Former High-Level CPPVE Employee Testifies as "Whistle-Blower" against CPPVE and its Former Assistant Director, Ms. Sheila Hawkins, Now Employed with the BPPVE.

Original court documents will be placed on the site once they are scanned.

---

The following extract is taken from a document titled APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF (file is in PDF format), presented in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One. The Appeal # is AO 89826. The Brief is made by CPU Attorney Orrin Leigh Grover, Esquire, California State Bar No. 64153, in reference to Marin Superior Court Case No. 172634, which was heard by Judge Lynn Duryee, Superior Court Judge.

The extract contains court transcript of an examination of witness Dr. Betty Dow, a former CPPVE employee who testified on behalf of CPU as a "whistle-blower". The transcript provides testimony on the actions of Ms. Sheila Hawkins, former Assistant Director of the CPPVE, now an executive with the BPPVE. The extract of the transcript and brief goes (exactly) as follows:

In the Marin County trial, startling information, unavailable at the time of the administrative hearing, has come to light for the first time. Dr. betty Dow, a former Council employee, testified that a key Council executive had made up her mind about Columbia Pacific two years before the Council inspectors visited.

… Q. And what was Miss Hawkins position with the Council?

A. She was the assistant director.
…

A. I had no contact with Columbia Pacific afterwards, or anyone that worked with them.

Q: Okay. When you worked for the council did you have contact with the Columbia Pacific files when you went to work for them?

A. Yes. They had just been reapproved by a former consultant, before I come on board, … [and] I asked Sheila Hawkins what I needed to do with [the Columbia Pacific University files].

The Court: All right. … you were there in 1992, right?

Witness: Correct.

Q. Did you bring the Columbia Pacific file to the attention of Miss Hawkins at this time?…

A. Yes. As well as other files, too.

Q. What did she have to say about Columbia Pacific University, if anything?

A. She said that they were in for a big surprise because they'd never be reapproved.

Q. Now this was in 1992?

Q. All right. Now this was after Columbia Pacific had been reapproved under the council, but before they submitted their application under the new law?

A. Correct

Q. All right. Sometime in 1992, she said this?

A: Correct. She said this – I know exactly because I kept notes and documented everything because I had started working there and I normally do, in a new job, but I was also concerned in this transition period.

Q: When did she say that?

A: December of 1992.
…

Q. All right. During that two-year period [that you worked for the Council], other than the October 1992 statement, did she ever make any other statements about Columbia Pacific University?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Do you recall any of those statements?

A. She would frequently refer to them as diploma mills, and that she had a difficult time with people from Columbia Pacific and that they were in for a big surprise.

Okay. Did she ever say anything regarding whether or not they were going to be reapproved?

A: Yes. She said they would not be reapproved.

The Court: How often must the school go through reapproval proceedings?
The Witness: If they've been granted full approval, it's every five years.

The Court: Did CPU have full approval?

Witness: Yes, they did.

[R.T., p. 113, passim.]

It is not so hard to see why the Council wanted so badly to unconstitutionally impose the burden on Columbia Pacific University and to enforce regulations not yet effective. The goal here was to deny the University any opportunity for a fair hearing; to give the University the "surprise" that Sheila Hawkins promised. (Exact Text Extracted From Appellant's Opening Brief, by CPU Attorney Orrin Grover, pp 19-22)

RETURN TO TOP OF DOCUMENT

---