Columbia Pacific University Graduates Petition California Governor Gray Davis

CPU Graduates Petition California Governor Gray Davis

The following letter was written to California Governor Gray Davis (the "education" Governor) by a group of 15 CPU alumni. Rather than respond to the alumni concerns and issues raised in the letter, Governor Davis performed the politicians' "chicken dance" and passed the letter on to California's DCA (Department of Consumer Affairs).

Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

September 12 2000

Subject: Columbia Pacific University
105 Digital Drive
Novato, California

Dear Governor Davis:

This letter is written on behalf of myself and fourteen other Columbia Pacific University graduates. Most have Bachelor and Masters Degrees from traditional accredited Universities. We all possess high profile, influential positions. These positions have been achieved or enhanced because of our Columbia Pacific University graduate degrees. None of us feel compromised in our abilities to assess an academic curriculum and the rigor of scholastic expectations. At this time, due to various legal ramifications associated with the potential closing of Columbia Pacific University in Novato, California, we feel we gave suffered a gross injustice which could result in the discrediting of our degrees and the loss of credibility in our careers.

I would like to take the opportunity to give you a brief history of Columbia Pacific University and what has led us to your level of communication. Some issues we have addressed with the Department of Consumer Affairs who have basically been unresponsive to our request for assistance. The concerns, issues and actions are discussed in this letter to you. Our goal, respectfully, is to have you recognize our dilemma, review our issues and provide direction toward an acceptable, ethical and mutually responsible solution.

History- Columbia Pacific University began operations in 1978 with the goal of becoming an international university modeled like the renowned at-distance education provided at the University of London. The Council for Private Post-secondary and Vocational Education came into being in the 1980's to better administer the growing number of non-traditional schools opening in the State of California. The highest State classification was the "approved category". Such schools were investigated and held to high standards. There were three fundamental criteria needed to satisfy degree requirements: curriculum had to be commensurate with accredited schools in the state; a faculty capable of carrying out the required education; and a verifiable means of determining that a student met the degree requirements present. An approval degree was "tantamount" to an accredited degree, by state law.

CPU met the CPPVE criteria for approval in 1986 and lost approval in 1995. Obviously something occurred during that time which is not readily discernible. In fact, if anything, their curriculum was being fine-tuned with various educational components added and more rigorous standards being introduced each year from 1986 on. Highly qualified Professors were hired (Vanderbilt, Harvard, Lewis University, etc.) and were Deans of the Programs at CPU. The educational process employed made significant use of adjunct mentors, which were nearly all Doctorates from traditional universities. The original model stayed in place with more stringent requirements for enrollment.

The other titan to be considered is the CPPVE. Its path from the 1980's to 1995 is a bit more checkered. Prior to CPU having their approval denied in 1995, the CPPVE was being accused of ethical violations. There were allegations that the CPPVE was on a vendetta against some schools in the state. In fact, when the Council investigated CPU in 1995, some of the members were employed by competing institutions, hardly a clean bill of ethical health for a group investigating ethics and scholastic standards. The Governor, Pete Wilson, had so many complaints against the CPPVE, that he refused to sign routine legislation that would have kept CPPVE alive even though the Senate voted 77 to 1 in favor of extending the life of the CPPVE. (See attached Bill 2960 introduced February 3, 1996). At this time the Governor handed the administering of non-traditional schools to the Department of Consumer Affairs. It appears the Department of Consumer Affairs pressed on with the original ruling. The State disallowed schools any venue to challenge the actions short of legal action. CPU sought the only avenue left to them-legal appeal for the ruling against them. It should be noted that the 1995 appraisal took a day and a half and was devoid of any interviews with senior staff. It is unrealistic to assume that a review of this kind could in any way reflect an accurate picture of the curriculum and standards of CPU.

Issues that were raised by the Graduates-

What were the standards CPU were measured against, how were they weighted for significance, how long was the period of probation, what were the citations, and when was there a re-assessment?

Enrolling students were not informed of the withdrawal of approval status. We believe there was a responsibility toward the consumer to inform the students by the BPPVE.

The DCA indicates it will continue to honor degrees prior to June 1997 but not after. However, given that they publicly refer to Columbia Pacific University as a diploma mill (see HYPERLINK, March 1999 entry) it makes little difference to employers and other schools knowing only the current accusations and not the questionable history of the CPPVE. It makes no sense to honor degrees during a time they say the school was supposedly falling behind in its academic standards. Why would this approval stand prior to that time and the penalties imposed on the graduates after that time? It is incomprehensible to graduates how one can approve a program in 1986, observe the program become more conservative over the years, then call the same University a diploma mill in 1999. Nothing changed scholastically, and of course, we are not privy to what may have occurred administratively.

Students enrolled in good faith. As it stands, they will pay the penalty for the discreditation of their degrees. The respondents in this issue have potential barriers placed upon them in career development due to this action. We worked hard for our degrees; we did not buy them. We are being discredited in the eyes of our peers and our work is being treated as inconsequential by the BPPVE.

Postgraduate performance is clearly not an indicator here. It should be scrutinized in both the traditional and non-traditional environments. Marginal performance exists in both educational processes but appears profiled more in the non-traditional environment.

We were told 3 CPU graduates were called to testify on these issues. We have been unable to find out what criteria was used to insure that the 3 out of 11,000 students were in any way representative of the whole. If this body was serious about a fair and complete investigation, a far more comprehensive evaluation would have been in order: surveys of graduates; interviews with a statistically significant population; focus groups; ad hoc communications with the BPPVE where the delineation of the standards for evaluation would be discussed. We have been dismissed as having any viable input. It appears that under the new DCA expectations, a non-traditional University is assessed as to how "traditional" it is.

Actions taken by the graduates to date
A collaborative team of graduates has determined that further action should be taken to salvage our degrees. The names of these graduates are listed at the end of this correspondence. We have been actively benchmarking and consulting each other inclusive of obtaining official records to make us responsible communicators.
Mr. Michael Abbott at the Department of Consumer Affairs encouraged us to write to him and submit testimonials regarding our education. He was extremely receptive and gracious but stated the situation was in the court system and hardly in his control. We were heartened by this move, stated our issues including possible resolutions, gathered testimonials and mailed to the DCA on July 20 of this year. The response from the DCA was inadequate. We were told we were informative and helpful. When we responded that we felt the response was not acceptable, we were then told our communications would go to the Legal Department for review. None of our issues were addressed. This is most offensive considering the seriousness of our situation. There is legal accountability in relation to students and graduates as well as the public. Only a portion of this accountability is being addressed.

These issues, concerns and actions have brought us to this point. We strongly argue that the BPPVE/DCA as public entities have a responsibility for accountability toward the consumer, and that includes the CPU students and Alumni. This is a grave situation for other CPU Alumni and myself. If it wasn't for the certificates of approval issued by the State, none of us would have enrolled even if the curriculum was sound. We, as the Alumni Group, feel committed to have our collective voice heard.

We realize your time is limited and this issue may be far down on your list of priorities. but given the urgency and gravity of our issues, and the fact that good faith decisions by us are not being supported by the very agencies who led us to the good faith decision. We would appreciate your guidance in achieving an equitable, moral and legal solution in our plight.

We are impressed with your fervent interest and commitment to a sound education policy for the State of California. We are willing to make personal appearances in Sacramento to further discuss this situation in depth. It is expected that with communication, there will be enough evidence to demonstrate that we are responsible consumers with a devout commitment to quality education and performance.

Our intention is not to sanctify the problems CPU may or may not have had. Our intention lies in the recognition of our life work and not the destruction of our degrees. For all these reasons, we ask your consideration to hear our plea. If the Administration were compromised at CPU, it would seem prudent to assist in correcting it. It wouldn't seem the entire institution should be condemned and everyone who had association with it? It would be gratifying if the State of California / Department of Education would direct their future efforts toward enhancing the best in both traditional and non-traditional methodologies. Distance education shows no signs of going away, and traditional Professors have joined in this endeavor as Tutors/Mentors. We respectfully believe that a future consortium of representatives from the traditional and non-traditional environments should be called together to examine how best to enhance academic excellence and standards. This group would be interdisciplinary with educators, administrators, students, professors, information services, accreditors and representatives from both traditional and non-traditional environments. They would come together with a common goal of enhancing the quality of the educational system in California to be one of innovation and academic excellence whether it be proximal or at-distance,

This letter is written respectfully and in recognition that much work may have been done on this grievous issue. Columbia Pacific University has not produced a "damaged end product' but instead a product reflective in all of our collective accomplishments and our abilities to impact our Professions for the benefit of all.

Your assistance in securing intervention, consideration, and resolution in this unfortunate situation would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Tania Bridgeman, Ph.D. MPA, RN

Collaborative team of Columbia Pacific University Graduates

Tania Bridgeman, Ph.D. RN, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California

Earon Thomas Kavanagh MS. Government Agency, Canada

Larry Smith, Ph.D. Senior Computer Engineer United States Airforce, New Mexico

Judy Pellat, Ph.D. Department of Medical Oncology University of Southampton, England

Erik Podszus Ph.D., Assistant Professor New York City College, New York

Ruth Mullins Ph.D. Professor of Nursing California State University, Long Beach California

James Leigh, Ph.D. MA, Assistant Professor Campus Coordinator Languages Intercollege, Nicosia, Cyprus

Constantine Polychroniou, Ph.D. Adjunct Assistant Professor, College of Business, University of Cincinnati, Ohio

Glen McDaniel, MS, Assistant Administrator of Clinical Operations, Atlanta, Georgia

Jeff Dillon, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, Azusa Pacific University

Tulio Otero, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor Columbia College, Puerto Rico and Elgin, Illinois

Roger Geronimo, Ph.D., Director of Business Services, Central Connecticut University

Glenn Donnelly, Ph.D., RN Assistant Professor, College of Nursing University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

J.Philip Kittel, Ph.D., Computer Application, Douglasville, Georgia.

Lynn Collins, Ph.D, President Lynn Collins and Associates, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Ravi Shankar, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor, Wittenberg University, Springfield, Ohio.
Collaborative team of Columbia Pacific University Alumni

Tania Bridgeman Ph.D. MPA RN
29161 Murre Lane
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677

RETURN TO TOP OF DOCUMENT