Brian Sandoval
Governor
State of Nevada
3663 East Sunset Road Suite 202
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
(702) 486-7330 (702) 486-7340 fax
www.cpe.state.nv.us
Nevada Commission on Postsecondary Education
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
December 21, 2011
The Commission on Postsecondary Education will conduct a quarterly meeting on February 1, 2012, commencing
at 8:30am, at the locations listed below via video-conferencing:
Nevada State Contractor’s Board
2310 Corporate Circle Drive Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89074
Nevada State Contractor’s Board
9670 Gateway Drive, Suite 100
Reno, NV 89521
The Commission may take items out of order; combine two or more items for consideration; remove an item from the agenda; or, delay
discussion on any item. The Commission will take public comment at the beginning and end of this meeting and may allow public comment after
conclusion of any contested case or quasi judicial proceedings that may affect the due process rights of an individual. The Commission will limit
public comment five minutes. Written submissions will be considered. While there will be no restriction on comments based on viewpoint,
repetitive comments will be limited.
Agenda
General Business
1. Call to Order --------------------------------------------------------------------- Informational
2. Open Meeting Compliance --------------------------------------------------- Informational
3. Public Comment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Informational
4. Roll Call --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Informational
5. Hearing for Changes to NAC 394 ------------------------------------------- For possible action
6. Adoption of Agenda ------------------------------------------------------------ For possible action
7. Approval of Minutes ------------------------------------------------------------ For possible action
8. Administrator’s Report --------------------------------------------------------- Informational
Bond Reduction Request
9. Konold Institute------------------------------------------------------------------- For possible action
Applicants for Provisional Licensure (New school applications for initial licensure or added program)
10. Career Technical Institute ---------------------------------------------------- For possible action
Applicants for Full Term Licensure (Provisionally licensed schools being considered for full term
licensure)
11. Career Choices (Recommend extension) --------------------------------------- For possible action
12. Latino Townhall (Recommend extension ) -------------------------------------- For possible action
13. License Coach (Recommend extension )---------------------------------------- For possible action
14. Solar Institute (Recommend full term) -------------------------------------------- For possible action
15. Southern Illinois University (Recommend extension) ------------------------- For possible action
16. Word of Life Bible Institute (Recommend full term) --------------------------- For possible action
Appeal of Licensure Determination
17. Prospect Education LLC/Charter College -------------------------------- For possible action
Comments
18. Commission ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Informational
19. Public Comment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Informational
Adjournment
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
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 702-486-7330, 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
February 1, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting, held at the Nevada State Contractor’s Boardrooms in both Henderson, NV and Reno, NV (via teleconferencing) was called to order by
Chairwoman North at approximately 8:30a.m. Mr. Perlman certified compliance with the Open Meeting Law. Chairwoman North requested a roll call
and Ms. Shanteler complied. A quorum was present.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Commissioner North, Chair
Commissioner Chairez, Vice Chair
Commissioner Andriola
Commissioner Clark
Commissioner Cook
Commissioner Lynch
Commissioner Russell
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE
Mr. Tim Breen, Education Specialist
Mr. David Perlman, Administrator
Ms. Bonnie Shanteler, Compliance Audit Investigator
Mr. Robert Whitney, Deputy Attorney General
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
See attached sheet
AGENDA
Commissioner Andriola moved to adopt the agenda and to take items 11 through 16 with one motion to adopt as recommended by staff. Second by
Commissioner Cook. Unanimous.
MINUTES
Motion to approve by Commissioner Lynch. Second by Commissioner Chairez. Unanimous.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Mr. Perlman informed the Commission that he responded timely to the request for information from the Sunset Subcommittee but had not received
any response. He explained there were a series of questions but most of the material they requested was past minutes and budget information. The
next item concerned the new duties required by the VA contract which included compliance surveys which he compared to a audit. He indicated that
the time to prepare, conduct and conclude a survey was significantly more that the previous supervisory visit and believed that an additional half time
position may be needed. He also informed the Commission that annual report information was being collected and should be ready by the May
meeting. He concluded by updating enrollments for the Oct-Dec 2011 quarter which, with seven schools still not reporting was 6,078.
Commissioner Chairez stated that California had eliminated their commission and asked if we had support or did we need to draft a letter to the task
force to explain the importance of the Commission. Mr. Perlman stated that the California commission was being reinstated. He said that the only
information available was from a newspaper article which stated the Sunset Subcommittee had made five recommendations to the Governor which he
accepted, and that was when he found out the Commission on Postsecondary Education (CPE) was on the list. Commissioner Andriola stated that
she, Commissioner Lynch and Commissioner Russell spent some time contacting the Governor’s office and legislators and that it was important to
continue providing information to legislators and to attend the Sunset Subcommittee’s meeting and get on the record the importance of the CPE. She
thought that the Commissioners should be notified when Sunset Subcommittee meets next and that CPE commissioners should attend go on record
stating the benefits of the CPE. Commissioner Chairez volunteered to draft a letter in support of the CPE including the importance of enforcement of
NRS Chapter 394 and the Commission’s role. Commissioner Clark stated that the California agency was reinstated and that the letter from the
Sunset Subcommittee stated that the Commission was not slated to be closed and the tone of any letter should be informational in support of the
CPE. Commissioner Cook stated that the tone should be strategic in that we wanted the Governor to understand the importance of the CPE.
Commissioner Chairez stated that since we had already been tasked to provide information to the Sunset Subcommittee, then the Commission should
be proactive and make sure they are informed of the Commission’s role and provide it in writing. Commissioner Lynch stated the response provided
by Mr. Perlman was succinct and that some of his comments could be used. She also thought that the fact California reinstated their Commission
indicates the need to protect the interests of students. Commissioner Andriola stated that reading such a letter into the record during the public
comment period of the Sunset Subcommittee creates a record and gets the attention of those that need to know and asked that all Commissioners be
made aware of the next meeting of the Sunset Subcommittee. Mr. Perlman stated he would coordinate it and provide information to the
Commissioners. Chairwoman North asked that Mr. Perlman provide information concerning the members of the Sunset Subcommittee and the dates
of future meetings.
Commissioner on Postsecondary Education
February 1, 2012
Page 2 of 4
BOND REDUCTION REQUEST (KONOLD INSTITUTE)
Testified:
Mr. Breen, Mr. Konold
Discussion:
Mr. Konold told the Commission that he had reviewed information from the curriculum provider who informed him that similar schools
enrolled from 1 to 3 students a month. He indicated that without liquid assets, it would not be possible to get a $150,000 surety
bond. His agent informed him the most he could get without additional assets was $50,000. Commissioner Clark asked if limiting
enrollments to 36 students a year would be a wise business model. He stated there would some losses not stated in the budget
estimate and asked if the school would be able to handle such losses. Mr. Konold stated there were no full time employees,
overhead was low and that he had set aside sufficient funds for three years of operating expenses and did not expect a profit until
the third year. He said he could turn off Internet advertisements once three students were enrolled. Mr. Breen stated that the
Commission had never limited a school’s enrollment and it would be difficult to know when a school enrolled more than allowed. He
said the Commission could monitor enrollments and adjust bond accordingly. He added that it was difficult to calculate the bond
amount because students could bundle programs, increasing the risk. Mr. Konold stated that since all students pay in full and
complete in a short time, a $150,000 bond was not warranted. He stated that students would enroll in a single class and complete it
before enrolling in another. Commissioner Andriola asked what was the maximum bond he could afford and Mr. Konold stated
$50,000 due to limited liquid assets. She asked if it would be feasible to ask for an affidavit as a personal guarantee that enrollments
would be capped. Mr. Whitney stated that it would be possible but probably not feasible because if the applicant were to file
bankruptcy, the personal guarantee would not be considered. Commissioner Chairez stated that 36 students per year did not seem
realistic and limiting enrollments would be a barrier to success. She asked if the bond could be increased and Mr. Konold reiterated
that without additional assets, the highest he could obtain was $50,000. Mr. Breen stated that the Commission could require a
$50,000 bond and require the school to report enrollments monthly. He said the Commission could review this at the next meeting
and take any necessary action then. Commissioner Andriola stated that Mr. Konold must clearly understand that the cap must not
be exceeded. Commissioner Clark questioned the staff calculation for a bond of $24,000 for 36 students, asking that if the bond
were set at $50,000, could the school then enroll more students. Mr. Breen stated that since it was possible for students to enroll in
multiple courses, he included that in calculating 36 students. Commissioner North asked if there was historical information on
bundling programs and Mr. Konold stated that previous company did it without knowing if the students were able to progress
satisfactorily. He indicated he would allow a student to enroll in one course at a time, and that students were counseled to determine
their aptitude. Commissioner North asked who would be counseling students and Mr. Konold stated he would be the initial contact
and then the program director would evaluate the student to see if the student was able to take more courses. Commissioner Cook
thanked Mr. Konold for his honesty, stating that he believed the school to be undercapitalized. He stated that any motion should
include a three month report back to the Commission on progress.
Motion:
That the surety bond for Konold Institute be reduced to $50,000, enrollments be capped at 36 students annually, the applicant must
report enrollments to CPE staff monthly, that any increase above the cap be reported immediately to CPE staff and that this
information be reported to the Commission at the next meeting as an action item.
By:
Commissioner Andriola
Second:
Commissioner Cook.
Result:
Unanimous
PROVISIONAL LICENSURE
Career Technical Institute
Testified:
Mr. Bill Verbeck, Mr. Mark Kimble, Mr. Allen Parker, Ms. Shelley Hartman, Mr. Tim Sweeny
Discussion:
Commissioner Andriola recused herself, stating she knew the applicant and that she had a similar training program. Mr. Verbeck
stated he would address the four issues discussed at the first hearing concerning the bond, financial status, facilities and curriculum.
He stated the surety bond would be issued once the amount was set and that he had increased his insurance to 1 million dollars.
Mr. Parker stated after review of the proposed budget, the estimate was adjusted, including a reduction in the anticipated grant to
$500,000. He stated they have a half time assistant and registrar and that even if they enrolled 50% of the anticipated students and
did not obtain any grants, they would still end the year with $3,000. Mr. Verbeck told the Commission that the grant expectations
were lowered because of the economy. Mr. Kimble stated that the solar energy industry will need about 1,000 more employees and
believed the projected number of students to be correct. Commissioner Lynch stated that there has been a lot of publicity about a
failed solar energy company, mentioning Solyndra and asked how that might affect enrollments. Mr. Verbeck responded that there
were other companies building plants in Nevada which were not part of Solyndra. He stated the facility would be leased from Great
Basin College and was located in Pahrump, NV. He explained that soliciting grant money was on hold until a provisional license was
approved. Commissioner Cook asked if Great Basin would be teaching college courses at the same facility and Mr. Verbeck
responded yes. He also said they would be looking at other rural areas to do training statewide. He stated students would be taught
to install photo voltaic equipment as well as trained in basic construction skills, OSHA-mandated safety and reading skills.
Commissioner Chairez asked for an explanation of the training of migratory workforce and Mr. Verbeck replied that is working with
solar developers who have indicated that 90% of workforce will be from Nevada. He said that workers will be able to move from site
to site and that training would be available at or near each site. Mr. Kimble stated it would be a combination of stationary and
migratory workers, that some would not move to new sites. (Note: At this point Commissioner Russell stated her firm represented
Bright Star and indicated she would abstain from voting). Commissioner Andriola clarified the relationship between Associated
Builders and Contractors and Mr. Verbeck and that it included licensed apprenticeships
Commissioner on Postsecondary Education
February 1, 2012
Page 3 of 4
Motion:
By:
Second:
Result:
to both union and non-union contractors. She indicated that NCCER curriculum was developed years ago with Associated Builders
and Contractors and has since become its own entity. She stated that Associated Builders and Contractors has the authorization to
conduct the legal assessments for all construction trades. She wanted to make it part of the record to ensure that the applicant was
clear that assessments referred to by the applicant would have to be credentialed by an accredited body which is ABC. Chairwoman
North asked what the expected salary range might be. Commissioner Andriola stated that the actual wage depended on the job but
it would be between 18 to 60 dollars per hour. She said that recent legislation requires 30% of the workforce on green energy
projects to come from Nevada. Chairwoman North commented that students would want to know what salary would be expected.
She asked if there had been research on the enrollments at Truckee Meadows Community College in their alternative energy
programs and was concerned that the first year’s projected enrollment might be high. Mr. Verbeck stated students would come from
the underserved rural areas and that some students were counted more than once since they would most likely enroll in more than
one program.
That a 12-month provisional license be granted to Career Technical Institute to offer their Solar Construction Technology program,
contingent upon receipt of facility information, instructor information and a $29,500 surety bond.
Commissioner Cook.
Commissioner Chairez.
Unanimous.
PROVISIONAL TO FULL TERM
Career Choices
Motion:
Grant full term licensure.
By:
Commissioner Cook
Second:
Commissioner Russell
Result:
Unanimous.
Latino Townhall
Motion:
By:
Second:
Result:
Grant a 12-month extension.
Commissioner Cook
Commissioner Russell
Unanimous.
The License Coach
Motion:
Grant full term license.
By:
Commissioner Cook
Second:
Commissioner Russell
Result:
Unanimous.
Solar Institute of Nevada
Motion:
Grant full term license.
By:
Commissioner Cook
Second:
Commissioner Russell
Result:
Unanimous.
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Motion:
Grant a 12-month extension.
By:
Commissioner Cook
Second:
Commissioner Russell
Result:
Unanimous.
Word of Life Bible Institute
Motion:
Grant full term licensure.
By:
Commissioner Chairez.
Second:
Commissioner Lynch.
Result:
Unanimous.
LICENSURE APPEAL – PROSPECT EDUCATION LLC/CHARTER COLLEGE
See Attached Transcript.
COMMISSION COMMENT
Commissioner Chairez recommended prior to starting any future appeal, the procedures be reviewed and adhered to. Chairwoman North concurred
and asked Mr. Perlman to include ensure the Commission was provided hearing procedures and asked to include Mr. Whitney. Commissioner Cook
stated he was always impressed by the members of this Commission and while all may not agree, all were fighting for the same end result.
Commissioner on Postsecondary Education
February 1, 2012
Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC COMMENT
Commissioner Andriola encouraged the public to contact staff at any time there were concerns or questions on the procedures on any issue that
comes before the Commission
Mr. Zakarin stated again that he was the legal counsel for Prospect and Charter and asked that the Commission consider on its own motion imposing
a temporary stay so that this can be done in an orderly fashion, stating he believed it was possible because the hearing was an action item. He stated
that it would preclude him from taking emergency action in court. Dr. Bouillon asked the Commission if a student who attended the University of
Colorado and moved to Nevada while continuing to pursue their program online would require the University to get licensed in Nevada. She reiterated
the question using a private school, Colorado Technical University, owned by Career Education Corporation. Chairwoman North thanked both for
their comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Perlman:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Perlman:
Next item on the agenda is the Prospect Education LLC Charter College, if there’s anyone present in the Las Vegas area or
the Reno area, please come forward. WE have two guests here in the Reno, in the Reno area. Is there anyone present in
Las Vegas?
There’s no one down here, maam.
Ok, thank you. Mr. Perlman, would you like to state your findings?
Thank you. This matter before you today was first brought to my attention when I received an application for authorization
to employ agents from Prospect Education, LLC and Charter College. When I determined that their online training program
operated in Nevada, I notified them that they, licensure would be required and I received a request for this appeal. And, you
can stop me anytime if you have questions. In support of the appeal, two letters were submitted by Mr. Michael Dawson
which are under tabs 1 and 2 and a third, under tab 3, was submitted by his attorney. All three are very similar in their
wording. The issue at hand is whether or not Charter College is operating in Nevada. To that end, it is important to
determine the finding of facts, which is one of the required outcomes of this hearing. The first finding of fact is that Charter
College, LLC, is wholly owned by Prospect Education, LLC. I have about six or seven attachments at the back of my
presentation so if you look at Attachment B, it’s from their Consolidated Financial Statements dated December 31, 2010 and
2009. It clearly states that Prospect Education LLC is the parent company and that the parent company is 100% owner of
Charter College, LLC dba Charter College. The second finding of fact is that Charter College is a private postsecondary
educational institution as defined by NRS 394.099. There are three definitions within this same statute of the term
postsecondary educational institution. If you look at Attachment D, the first definition of the term is if it is an academic,
vocational, technical, home study, business, professional or other school, college or university that is privately owned. And I
will assert to you that Charter College is a college that is privately owned. Looking at Attachment C, this came off their web
site stating that Charter College is a private, independent institution of higher learning. So if that doesn’t prove it, then the
second one is, if they do three of the following statements in 099 and one of the a,b,c, or d: Is not licensed as a
postsecondary educational institution in this state by a federal or another state agency – Charter College is not licensed in
Nevada by the Feds or any other state agency; Charges tuition – Charter College charges tuition; educates or trains
persons who are not his employees – enrollment is open to anyone; and, educates or trains, or claims or offers to educate
or train, students in a program leading toward employment at a beginning or advanced level or educational credentials, and
their web site clearly states that. The third definition and this is the final one, it states that the term postsecondary
educational institution includes a branch or extension of a public or private postsecondary educational institution of another
state that is located in this state. And I would asset to you that Charter College operates in Alaska as a school, they operate
Washington, I believe in California and they also operate online out of Reno, Nevada. The third finding of fact is that
Charter College operates campuses in several states, including Nevada. Attachment E is a copy of Charter College's web
page which lists ten campus and one of them is listed as Online. The fourth finding of fact is that both Prospect Education
and Charter College Online operate from 750 Sandhill Road, in Reno, Nevada. Attachment G is a copy of Charter College's
application to employ agents which includes, and I am quoting, "Charter College Online, 750 Sandhill Road Number 100
Reno, Nevada 89521." Mr. Dawson’s letter dated January 7, 2012, which is under Tab 1, is on Prospect Education letter
head with the same Reno address. The fifth finding of fact is that Charter College's Online campus is operating in Nevada
as defined by NRS 394.091, which states operate is defined as to establish or maintain any facility in this state from or
through which education or educational credentials are offered or granted, and includes contracting with any person, group
or entity for the purpose of providing education or educational credentials. If we look at the first part of this statute, to
establish or maintain any facility in this state that’s already shown to be true, both Charter College Online and Prospect
Education are located in Reno. The second part of the definition of the word “operate” continues with “from or through
which education or educational credentials are offered.” Attachment F is a letter from Prospect Education which states,
quote, "administration of the online division includes admissions representatives as well as the president, dean, registrar
and other online student support personnel." Attachment J is a diploma issued by Charter College, and you can see it is
signed by the President of Charter College Online and the Dean of Education. And if you go back to Attachment F, the
dean, the president and the registrar are all located in Reno. The third part of the definition, and includes contracting with
any person, group or entity for the purpose of providing education or educational credentials. Under Tab 1 and Tab 2, and
even Tab 3, I believe, the letter signed by Mr. Dawson, well Tab 1 and Tab 2, states that Charter College contracts with
Prospect Education, to perform certain functions, one being the registrar. And I would assert that that a registrar is
someone who enrolls student and issues educational credentials, if you will. Attachment F states that the administration of
the online division includes admissions representatives as well as the president, dean, registrar and, we’ve already been
through that. The sixth finding of fact is that NRS 394.415 requires that any person who operates or claims to operate such
an institution must be licensed by the commission. Because Prospect Education, LLC and Charter College operate in
Nevada, they are required to be licensed. The seventh finding of fact is that neither Prospect Education nor Charter College
hold any license issued by this Commission and NRS 394.560, paragraph 1 states it is unlawful for any person to operate or
claim to operate a postsecondary educational institution which is required to be licensed by the Commission unless it has a
currently valid license. So, based on the findings of fact as presented, I strongly recommend the Commission adopt a
motion stating that the Commission concurs with these findings and that as conclusions of law that Prospect Education,
LLC, owns Charter College, LLC dba Charter College; and, Charter College Online is operated as a campus of Charter
College; and, Charter College's Online campus is a private postsecondary educational institution as defined in NRS
394.099; and, Charter College's Online campus is operating in Nevada as defined by NRS 394.091; and, Charter College's
Online campus is required to be licensed Education pursuant to NRS 394.415; and, Prospect Education, LLC, Charter
College, LLC dba Charter College is unlawfully operating in Nevada pursuant to NRS 394.560 paragraph 1 in that Charter
College's Online Campus is not licensed by the Commission on Postsecondary Education. Based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, the Commission hereby orders Prospect Education, LLC, Charter College, LLC, Charter College and
Charter College's Online Campus to immediately cease and desist from operating in Nevada.
Chairwoman North:
Ms. Andriola
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Mr. Perlman:
Ms. Andriola:
Mr. Zakarin:
Dr. Bouillon:
Mr. Zakarin:
Chair North:
Dr. Bouillon:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Perlman:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Thank you Mr. Perlman
Madam Chair, is there a legal counsel in attendance for this item, representing Prospect Education LLC, and/or Charter
College?
Yes, Commission Andriola, we have two guests here and they’re going to be introducing themselves. Again, they’re
nodding so I’m assuming that means yes, there is an attorney present,. I’m going to ask them to introduce themselves,
please.
There we go. Madam Chair and Commissioner I am guilty as charged. I am Keith Zakarin of Douane Morris, I am a lawyer
and my clients are Prospect and Charter. With me today is Dr. Joan Bouillan who is the corporate director of compliance for
Prospect who will be available to answer and ask questions from the Commission. Before I start, I want to,
For the record, could you spell you names, please?
Yes, I was just going to ask.
Z-A-R-K-A-R-I-N. And Dr. Bouillon is, B-O-U-I-L-L-I-O-N.
O-N
O-N. That’s the second time I’ve misspelled it in two days.
Would you please respell that name game again, your name, doctor.
It’s Bouillon, B-O-U-I-L-L-O-N, only one I before the L’s
Is that clear, Mr. Perlman?
Yes.
Thank you.. Thank you, go forward, please.
Thank you and before I proceed I wanted to relay a compliment . I’ve been before many boards and commissions in the
area of the law throughout the country and I’ve had the privilege to sit here and watch all the matters preceding us. And I’ve
never seen such a prepared and searching group of questions about the operations and matters presented before the
Commission is enlightening and frankly very enjoyable for somebody who does what I do to set it, if California had an open
and deliberative body like this we wouldn’t have had the problems that we did a few years ago, with the Sunset. We’ve here
to appealing the administrator’s determination that Prospect Education and Charter College fall in the licensing statute. Our
view is that the administrator’s determination is wrong, it’s wrong as a matter of law, it’s based on many facts which the
administrator found which are inaccurate and I think hastily reached. And it doesn’t fit the definition of the existing law. Let
me speak generally. What’s happening here in Nevada is that certain narrow contracted services are being done for
Charter which has ground colleges in Washington, California and Alaska, only by Prospect employees within Nevada, that
doesn’t turn Charter, which is licensed by the Alaska Commission and has ground colleges only in those states into a school
operating in Nevada. And the definitions will be important in what we do here today. Conversely, it doesn’t turn Prospect,
which is just providing the administrative and some recruiting services for Charter for non-Nevada students, a tremendously
important point, we’re not enrolling Nevada students at all into a school. So the administrator’s decision is, although well
intentioned, beyond the Commission authority. The appeal raises important policy issues about the purview of the
Commission’s task, and the importance of that determination today is that there are no Nevada consumers affected
following this decision today. Let’s focus on what the entities are first and what they’re doing. Prospect is not a college at
all. It’s not even arguable that it’s a college. It has no students, it doesn’t teach anything to anybody, it has no faculty, it
hold no student records, it doesn’t fit, to, any of the definitions of 394 99. Prospect owns Charter College LLC, but there’s
nothing in the code that makes the parent company into a college, into a college. That’s a fundamental error in the decision
that’s being sought here today. These definitions are important. Charter College LLC, on the other hand, is a college. But
it’s not operating in Nevada in the sense considered by the code. It’s an Alaska institution with facilities only in Washington,
California and Alaska. It’s licensed solely by the Alaska Commission. Its accreditor’s approval for offering distance
education is through the Alaska campus. It has an online division. It’s an important distinction here. But that division has
no campus. The administrator’s factual finding that that campus is here in Reno is wrong. Charter has essentially nothing in
Nevada. It has no instructors here, it doesn’t market to Nevadans, it doesn’t enroll Nevadans, it enrolls only students who
are residents of Alaska, Washington, California and the fact that Charter’s students 4000 – I was wrong when I said 2,500,
it’s 4,000. Only 140 are online students. It’s a very small population. Charter’s online division specifically rejects any
application for admission from a Nevada resident. Its operational model is that it’s student are only students from the
ground campuses or associated with the ground campuses in Alaska, Washington and California. It sells no books here, it
sells no equipment here, all its student records are in Sacramento, California. It’s learning management system is in
Sacramento, California. Its curricula is created in Alaska, California and Washington, only. Its approval to offer distance
education modalities is from the Alaska Commission. The president of the Charter College is in Alaska, not Nevada. The
diplomas are signed by the president in Alaska, not the president of the online division. I’m not quite sure how that sample
got to the administrator, it’s probably our error, but I brought for when we are done copies of actual diplomas signed, real
copies and you’ll see that they’re signed by the president of Charter in Alaska. And finally on that point, if Charter is
required to abide by the Alaska Commission’s rules, which are very different in some respect than Nevada’s. So it brings us
here today to the administrator’s conclusion that certain limited functions that Prospect is providing to Charter’s online
division in Nevada requires both entities, not just one but both, to be licensed by the Commission. Let’s be specific about
what Prospect is doing for Charter. There’s, its got a president for the online division, some deans, and a registrar. And by
the way, the registrar doesn’t enroll anybody, it doesn’t issue any issue any educational credentials. It schedules students,
that’s what this registrar does. It schedules students and classes. It may be different registrar than in other functions but
that’s what this one does. It has a director of career services and a director of student success. There are 22 current
employees of Prospect that are assisting Charter. ????? None are instructing. Zero. None are dealing with Nevada
residents, zero. Other than the fact that these employees live and work here, their duties do not intersect with Nevada or
Nevadans. If you can magically pick these 22 employees up and their computers and stuff and put them over in, for
example, Salt Lake City, nothing would change in what they’re doing. Their connection with educational endeavors in
Chair North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Chair North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Nevada would be exactly the same. Zero. None of them are part of the facility in which education or educational
credentials are offered or granted, a key part of the definitions that we have to adjudicate and none of them provide any
education to anyone in the meaning of 394.091. None of them enroll or are enrolling or talking to Nevadans, the specific
marketing block I spoke about. Incoming inquiries declines students unless they are residents of Alaska, Washington or
California. It’s just not part of Charter’s mission to education Nevadans or Iowans, for example or Texans. We just don’t
enroll them. Twenty-two people who have well paid, highly skilled jobs will lose their jobs if the administrator’s decision is
upheld. The Commission’s function is to regulate and supervise the operation of schools operating in Nevada. And that’s
what the code says. The Commission does not have a function supervising and regulating schools already approved by
other states and don’t operate in Nevada and Nevada students, as I pointed out, are not a concern here. Having a number
of service employees operating in Nevada does not transform Prospect into a school. Not even arguably a school. They
couldn’t even get halfway down the first page of the application for the license because it doesn’t provide any educational
services, doesn’t have teachers, doesn’t have curriculum, doesn’t have anything of the sort. It couldn’t be licensed, even if it
somehow could apply, and half that application would be blank. If Prospect somehow submitted it, the administrator would
have to deny it, it’s an empty act. Now, that Prospect owns Charter doesn’t create a license requirement for Prospect. And
there is nothing in the code which says owning a school, owning a company that owns a school, transforms the parent
company into a school or requires license. That’s not in the code. The legislature could pass that requirement, but it’s not
in there as it’s currently written. And that’s a critical problem with the administrator’s decision. If Prospect were an
unrelated entity to Charter instead of its parent, I don’t think that there would be any attempt to require Prospect to be
licensed. But there’s nothing in the code that suggests that a parent that owns a school has to be licensed by virtue of that
relationship. So the Prospect side of the administrator’s determination is clearly wrong. Prospect just is not a
postsecondary educational institution within the code. So that brings us to Charter, that’s really where the importance of our
discussion should be. The only reason to even argue we require Charter to be licensed here, is that if using those Prospect
employees in Nevada to do admissions and administrative functions for the online division. Here again, the administrator’s
determination which he went through in some detail, which I thank him, indicates why the conclusions are incorrect. He has
forwarded assumptions based on incomplete data, only because in the way in which it was done. That isn’t I criticism of the
administrator but the decision quickly rendered as a result of the application for permits for agents. So in a no deed goes
unpunished the school felt that since it had agents here in Nevada, the smart thing to do was license them here in Nevada,
and that triggered the inquiry which led us to the findings that happened. And I think it’s all well intentioned but simply
incorrect. And if you look at the administrator’s findings, actually is attachment D, it really helps us. If you look at the fourth
requirement, which is quote, “educates or trains persons who are its employees,” the administrator relies on his belief that
admission is open to the public at large. Not sure where that conclusion came from, but it’s wrong, that we don’t enroll the
public at large, Nevada, I’m sorry, California, Alaska and Washington, that’s it. Admission’s only open to those residents,
it’s not open to Nevadans. If you look at the fifth requirement that the institution educates or trains or offers to educate or
train a student in a program leading towards a program leading to employment, that’s true. Charter, for sure, but it doesn’t
do it in Nevada, for Nevadans. So even if you consider Prospect’s call center employees, and that’s what’s here, that’s the
bulk of folks, to be agents of Charter, they’re still not doing anything which impacts Nevada. The fifth and last requirement
relied on by the administrator is that the institution includes a branch or extension of an institution of another state that that’s
located in this state or which offers educational services or education in the state. Now those terms aren’t defined in the
code, but I think everybody in the room has a lot of experience with what that means, in practice. The Reno location of
Prospect where those employees are assisting Charter isn’t a branch or extension in the sense that we normally find. The
common sense meaning of the code section is where a school is an educational facility, where it’s got a location providing
educational services. There are no, zero, nada, nothing, no educational services being provided in Nevada. There is no
credentials being offered in Nevada. There is administrative and support employees including employees and recruiting
employees which are employees of Prospect being done under contract for Charter for students who enroll elsewhere. To
try to extend a licensing law to an out of state institution that’s not marketing to, not educating or servicing Nevadans and
simply because it’s contracting with a company here to perform non-educational administrative functions with respect, is not
within the reach of the existing law. So the administrator’s decision simply can’t be upheld under that law. It’s based on
numerous factual legal errors. One, that being the parent of an educational somehow makes the parent subject to
licensure. That Charter College has an online campus in Reno, Nevada. It doesn’t. It doesn’t have any campus here. That
contracting with a Nevada company to perform admissions and administrative functions for an out of state school transforms
both entities into a school that requires license, even though neither one of them could qualify for license here. Charter
couldn’t satisfy the license here, either. It doesn’t have teachers, doesn’t have curriculum, doesn’t have facilities, doesn’t
have any of that stuff. I don’t know how anyone would fill out the application. And that Charter is issuing diplomas from
Nevada, from that, somehow that sample got produced, we’re probably responsible for somehow providing that document,
it’s a factual error. We’ll provide here, we request, these are diplomas signed the Alaska President.
Could you please bring those forward?
Of course.
I’m sorry that we don’t have any for the southern region. There’s samples and we can provide more should anyone want to
see them.
The, what we, just briefly go through the administrator’s proposed findings, the errors leap out. Again, this is a function I
think in the way which fact finding was done and assumptions that were made. We’re here to help correct those. The
statement number four that Charter’s online campus is located at 750 Sandhill Road here in Reno is just wrong. It doesn’t
have a campus here, it has Prospect employees here. Now I think we probably contributed to that error when we filed the
application for agents’ permits and I think that’s one of the administrator’s exhibits, the cover sheet was provided in a book,
which is the way we always provide applications, listed both Charter and Prospect on it, as a Sandhill address and that’s
where the compliance folks that put together the application situated. I think in retrospect it probably wasn’t the most clever
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Cook:
Mr. Zakarin:
Mr. Cook:
Mr. Zakarin:
Dr. Bouillon:
Mr. Cook:
Ms. Bouillon:
Mr. Whitney:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Whitney:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Whitney:
Chairwoman North:
Ms. Bouillon:
Chairwoman North:
Ms. Bouillon:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Cook:
Ms. Bouillon:
move we could have done, it set off some confusion here. But it didn’t say this is the campus, it had the address here. And
so we apologize for giving you a misleading impression but we’re here to correct that today. The, you’ll notice that the
application, the only document which bears that address. By the way, we, although we didn’t provide it here, we’re certainly
happy to upon request, our accreditor, ACICS, is approval to operate distant modalities, is issued to the Alaska campus, in
Anchorage, not to any facility here. There’s no document from any accreditor or regulator that references the facilities of
Prospect here, as part of the approval to offer any distance modality. It’s just incorrect. The fourth issue I’ve already briefly
covered here. The registrar at least in this system and talk to that if need be is a scheduler, not a credential issuer and
doesn’t do any recruiting or enrolling of students. It’s purely an administrative function. So from all these conclusions, we
come out to a fairly simple answer. Prospect is not operating a school, that’s not I think isn’t even close. Charter isn’t
operating an institution here because it’s not offering education or educational services in Nevada. Using Nevada
employees, where there’s a far deeper skill base than in Anchorage, Alaska which is a far shallower skill base. To provide
employment for skilled positions here in Nevada to help schools operating elsewhere is a benefit Nevada gets. We got a
fantastic workforce here, with people with all sorts of skills. Prospect is operating here in its capacity as the owner of these
schools, as administrative offices, employees all that good stuff here. And it made sense from a critical mass perspective to
operate those administrative functions under contract with a subsidiary but those functions again are entirely non-academic.
They are purely administrative and not within context of the law. In closing, I just submit to you the policy issue here is
important. While the administrator’s intent here is beyond reproach, the intent to make sure Nevada consumers are
protected, that schools operating here in Nevada offering education to Nevadans, are subject to the same rules as all other
schools operating here. It’s a tremendously important consumer prot4ection function. None of those policies are impacted
here. We just don’t enroll students from Nevada. It’s administrative convenience for schools operating elsewhere and if
there’s a shutdown order, not only will a bunch of people lose their jobs, but not an inch of protection will be given to a single
Nevada resident. I appreciate your kind attention. I’m available to answer any question, as is Dr. Bouillon
Thank you. We’ll open it up to questions and I think Commissioner Cook has a question?
I’m going to ask, thank you. I’m going to ask you to go back and in brief summary, repeat and briefly describe what the
Prospect employees in the Reno facility actually do. It sounds like a contract service provided at a distance is what you are
suggesting.
That is precisely correct.
What is that, what are those, in reasonable detail, what part of the contract functions are being provided?
May I ask Dr. Bouillon to answer that question as an operational person within Prospect? Thank you.
I will use myself as an example. I provide a service to the other cam, well, to Charter college campuses, the ones in
California, Anchorage and Washington. For example if I am applying for a new program to be approved at one of those
agencies, I am the one that begins the paperwork, completes the application for those campuses. That is a service that I
provide so that the colleges in those states can focus on students. We tried to reduce a lot of the administrative services
that the campuses as you well know in that focusing on rather focusing on the student. So that’s what we do at Prospect.
The particular people that you are asking about, the, for example, I’ll use the admissions representatives that we have at the
Sandhill facility. Those individuals who actually work with prospective students, answering their questions, helping complete
the enrollment agreement. But they do market nor do they attempt to reach any students other than those in Alaska,
California and Washington. Of the 4,000 students that we have and attend Charter Colleges, only 120 are purely online
students and those are students who for the most part are unable on to be on what we refer to as on ground students and
we have programs that have been approved by the state of Alaska to be purely online programs. So they are online. The
individual who manages those admissions is actually referred to as the director of admissions. And that person is simply a
manager of those admissions representatives. We don’t do any marketing to anyone other than in the three states where
we have on ground campuses.
For clarification purposes, then if my understanding is correct, you do not serve any education, any individuals in the state of
Nevada. You have no either on ground or online students who are Nevada residents. I understand that statement
correctly?
Actually, we
Madam Chair, I apologize to interrupt, this is Robert Whitney down in Las Vegas. If there’s actually going to be,
Yes.
I’m sorry, I should have actually mentioned this earlier, but if there’s actually going to be testimony versus arguments, the
witnesses actually should be sworn in.
How do you do that?
Ask, go ahead and ask the witness to raise their right hand then ask the witness, Ms. Bouillon solemnly swears to or prefers
to that she’s going to be testifying here today, it is the truth and nothing but the truth and you as the chairperson have that
authority to swear her in.
Ms. Bouillon, would you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that testimony that you are providing today is
the truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Yes.
It’s so complicated, for the purpose of this Commission and this hearing?
I do.
Thank you. If you like, you may answer the question.
I can, for clarification, you are, one of your most important contentions, is that you serve academically no Nevada residents?
We actually do serve six Nevada residents. However, we did not market to them and I’ll give you an example. We had two
students who were Pasco, Washington students who left Pasco, Washington and moved out of the state. They chose to
complete their program online and they now reside the (unintelligible). We did not market to these people, they are online
students who were Pasco students. They were on ground and they now reside in the state of Nevada.
Mr. Cook:
Mr. Zakarin:
Dr. Chairez:
Chairwoman North:
Dr. Chairez:
Mr. Zakarin:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Perlman:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Perlman:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Perlman:
Mr. Zakarin:
Dr. Chairez:
Chairwoman North:
Dr. Chairez:
Mr. Whitney:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Whitney:
Thank you very much.
May I address the Commission?
Madam Chair?
Hang on just a moment, yes sir.
Sorry.
A clarification to the answer to your question, Commissioner. Of the other four, they were both quite some time ago and
apparently slipped through the cracks of the enrollment bar. Now I made efforts yesterday to that we can testify to ensure,
to be able to ascertain that that enrollment bar is absolute bar now, that that could not occur, and was assured that is
absolutely the case. There’s no potential for any future enrollments and these go back some time.
Thank you. Ok,
Madam Chair
Commissioner Clark had a, proceed.
This is administrator Perlman, I believe I
Yes, Mr. Perlman
I’d like to make a couple of points of clarification and maybe a question to determine. First off, why would I get an
application to employ agents if you’re not going to recruit in Nevada? That would was provided for me and I have it here,
the check for a thousand dollars and for all the plethora of agents. And if you all ready have agents, why are you operating
them in Nevada without being approved as an agent school or doesn’t have any permits. Now second of all, there’s nothing
in our law that says, I mean it might allude to it but it does not prohibit the Commission from licensing an entity in Nevada
that markets to other states and not Nevadans. That has never come up, it’s never been an issue, but that would be
tantamount to saying that anyone can come into Nevada, open up a diploma mill, which I’m not saying you guys are,
Charter College, but I’m saying as an example, a non-accredited degree-granting institution, online, it’s located here in Las
Vegas and we have no authority over it. I would submit that we do have authority over it, even if they stated that they do not
en, categorically perhaps, don’t enroll Nevadans. But I would also point the Commission’s attention to Attachment E and I
would have, this is something I went over with our Deputy Attorney General Mr. Whitney. If you look at the right hand side,
you’ll see there’s a comment section where it says select the campus, and while I could not print this, I will submit that you
can submit, select the online campus and then you put your address. And when you sel, click on state, Nevada is right in
the middle, just like it is on any web site that allows this. Now whether they block that, I don’t have any idea, but they
certainly will accept a prospect student from Nevada. A student from Nevada, a student from any state can click on this, put
their address in and then they would be considered. I will also submit that the degrees offered by the online school of
Charter College is stand alone. In other words, they do not have to be a ground student in Alaska or any other Charter
College to get this degree. They can do the entire degree online. And that’s pretty much evidenced I believe by Attachment
I which says welcome to Charter College, how would you like to earn a certificate in 30 weeks and an associate in 15
months or a bachelor’s 30 months. So, those are my comments, but I am still, would like an answer to the questions, why
would you submit an application for agents if you’re not recruiting in Nevada? That’s what agents do. That’s what that
permitting process, it allows an individual, representing an out of state school to recruit from Nevada. To recruit Nevadans
in Nevada.
I think that question was to me, so if I may I will respond in order. I think the answer to question one, why would we submit
the application? It’s kind of a case of no good deed goes unpunished. The idea was that if we are going to have agents on
the ground here, the law seems to require permits for acting on the ground here so in an abundance of caution those
applications were submitted. The application does not require any concession that the school itself or the work is subject to
regulation here or is operating in Nevada. Unfortunately it triggered the series of events that we have, but it doesn’t
determine, any, serve of the factual matter that need to be settled. Second, the license, the requirements for licensure are
there in the code. A school not operating in Nevada does not have to be licensed in Nevada. And an on, enterprise that’s
not a school does not have to be licensed as a school. That’s a question or fact in law for the Commission with whom we
simply disagree with the administrator and his interpretation of it. And as for the drop down box, we can’t tell you why it’s
there. Of course Ms. Bouillon could speak to that. But if the entry comes from any place except from Alaska, California or
Washington, it’s either rejected or not responded to at all. And, I’ll let Ms. Bouillon who’s on the (unintelligible) speak to that.
We do not enroll Nevada residents, period, end of story.
Madam Chair?
Commissioner Chairez?
Yes, this is Commissioner Chairez. I would like to ask our attorney, Mr. Whitney. I need some guidance on procedure.
Before us as a Commission we have an appeal for a licensure determination based from our administrator and our
administrator has requested that we uphold his recommendation. I need guidance from our attorney on what are the
procedures to take action on this appeal. Are we in fact in a fact finding session and if it is fact finding, are there time limits
on the presentation and do we have the authority to, as Mr. Perlman requested, which is support his recommendation?
If I understood your questions right, we are in a fact finding procedure. We have.
We cannot hear the response here, is your microphone on>
I’m sorry. It is a fact finding procedure, actually would be also conclusions of law. Pretty much just, you would make your
motions, state the motions on record and what facts the Commission actually finds. Do you find a particular fact the Mr.
Perlman set out or do you find a particular fact that Mr. Zakarin has argued. And those will be presented to the Commission
through a motion, through the motion process and voting. And as far as time limits, you know normally it’s, normally it’s
done when either the matter’s finished up in one hearing but I suppose it’s not impossible to really, to continue the hearing
to the next meeting. I’m not sure how Charter feels about that, but I, you know, if the, it can’t be done here there’s nothing
that’s stopping a commissioner from making a motion to continue the hearing if more information is needed.
Ms. Andriola:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Whitney:
Dr. Chairez:
Chairwoman North:
Dr. Chairez:
Dr. Bouillon:
Dr. Chairez:
Dr. Bouillon:
Dr. Chairez:
Ms. Lynch:
Chairwoman North:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillon:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillan:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillon:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillon:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillon:
Ms. Lynch:
Mr. Zakarin:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillon:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillon:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillon:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillon:
Madam Chair and to Mr. Whitney and to the body, may offer, at least a procedural forum that we may consider and what I’m
basically saying is normally when we do these things, we give that opportunity for the administrator to present his
information. Then, in this case, the parties that are before us today give us their information and then obviously we have an
opportunity to ask questions and then make the decision. And I think that the administrator has a lot of knowledge on this
as well. And so I would just ask that we certainly we have heard the information from the administrator and his articulating
the points and findings of fact. We heard the information from the participants terms of their rebuttals to those findings of
fact and I believe now we’re in the phase of questions. So, because there is always certainly, especially when there are
attorneys in the room, differences of interpretation, I guess that’s what makes the legal field so interesting. But I would ask
that need to really stick to that because we certainly want to give everyone the opportunity to go through the correct
procedure. But it may warrant us following it to a tee, if that’s at the pleasure of the Chair.
I’m going to ask our, Mr. Whitney to comment on that. Can we go forward, I mean we’re doing, we’ve heard our
administrator, we’ve heard our, the rebuttal. And now we’re a question mode. Can we, can we continue or what do we,
what would you recommend?
I mean the procedure seems fine and I think Miss, Commissioner Andriola not only did fairly well, we’re, you know, we are
allowed to ask questions of the parties and gather more information. That’s what’s taking place before a motion is made
considering the findings of fact or conclusions of law.
If, this is Commissioner Chairez. If we’re in the questioning of our appellant, the person who’s appealing the
recommendation from our administrator, can I go ahead and begin some questioning?
I would, I would say yes unless I am overruled by our attorney. I think that we are in the fact finding mode and you can ask
questions. I would ask that questions be very succinct and pertinent to the topic or just because of the time. Go ahead.
This is of the program director, I think it’s Dr. Bouillon. Did the students who are enrolled in Northern Nevada, the Reno
campus, did they, can you give additional detail on the status of those students? Are they currently enrolled or are they
now.
We have six who are currently enrolled?
Did those student pays fees for their enrollment.
Yes they do, to Charter College, Anchorage, Alaska.
Thank you very much.
Madam Chair?
Commissioner Lynch?
I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. On the web page, it gives, it gives two phone numbers. One says online
campus and gives a phone number and the other says local campus. If I were to call that number, who would answer?
Are you asking about when it says online campus?
No, I’m asking about the local campus. What, what would
It would be Anchorage, Alaska, Wasilla, Alaska, Pasco, Washington, Bellingham, Washington, Vancouver, Washington,
Canyon County, California, Lancaster, California, Oxnard, California, or Long Beach California.
I just call that number and somehow magically they know which one to give me, correct?
No, actually, it
I mean that’s, I, I’m sitting here in Las Vegas, Nevada. I’m reading your online and it does not anywhere say that if you’re in
Nevada forget it. So I’m thinking this looks pretty good so I call that number, who do I get?
You will get an operator who will ask you your state of residence. If you’re in the state of Nevada they would, they would tell
you that you must attend one of the colleges in Alaska, Washington or California. Or, if you’re in one of those states, you
could be an online student. If you indicate you are a resident of Nevada, they would say I’m sorry but we do not enroll
students from Nevada.
Ok, may I ask a question? Why isn’t that stated up front on your web? That this, if you’re a resident of Nevada, forget it. If
you’re a resident of Illinois, forget it. Because I’m assuming that I could go to my home computer this afternoon and pull this
up. Is that correct?
That’s correct. You could also go to your home computer, you get to a web site, you could try to Google, maybe, us. You
can click which state in which you reside and you would find that takes you nowhere. If you put any other state other than
Alaska, Washington or California.
Ok, I think that part of, I, I have two questions. Part of my problem is this, that you’ve already run into a problem here with
at least ten students, four former and six current who moved and this is a (unintelligible) well, where ever. I would even add
that there were four that moved, that you got six currently who resided elsewhere, moved to Nevada and now they are
Nevadans.
No, no Commissioner, there are only two in that category. They were Wash, they were residents of Pasco and after their
enrollment moved to Nevada.
Ok.
We have only ever had six Nevada residents, total, ever.
Four then, because the way it was presented my opin, my impression was there were six and then four. So there were six,
two who are currently enrolled, four who are graduates, right?
That is incorrect,
Well what is the, I mean I’ve got so many numbers here. Tell me how many students, from Nevada, are currently enrolled,
actively students online.
There are six.
Okay, I just said that and you said no, there are only two. How many Nevadans are a part of your institution?
There are six.
Ms. Lynch:
There were how many?
Dr. Bouillon:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillon:
Ms. Lynch:
Dr. Bouillon:
Ms. Lynch:
Six.
Ok, well, there are six Nevadans, right now, who are paying you money, is that correct?
They are paying tuition,
Yes.
To Charter College in Anchorage, Alaska.
All right, that they live here and that’s part of our problem. And because you said gee, somehow they slipped through, but
these people were currently enrolled, they were Alaskans or Washingtonians or Californians. They moved then into Nevada
and my, my feeble brain here, that says they are Nevadans now because they live here, probably have state drivers
licenses, probably earn their living here. They are our responsibility and I think this is part of my concern about all this is
that if I call on the phone you say gee lady you live in Las Vegas you can’t, you can skip it because we don’t serve you, but
if I enroll early on in Anchorage and get a job in Las Vegas, and move and want to complete my education, then we’ve got a
problem because we do have Nevadans who are part of your school at this point. And unless you tell them they can’t finish
or you can’t move, they’re in real trouble and I think, to me, that’s one of biggest concerns I have is that you can prevent
people from enrolling through your phone system or whatever, or going nowhere on the web site, but once I’ve enroll you
have no control over me and this is a very mobile community and we are very close to California, we’ve very, we’re not too
far from Washington, and Alaska is not out of the question. And that concerns me because if its one person to whom I’m
responsible via the auspicious of being appointed to this Commission by our Governor, I’m concerned. And I think that is
my biggest concern and I don’t how we get around that. Thank you.
May I, Commissioner, may I respond?
Yes, you may.
Thank you Madam Chair. Commissioner, the, what we have here are a total two students our of a hundred and forty, two of
this has happened over a period of years. While I would not attempt to minimize the importance of Nevada consumer
protection, I would suggest to you that, that’s mostly tail and not the dog. We have Alaska regulating this college in depth.
We have ACICS, a national accreditor regulating this college in depth. We have the United State Department of Education
regulating this college in depth. It’s not unregulated. The difference is not, it’s not much different than a student who is a
resident at another campus at another college also with no presence in Nevada and online and happens to move here. It
shouldn’t even, it shouldn’t create an obligation of licensure for a very very small number of students to require an entire
institution to become licensed. And we, in, in looking at this, we were chagrined to find that there were six. Those are
errors in the system. Those are errors in the system, we’ve deductively and been asked her (unintelligible) for, she’s I think
the one who (unintelligible). But that system is now air tight, that’s not going to be Nevada residents intelligible 2:55:58) But
that system is now air tight, that’s not going to be Nevada residents enrolled in the future at all. We cannot prevent people
from moving, you’re right, but the admissions decisions in those cases are made at a place other than in Nevada. The
consumer protection is taking place at a place other than Nevada because that’s where those enrollments were in fact
occurring. These are transfers. So, I would suggest that the determination of the Commission today focus on the
definitions as applied in the licensure statute whether or not we have a college operating in Nevada that’s providing
educational services which it’s not, or education which it’s not. And that’s the determinant of licensure.
Madam Chair, if I may?
Go ahead.
I certainly appreciate, this is Commissioner Andriola, I certainly appreciate the fact that you have articulated how on online
really works. How online really works gives an opportunity to for people to complete whatever chosen education path they
desire anywhere, any place, any time to a certain extent. Having said that, whether you have six, whether you have two,
whether you have ten, you have one. The fact is that you have Nevada residents. The very fact that the indication of
asking for a waiver while committing the duties that you outline indicated that you certainly understood the requirement to do
so. Whether that was an error or not, one thing that I am really going to be really clear about from my perspective. The fact
is, is that it is clear. There is online. It is clear you have Nevada residents and it is clear that one would be appreciative of
erring on the side of caution at all levels because there is no tail or dog. The statute doesn’t talk about whether there’s a
small amount of students comparatively to a large amount of students. The fact is you have Nevada residents. The fact is
you are collecting money and they are going through a program that is not licensed. So if we are going to continue to go
down the path of this dialog, it really is interpretation. My interpretation is, at least from my perspective, clear, and I can tell
you that I am going to uphold unless there’s some reason of some, maybe the six students just momentarily disenrolled.
But you’ve got six students, so I’m going to make a motion that we actually uphold the basis of findings of fact of the
administrator and hope that we can support the fact that the Commission concurs with those findings of fact as stated by the
administrator of the Commission and supports the conclusions of law that he has outlined. And that is the motion, Madam
Chair.
Madam, before you entertain a motion, may I comment on the commissioner’s comment?
No, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Second.
To the motion?
Second. Second by Commissioner Chairez.
Are there any comments or questions from the Commission, the Commissioners? Commissioner Clark?
I only have one comment
I’m sorry, Commissioner Cook and then
Ok.
Commission Clark, I apologize.
Mr. Zakarin:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Ms. Andriola:
Chairwoman North:
Ms. Andriola:
Mr. Zakarin:
Chairwoman North:
Ms. Chairez:
Chairwoman North:
Dr. Chairez:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Clark:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Clark:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Cook:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Clark:
Mr. Zakarin:
Ms. Andriola:
Mr. Zakarin:
Chairwoman North:
Ms. Andriola:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Clark:
Chairwoman North:
Dr. Chairez:
Chairwoman North:
Dr. Chairez:
Ms. Andriola:
Ms. Lynch:
This certainly is a fascinating situation. And I’m caught, I want to protect Nevada students but here is the irony of it. The six
students that apparently, two of which were online students, happened to wander into Nevada. It seems that they were
online students because they enrolled elsewhere, not in Nevada. They enrolled appropriately in one of the three states that
allows them to. And then, by their own choice, they moved to, and chose to want to conveniently complete their program in
Nevada. I think they would like that. If we want, if we want to pass a regulation that says that in private schools that are
online schools, that they must, they may not bring their program to Nevada, then perhaps we ought to go, because we
somehow can’t protect them if they were completed in Nevada then perhaps that’s the direction we want to go, continue
going down the road in a regulatory fashion. I’m not sure that we want to do that. It’s such a small group of people and
frankly from my point of view they benefited because they could complete the vocational programs, conveniently here.
None of those six students are complainants in any way. But for them, in a bizarre fashion managed to just geographically
slip through, slip though a crack but what I am seeing here again, if I’m not mistaken, is that I’m receiving assurances, I
want to see heads go up and down if I’m correct, that physically, a resident of Nevada cannot be enrolled in one of the
physical campuses, or the brick and mortar campuses, and their online screening will not allow a Nevada residents,
resident, to enroll. Even though they may initially start through the process, it will shu, it will automatically short stop them at
some point when it discovers that they are Nevadan. It might be nice if you do specify on the web site that only for
California, Oregon and Washington, and Alaska or Washington residents, whatever the case might be, that might prevent a
whole of extra student applying. Needless to say would be preferred. But the fact is, I don’t want to see two dozen good
Nevada jobs lost because a contracting service is operating. They could be, they could be an accounting service, they
could a financial advisory service. This is a contract service, this is not education as such and I don’t think we want to set a
precedent for stopping contract services in a state that so desperately needs jobs. We do not want (unintelligible) schools.
If for one second I though this was an educational operation, I would want to step on this as hard as I could. I don’t see
that. I see this as a contract service. Now if we really want to protect Nevada consumers, then perhaps regulatorily we
want to consider. I can’t believe we want to do this: Forcing online students that move to Nevada to withdraw from their
programs. I do not see that as a terribly good or enticing idea. Because everybody, there, we would deny people free
choice. If they initially saw themselves as wanting this program, they made an appropriate decision at the time. I would, I
would say it’s a very bizarre circumstance. I understand and I applaud administrator Perlman’s desire to protect Nevada
student citizens and Nevada consumers. This is a very unique situation. My only curious question is, was this a sheer act
of stupidity to ask to be recog, to have, add, ask for registration on the, I’ve seen heads going, seriously, up and down.
What that implies marketing activity in my mind. And it’s like, why did you do that if you weren’t going to market for students
in Nevada. Are you willing to stand up and say, hey, we really messed up, this was really a mistake that was not our
intention and we are sorry and you can throw the book at us if ever do market a student in Nevada. That I would accept, as
an appropriate action. I would not, as much as I believe in Andriola, Clara, wanting to do the right thing, I want to see 24
good jobs in Nevada, 22 good jobs in Nevada. And I wouldn’t want to oppose contract work coming into Nevada. So, I
can’t see myself supporting this motion.
Commissioner Clark?
While I respect the comments made, our job is not, in this Commission, to promote economic development. We are here to
uphold the revised statutes that fall within our Commission’s scope. Fact is we have students who are receiving education
services in Nevada. We have testimony that admits to that. It crosses the line when the students came to Nevada. The
school had a choice to say to the student, no you can’t continue your education. But wait, we have this online option hey
we can save the student. U.S. Department of Education published regulations last year, I believe it went into effect around
July of 2011 that state that online schools must be licensed in the state where they providing education services. So you
may be violating federal regulations as well if don’t become licensed in the state of Nevada. There’s a question as to what
constitutes the word ‘enrollment’. If you enroll a student in Nevada, then you have to be licensed in Nevada. There’s
question about where is that line drawn? Fact of the matter is there are education services being provided in the state of
Nevada through your online system. The students are sitting in a home in Nevada receiving instruction, correct? Then
there is an education service being provided in the state of Nevada.
No, that is incorrect, sir.
We have a motion, we have a second. Point of order, Madam Chair.
That does not, that’s not a semantic distinction. The service is being provided in Alaska, California and Washington. The
LMS is in Sacramento. The materials, everything is elsewhere. The only thing that’s being provided here are recruiting
services and support services. Zero of the academics are here. The fact of the residency of the student here, is not.
I’m sorry, I think we are, have a motion on the floor and we need to hear from the Commissioners in support or against the
motion.
We have a motion and a second.
Except for, Commissioner Clark basically a question and he was replying to the question. Do you want to withdraw your
question, Commissioner Clark?
Yes, I was prompted to turn that into a question by watching the head nodding and I apologize for that, so I withdraw the
question.
Thank you and now we can conclude, go forward. Any other comments? Do you, we have a motion on the floor, I do not
have a second.
Doctor Chairez seconded it.
I’m sorry, I apologize, Dr. Chairez. There being no further comments, I will call for the vote. All in favor? Actually, I think
we might want to do a roll call, please?
Yes.
Yea.
Yea.
Mr. Clark:
Mr. Cook:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Chairwoman North:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Perlman:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Dr. Chairez:
Chairwoman North:
Dr. Chairez:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Perlman:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Cook:
Chairwoman North:
Ms. Andriola:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Mr. Perlman:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Perlman:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Mr. Perlman:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Zakarin:
Chairwoman North:
Dr. Bouillon:
Yea.
Oppose.
Oppose.
Madam Chair, excuse me for interjecting here. I would ask the Commission consider on its own motion, granting a stay of
this while we seek judicial review.
I’m sorry, it’s not open.
I’m sorry, you’re out of order. I apologize for that. I think we have a motion carried, is that correct? Mr. Perlman?
Yes, it was four to two.
The motion does carry. The requirement will be to follow the regulatory, the findings of fact regarding licensure in the state
of Nevada for the plaintiff.
Madam Chair, will the Commission consider granting an interim stay while we seek judicial relief? There are 22 jobs on the
line here. We intend to seek review of the Commission’s decision. We think it is, respectively, incorrect.. But if we, if the
Commission doesn’t grant a stay then we have to seek a court injunction against it in the mean time. And we prefer to do
this in an orderly fashion and seek review of these important legal questions. It was a split Commission with strong feelings,
this matter deserves judicial review.
Madam Chair? I hate to interrupt but, I mean, in point of order of our agenda, we were asked to vote on to uphold or not
uphold the appeal, decision. That item has already been voted on. Can we please refrain additional comments until the
open meeting at the end of the meeting?
Sorry. Yes, I’m sorry, sir, we are in, we are in (unintelligible) thank you. We’re going to move on to the next agenda items.
Any comments from the Commission?
I’d like to recommend that the next time we have an appeal, that we review the procedures at the beginning of the meeting
and that our, we try to follow those procedures so that in the interest of time as well as being judicious with and fair all
parties that that procedure be understood our guests and the Commissioners as well.
I think that’s a great idea, thank you. Mr. Perlman, will you make sure that the next time we have a review of this nature or
any appeal that we do go over process and procedures with Mr. Whitney present?
I will.
Thank you. Any other comments from the Commissioners?
Yes, Commissioner Cook. I am always impressed by how my fellow Board, I would say board members, that comes from
being on a different board, my fellow commissioners, how passionate you are and what deep considerations that you do
give these issues, how significant that is. We may not all agree, but we all feel that we’re fighting for the same end result.
And frankly, that’s why I like being on this commission. It’s always a pleasure working with all of you.
Any other comments? There being none, I will call for public comment.
Madam Chair, I would just encourage the public at anytime that there is always an opportunity to contact the Commission
on Postsecondary Education’s staff to find out whatever those procedures are that need to be followed and then that way
everything is clear so that it is handled appropriately, legally and consistently. So that’s just an open comment to everyone
about anything that has to do with anything that falls either in clarifying the 394 or reviewing that or wanting to learn
additional information.
Thank you for that I also agree. We do have, are there other, excuse me, any other comments from any commissioner?
Ok, we are going to move on to the public comment , then. Are there anyone, is there anyone present who would like to
make a public comment? Approach, please. You need to do your mike.
Try this, there you go. For the record, again, I am Keith Zakarin, counsel for Prospect and Charter. You just completed a
hearing on the merits of our appeal. Because of procedural objections, the Commission did not have an opportunity to rule
on the request for a stay. But we will be seeking judicial relief from Commission’s decision. We ask you again that the
Commission consider on its own motion imposing a temporary stay so that that this can be done in an orderly fashion. I
would comment that is certainly within the purview of the Commission, it’s an action item that is listed on the Commission’s
agenda. I think that Mr. Whitney would probably agree with us on that, that the fire drill of having to seek an emergency
ruling before a court when it could be easily stayed by this body to permit a deliberative action would be a good use of the
Commission’s discretion, so this thing could be discussed and determined on the merits. And it serves no one’s interest to
require a bunch of emergency action in the courts to do what could be done today in an orderly way.
Thank you for your comment
Thank you Madam Chair.
I would like to make a comment, comment, this is David Perlman.
Mr. Perlman.
I would ask that Mr. Kakarin give me a call sometime today.
Mr. Prekarin, are you present?
My last name is Zakarin, I assume Mr. Perlman you were referring to me.
I’m sorry, I wrote it down wrong, I apologize.
Mr. Zakarin.
I’ve been called worse.
Did you understand Mr. Perlman’s question?
I do and I will call Mr. Perlman.
Thank you. Are there any other public comments? Please approach.
My attorney probably doesn’t want me to say anything but I would like to ask the Commissioners a general question. And
that’s if we have an individual who is at the University of Colorado, decides to move to the state of Nevada, continue their
education online, does that mean the state of Nevada must license the University of Colorado? It’s just a general question
to the Commission. I would like you to consider is that that what’s occurred in this case. I understand, so I could, how
Chairwoman North:
Mr. Cook
Mr. Clark:
Chairwoman North:
about Colorado Technical University? It’s private, owned by Career Education Corporation. They have an online and they
could complete their education in the state of Nevada.
We appreciate your comments, this is a public comment and we appreciate your comments. Thank you. Are there any
other public comments? Someone down in Las Vegas would like to make a com, a public comment? There being none, I
would like to have a motion to adjourn.
So moved.
Second.
We don’t need one. I want to thank everyone for their time and for everyone being here. It was an interesting Commission
meeting today, thank you for all your efforts and we will see you at the next meeting. Have a nice quarter.