RETURN TO HOME PAGE


California Council for Private Posecondary and Vocational Education (CPPVE) Ordered by Governor to Close Its Operations
CPPVE Ordered by Governor to Close Its Operations
Governor Alleged CPPVE Persecuted Private Postsecondary Institutions

We know (from the media and from government documents) that the Governor of California announced allegations that bureaucrats within the former version of the BPPVE (the CPPVE) were openly persecuting private postsecondary institutions with what appeared to be a vendetta. Out of reaction to these activities Governor Pete Wilson ordered the closing down of that bureaucracy (the CPPVE) by a veto of Assembly Bill 2960, which would have extended the life of the CPPVE until 2002. Interestingly, Bill 2960 had passed the Senate with a vote of 77 (for) to 1 (against).



The California web-site titled 1996 Education Legislation as Acted on by the Governor - Final Report posts the following on the bill to continue the existence of the CPPVE:
AB 2960 (Firestone) - Private Postsecondary Education
Extends the June 30, 1997 sunset of the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform (PPVER) Act of 1989 by five years; requires an evaluation of the program by the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) every five years, beginning on January 1, 2000; and requires the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (CPPVE) to annually report on its activities to the Legislature and the CPEC.
STATUS: Vetoed by the Governor.
Note above that after passing the Senate, Bill 2960 was vetoed by the Governor. The reasons given by the Governor for the veto which closed down the crooked CPPVE bureaucracy are contained in the Governor's Veto Message, dated 9/30/96. In that document the following is written with respect to the veto of Bill 2960:
At the end of the 1996 Legislative Session the Governor vetoed AB 2960 (Firestone and Campbell), which would have extended the sunset date for the Act from June 30, 1997 to June 30, 2002. In the Governor's veto message the following concerns were raised:
  • The level of fees required for compliance and the ability of small schools to stay in business. Larger, more capitalized schools do not have the same problem as the smaller schools that operate on a much smaller margin.

  • The manner in which the staff of the Council carry out their responsibilities. There are reports from some schools of alleged reprisals and vindictiveness by Council staff. It was recommended that the Council provide an administrative appeal process short of litigation.

RETURN TO TOP OF DOCUMENT

Add Me!