share?
Ms. Kupriyanova: I don’t think I would like to add anything, we just would like to ask you not to shut down the
location, we are not train or offering classes there. And if we can just have that office to, as I
said earlier, to accommodate those people we already trained.
Ms. Andriola:
Tell me when you say accommodate what, what you mean?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Excuse me?
Ms. Andriola:
Ms. Kupriyanova:
Ms. Andriola:
Ms. Kupriyanova:
Ms. Andriola:
Ms. Kupriyanova:
Mr. Perlman:
Ms. Kupriyanova:
Mr. Perlman:
Ms. Andriola;
Mr. Whitney:
Ms. Kupriyanova:
Mr. Whitney:
Ms. Andriola:
Dr. Chairez:
Ms. Andriola:
De, Chairez:
Ms. Andriola:
Dr. Chairez:
When you, when you say you’re asking for permission to not shut down the operation in
order to
accommodate the people that you’ve already trained, can you define
accommodate?
Oh, we are trying to get them employed, as a courtesy we’re helping them to get a job. To
develop their, résumés and how to go to the interview. And sometimes people have
questions and we would like to come and talk.
Are they paying you any money?
For that, no.
Have you collected money from these students?
Of course, because, ah they were trained by, we were, they were trained by our corporation
before, and I do feel that we have an obligation for them to continue to communicate, with
us. They were at classes (unintelligible) they have questions and if they want our because
they paid for their training.
Madam Chair, I think this is outrageous. If this is six months after the fact.
And, and.
And they haven’t, they’re still helping them to try and find jobs. This is exactly why the May
meeting, which was cancelled and you know, forwarded to June and all this brought out and
we had a student here who said they weren’t helping her get a job. So, they, that was a
month after the school says they’ve quit training.
Well, and again, we want to open up all of the discussion with the other Commission
members, I am certainly not trying to restrain that. But, you know, with all due respect, I
would like to defer to the attorney general because I personally think and I’m going to ask a
question. We have given an opportunity for the appeal, and the person here representing
CSI to give us the basis from their perspective for why they are here to appeal and it has
been determined and that’s why I’ve asked I think at least two times, and now almost three
for clarification that it is based on the statute that the requirement to be licensed is in fact still
upheld even though the information that was presented has provided anything different. And
so my question is, is there anything that we should take into consideration before moving to
a possible action at this time?
Commissioners, actually you know we actually have everything here, for the Commission to
consider. Ah, there’s Mr. Perlman’s documents, Mr. Perlman’s testimony, and the
information that was submitted today by, I’m sorry, Ms.
Ina.
Ms. Ina. That’s the information that the Commission needs to consider and base its decision
on that.
Is there, you know I guess this leads, either to be to the attorney general or to David, or the
attorney’s there representative of the Attorney General’s office. Is there provision in terms of
the purview of this body to stop immediately any action with a student who has been, if
indeed deemed illegally trained in the state of Nevada to stop those actions. Because if
indeed it is discussion or placement that the concern of the placement piece bleeds into, it
appears, you know, supporting training that it appears can be deemed illegally ah, ah,
performed. And so my question is can this body request in a motion a determination not only
if the body feels its appropriate to uphold the administrator’s decision, to immediately request
that CSI, you know, cease and desist any activity that could be, again, bleeding into having
trained folks illegally. Because that’s the gray area I have and I’m just asking for clarification,
and I hope I’m being clear with my clear with my question.
I guess I’m a little confused. Are we not just voting to accept or reject the appeal?
Yes.
Okay.
But I’m just asking myself, if we’re either upholding are rejecting the appeal. What I’m asking
just to find out if they’re continuing to be involved the students, will that encompass that,
them stopping that activity. I mean you can’t prevent people talking to each other, I’m not
suggesting that. But when you’re talking about, when you’re talking about the cease and
desist, if we uphold the decision based on the administrator, will that include them truly
immediately in terms of cease and desist as well as the students, because if they’re placing
students that they trained, that were trained illegally, then they’re performing a function that
is normally within the scope of licensure. That’s my only gray area. I’m just asking.
Yes, Commissioner Andriola, it’s my understanding that the school has already been
directed to cease and desist from operating and there’s been numerous certified letters that
were sent. My understanding is this appeal is just an appeal, if we reject it, it doesn’t affect
the previous direction from Mr. Perlman to cease and desist from operating. If they do
continue to operate without license, they can face criminal charges. Correct?
David, I’m just asking for clarification on talking to and placing students. That’s what I’m
asking for, because if the cease and desist again is clear, because I’m just asking and so
David, I don’t know if I make myself clear. If they’re talking and continuing to place students,
is that encompassed by the cease and desist, to stop that activity?
Mr. Perlman:
I don’t think so.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay. So any other questions? I’m sorry to take so up so much time on that thought.
Mr. Perlman:
I would like to add one thing. I perused through the documents that was provided to us. And
that 99 percent of it you already have. There are the articles of incorporation, for those of
you up north, of the company, there’s a tax return in there, but most of it is my letters and for
some reason it’s stuff I’ve sent to them. It’s also in your board material, so I didn’t want the
northern tier commissioners to think they didn’t have, access to what was provided to us
down here. Except for the part we faxed up.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay. Is there again any additional information that you’d like to share with the
Commission?
Ms. Kupriyanova: I don’t think so, I believe I shared all the information and you, as soon as you receive the
memorandum you’ll have an opportunity to read it and I just would like to add that we
received the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the hearing dated June 18th and I was
advised by a corporate lawyer to request an official transcript of that hearing because we
were not present at the hearing. That’s it.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay, so.
Ms. Lynch:
Madam Chair?
Ms. Andriola:
Sure.
Ms. Lynch:
I absolutely trust Mr. Perlman and his opinion, but I wanted to know if he said that he didn’t
think this cease and desist included the placement, continuing the placement. And I would
just like to ask our attorney if that is true, to make that occur?
Mr. Whitney:
Frankly if it’s just continuing placement, it the definition of training these students isn’t met,
then we really wouldn’t have any jurisdiction over that. Because actually just, if you’re talking
about just placement. Mr. Perlman, do you have anything to add to that.
Mr. Perlman:
Yes, hold on one second, I just want to check something. Just about everything we have in
the law deals with education. Contracting, education, educating, saying you’re going to
educate, so 560 makes it a violation to do those things. And I understand that job placement
is part of it. But I tell you what concerns me is that there was a point in time when Mr.
Wharton tried to hide behind the laws and hire this third party that was exempt and said well
I’m not doing the training. This guy has more tricks up his sleeve than Houdini and I just
don’t feel real comfortable with any of it. But I just don’t know the answer unless, I not,
saying that the AG ought not prosecute this, but I’m going to say the AG ought to prosecute
this.
Dr. Chairez:
And I would like to second that. I mentioned that at our last meeting I’d like to see criminal
charges brought because Mr. Wharton was asked to cease and desist and he continued to
operate and take money from students under false pretense, did not provide the training that
he promised, and the student came before us and complained. I was very concerned about
that, because he’s operating with a license in the state of Nevada and I as a commissioner,
that’s why I come to these meeting, is to protect the citizens of Nevada. And this student
was violated. So I’m very concerned about that and, I appreciate you coming, Ina, from San
Francisco, and trying to represent your non-profit board, but I wish you would have been
here when we had these findings of fact, and heard from the student directly, how promises
were made, money was taken and there was no services provided. I would not recommend
that Mr. Wharton be involved whatsoever with the students. I don’t trust his interactions with
the students. And at this point, unless you can give us a hundred percent guarantee that he
will not be contacting students I would feel very uncomfortable having his involvement with
these students.
Ms. Kupriyanova: So it’s against, it’s all against Mr. Wharton. For example if you have another person to
communicate with students, not Mr. Wharton, because I understand that you’re concerned
about his personal abil, his skills or whatever.
Mr. Whitney:
Well, I think the thing is that regardless of who, California Security Institute, if it does offer
training programs regardless of who it is needs to be licensed.
Mr. Perlman:
That’s absolutely correct and.
Ms. Andriola:
Thanks for that clarification. That, I think is the biggest point is, based on the decision of this
body, and again, Commissioner Chairez made it really clear and succinct, we’re really here
to either uphold the decision or not. So it’s now we’re upholding but the point is, is that all
we’re trying to share with you is that has been a lot of activity. There has been a lot of
activity. I do have one quick question. What’s the relationship with Patrick Wharton who’s
on the board of directors and Vance Wharton?
Ms. Andriola:
Ms. Kupriyanova: I never asked Mr. Patrick Wharton about his relationship. I’ve noticed that the last name is
the same, but I personally never had a conversation about that. So I just, I wasn’t interested.
Mr. Perlman:
Madam Chair?
Ms. Andriola:
Yes.
Mr. Perlman:
I’d like to state for the record that I don’t believe that Mr. Whar, I don’t believe that nobody,
no other person is at the top of this food chain that Mr. Wharton. I think he’s the owner, he’s
the operator, he’s the money behind it, he’s the brains behind it, he’s the principal, there is
no other individual that is over Mr. Wharton as far as CSI Security California, CSI Security
Nevada, the non-profit corporation, however it’s been organized, wherever its been
organized. Mr. Wharton is the sole individual that is behind all of this and I just like to state
that for the record. I haven’t seen anything presented today that would lead to conclude
differently.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay. So having said that and certainly we are concerned and have been since various
information has been presented to us now in over the course of some time. But today is
exactly as was discussed in terms of upholding the decision or the appeal. So, I would like
to if I could to entertain a motion. There’s no, is it just mine, does it show any action?
There’s no indication there’s action on my agenda. I would imagine that there is action.
Mr. Perlman:
That’s because it’s a hearing.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay, thank you. So the procedure at this point would be to entertain a motion, is that
correct? To either uphold the administrator’s decision in finding that CSI.
Ms. Lynch:
Yeah, I would like.
Ms. Andriola:
Is required to be licensed as a school in Nevada and it would be to uphold the decision of the
administrator with all the cease and desist notification and the legality that falls to proceeding
as a school.
Ms. Lynch:
I would be willing to make that motion if I could add one more piece to it.
Ms. Andriola:
Sure.
Ms. Lynch:
That I would like to ask that the attorney general’s office do take a look at the actions of the
legality of civil action by the students that have already been harmed by this illegal operation.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay we have a motion, do we have a second?
Mr. Whitney:
Honestly, Ms. Chairman that’s, well that may be going a little too far. I mean, we’re actually
here for the appeal of the licensing determination, that’s almost, that last part almost outside
the scope.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay. Well, Commissioner Lynch?
Ms. Lynch:
Well, I’ll unscope it. We’ll talk about the unscope later.
Ms. Andriola:
Would you be willing, Commissioner Lynch, to amend your motion?
Ms. Lynch:
I amended and unscoped it.
Ms. Andriola:
You’re unscoping it?
Ms. Lynch:
Yes, right.
Ms. Andriola:
Okay.
Ms. Lynch:
It’s unscoped.
Ms. Andriola:
So is everyone clear on the motion? I think we better be clear on the motion. Do I restate
your motion?
Ms. Lynch:
Well, I didn’t state the motion in the first place and I would hate to paraphrase your
statement. But I’ll give it a shot here. I move that the California Security Institute Nevada
appeal be denied and the decision of the Commission be upheld. Mr. Perlman’s decision
that this not a legal, it is a school and needs to be licensed in the state of Nevada. Therefore
all operations of that school should cease and desist at this time.
Dr. Chairez:
Second.
Ms. Andriola:
And, okay we have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Mr. Clark:
Aye.
Ms. Andriola:
Aye
Ms. Lynch:
Aye.
Ms. Andriola:
Any denied? Okay. The vote, motion is upheld, we’re upholding the decision based on facts
and findings of the administrator and supporting the statute that the California Security
Institute Nevada slash Vance Wharton must be licensed in the state of Nevada to operate
and train individuals. Are you clear on that?
Ms. Kupriyanova: Yes.
Ms. Andriola:
Everybody clear on that? Thank you.
Commission on Postsecondary Education
Transcripts of Meeting Held November 3, 2009
Commissioner Comments
The following transcripts were transcribed from audio tape recorded during the Nevada Commission on
Postsecondary Education’s meeting conducted on November 3, 2009. This portion of the meeting was the
Commissioner Comment section.
Ms. Andriola:
Dr, Chairez:
Mr. Whitney:
Dr. Chairez:
Mr. Whitney:
Dr. Chairez:
Mr. Whitney:
Dr. Chairez:
Ms. Lynch:
Ms. Andriola:
All right, um, seeing no public comment, we’ll move to the Commission. Any comments from
the Commission?
Commissioner Andriola, I did have, I want to go back to my comment that I made earlier and
that is I’d like to have a status update from our attorney on follow-up. Previously which I
made a request that we pursue criminal action for the school operating without a license,
taking students’ money and not providing services. What is the status of that?
One thing we need to actually be sure of before we really proceed on to criminal matters was
that we actually, and this part of it, what we did to day, be sure that all our requirements were
satisfied as far as notice, opportunity for hearing, to actually proceed on. It looks like that
seems (unintelligible) but I know we actually had previously some problems with 241 as far as
giving proper notice. Once we have this information, you know it is possible to proceed
forward. You know again, really all your charges are civil matters. They could actually be
referred to criminal for that, but I, as part of the civil division, don’t have any control over
whether or not they would proceed forward with it.
What is your advice as commissioners in how we might get the district attorney to follow up
on this, or the attorney general?
It should actually, well, what I could do, as what I should actually do now is, there’s basically a
chain of command of people, ask them what they think about it. Ask them for permission to
refer to the AG’s or the district attorney’s office.
I’d like to make a recommendation as a Commissioner appointed by the Governor, that the
district attorney or the Attorney General’s office be requested to follow up on this matter and
report back to the Commission, so that we can bring closure to this case.
I, may I suggest one thing? Maybe have it as an agenda item for the next meeting rather than
Well, I mean it’s a recommendation because I brought it up at our previous meeting and I
asked that we pursue criminal action follow up because he was operating under, without a
license, he took money from students, he cashed the check. To me that’s a violation of a law.
He should never have cashed that check. He did not deliver education services to the
student. The student formally complained to us. And, we, I, I’m appointed by the Governor, I
want follow up from our legal avenues. This is now the second meeting that I’ve raised this
issue.
Madam Chair, I firmly agree on this, without just the on time lines but we’re a toothless tiger if
we don’t do anything, and so other schools continue to do this and ignore the law of Nevada.
And that’s the only reason we are here is to protect people and here’s a flagrant (tape
change).
You’d be hard pressed to have any one disagree with the sentiment that this certainly is a
grave concern. So it sounds like procedurally we had to do what we had to do today and
we’ve done that. You know, if the appropriate action, next step, is to put it on the agenda I
would hope that the then it be done in the public, you know, the community comment section,
that there may be an opportunity for the AG’s office to follow up on the request and maybe
while that action is taking place in terms of what can and can’t be done, when we put it on the
agenda, then it will be able to acted upon without any delay. My other question, or kind of a
comment is, that notification of students to know of the action that was taken today may be
something that as a courtesy, could be shared with them so that if they felt that they wanted to
personally pursue some type of legal course of action, they would have at least have been
notified of the decision of this body was that the school is required to be licensed and that you
know, had no approval in this state ever. And again, I may be walking and treading into a
legal, some legal uncertainty here, but I think that there is an obligation to disclose to the folks
that have come before us and anyone else that we know of, to at least publicly let them know
of the action that was taken today. And that they may be willing or wanting to explore their
personal options. So that was just another
Dr. Chairez:
Mr. Whitney:
Dr. Chairez:
Mr. Whitney:
Ms. Andriola:
Mr. Perlman:
Mr. Whitney:
Ms. Andriola:
Dr. Chairez:
Ms. Andriola:
Mr. Perlman:
Ms. Andriola:
Mr. Perlman:
I’d like to refer to August 5th minutes where specifically I asked our attorney to, let’s see:
‘Commissioners agreed that legal action was needed and wanted follow-up to be presented at
the next meeting. Mr. Whitney told the Commission that the Attorney General could file an
injunction to prohibit further operation and work with the local district attorney to file civil
charges.’ This is my comments from that meeting. I am requesting a written update on the
status of this request because I feel we’re not getting an answer. What will it take? Will it
take Mr. Perlman to write a letter to the district attorney requesting that criminal charges or
civil charges be filed against the applicant for operating unlicensed in the state of Nevada?
Or, does it require the Commission to write the letter to our Attorney General, Katherine
Cortez, requesting that criminal action be filed? I feel like I’m like I’m not getting an answer.
Well, Commissioners, I’ll try and do my best to try and provide you with an answer on that.
Well also, in respect to you, I don’t want it agendized. This was already discussed, I made a
formal request and I really don’t want to wait until February to this to be agendized and voted
on.
Honestly, that might be the best way to go to actually comply with the open meeting law. I
mean otherwise, there’s some issues regarding that.
Because of the process in terms of, let me make sure I understand. We had to go through,
and rightly so, the process, and because of the delay, certainly something that was beyond
anyone’s control, in having CSI come, but they had a right to appeal. That was done and now
we’ve upheld the administrator’s position, and if the next process is that we put it on the
agenda, then it’s hard to dispute a process and certainly it’s never as swift as one would like,
especially when the egregiousiness that appears to be here. That clearly appears, this has
been an egregious violation, including plenty of documentation and refusing the certificate,
certified letters. But anyway, if the recommendation procedurally, and we don’t want to have
any exposure, is to put it on the agenda, then I believe that’s what we should do. However, I
will share that I think we that it’s important we start at least exploring it so, and if there is
opportunity to take action that we fully execute it. If it has to be agendized, then certainly it’s
frustrating but the fact is we have to do, that’s what we have to do. Whatever it takes, we
cannot let this go.
Madam Chair. I know I’m not a commissioner, but the problem that I see is that the action
has already occurred. Mr. Wharton operated illegally, knowingly so, flagrantly, threw it our
faces. He’s not here in our state, to the best of my knowledge – letters to the local office go
unanswered, returned. So I don’t think they have a presence here. I think it’s Mr. Wharton.
He doesn’t even have fifteen hundred dollars for the application fee. I don’t know how he can
lease the facility. Anyway, his illegal action has occurred. Now I think that the deputy AG, I
mean the, I don’t think the Attorney General has the authority to bring the case, to prosecute
someone. I think that, that is the local district attorney. But, for sure, the state Attorney
General’s office can make that happen, through their weight. That’s what has not happened.
If there is any violation in the future of CSI operating, then obviously I think the AG’s would
jump on it. But I’ll just be honest with you, in my discussions with Mr. Whitney and Mr. Irvin, I
just don’t see where past action is going to warrant them trying to take this to court. And
that’s just my two cents worth.
One other thing, too, if I could add, remember, this is a decision by the Commission today,
there’s still 233b appeal rights for this decision, to my knowledge.
Okay thank you. Commissioner Chairez, I know that you have everything documented, I
know that you were very clear and have been consistent. Is there anything else that you want
to share? Or, hopefully we can get this procedurally worked out and we can explore our
options, but.
I would like to request this be formally agonized for the next Commissioner meeting. That the
action, that the Attorney General’s office will deliver a report the avenues that we as
Commissioners can pursue with regard to criminal or civil action, and that the report be
submitted in writing to the Commission.
Okay, again, it is information we’re sharing and I hope the deputy AG certainly, David you can
put it on the agenda and hopefully we can get that information as requested. And again, I,
too, just want to clarify that if students can be notified of our actions, if that’s legal.
Well, that’s, realistically speaking, hard thing to do because I have no clue who the students
are.
Well we do have a record of who came here before us. I know you can’t necessarily find all
the students, it was clear during the appeal that they are working with students that they
trained and maybe extending just, asking them for the list of students. I don’t know if that’s
outside the scope, but I certainly as a professional courtesy, feel some obligation to let the
students know. And, I’m meaning these students, I shouldn’t be using that term. So let the
folks who were illegally trained be notified of this decision.
And I’ll comment that these are comments just for the Commissioner comment section.
Ms. Andriola:
I know, just comments, just an idea. Since we’re in the comment section, I just wanted to
point out, excuse me for my cough, that the proposed meeting dates weren’t agendized, and
certainly there have been dates, so if the Commissioners haven’t seen them, the next
proposed date is February 3rd, 2010, May 5th, 2010, August 4th, 2010, and November 3rd
2010. So, hopefully those days will work and it looks like we will be meeting on February 3 rd,
2010. I also wanted to share with everyone that, I have spoken with Commissioner Russell
and I hope we all wish her well. I know she wanted me to share with everyone that she really
wanted to be and I hope you all have you in your thoughts and prayers as she is going
through her recovery. So we appreciate her leadership and I told her that she will be missed
and hopefully see her in February. Any other comments? Hearing none, I’d go ahead and
entertain a motion for adjournment.
Meeting Adjourned.