Prescott College said to the U.S. Department of Education (US DoE) that my complaints are actually a "disagreement between you and Prescott College . . . [that] relate to the methodology used to evaluate your life experience coursework and the results obtained from that evaluation."

The US DoE spoke--no written responses--with Mr. Michael Rooney, esq., representing the college. He lied to the US DoE, and he lied to the State Bar of Arizona (SBoA) about that.

The college's position to the US DoE, but not in any written response to the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education (ASBPPSE), was that this was a disagreement over methodology and evaluative results. I know no more than that one sentence, and because the college did not put anything in writing, I cannot know more. It is, however, a fraud. Here are several of many examples that I documented with college records, evaluations, letters, emails:

1. Erroneous Credit Awards

1. A) "Walton Mendelson's Environmental Writing . . . Full requested credit of 10 upper division units is hereby given," Terril Shorb.

1. B) "Environmental Fiction [sic] 5 UD" Dean's (Dr. Jeanine Canty) Awards, and the official transcripts.

1. C) "You early on imagined there might be 10 units of credit [but it] came in at 5 units," Terril Shorb, November 30, 2005 email.

1. D) The college responses do not (that is, a concealment or an omission with the intent to mislead) address this complaint.

1. Conclusion) This is not a matter of methodology. Ten does not equal five. It is not a disagreement over evaluative results. I received, in writing 10 credits from Terril Shorb. Those credits were transferred as 5. His evaluation is glowing and contrary to assertions by Dr. Paul Burkhardt that the Core Faculty has he right to review and change awards granted by Evaluator (responses) Terril Shorb was my Reader, Evaluator, Mentor, and Core Faculty. He granted explicitly granted the higher awards that he later said I had "imagined." (See college documentation). The college's representative lied to the US DoE.

2. Credit Award for Classes not Taken

2. A) "Ecocriticism 5 UD" Dean's (Dr. Jeanine Canty) Awards and official transcripts.

2. B) I did not take or do any work "Ecocriticism" (see curriculum).

2. C) The explanation given by Dr. Paul Burkhardt is: "Mr. Mendelson did discuss with his core faculty the environmental literacy competency requirement and did submit work in this area although it was not grouped together in one chapter of his portfolio. The core faculty granted credit for this work under a course entitled 'Ecocriticism.'" (March 30, 2006, (see responses) emphasis added. That is:Because I had not done the coursework in one chapter)

2. D) Dr. Jeanine Canty and Mr. Terril Shorb each signed declarations falsely asserting that this was correct: that I had not submitted environmental work in one chapter, that is was scattered throughout my coursework.

2. E) I submitted three specific environmental works: "Environmental Fiction," "Unravelment," my 200-page research paper , and my Liberal Arts Seminar project "Thomas Moran: Environmental Art." That is, I did submit one chapter, "Environmental Fiction," glowingly evaluated, in my LEP #2 Portfolio; and, in addition, I submitted two other complete, discrete, unique environmental works.

2. F) One year later both Dr. Burkhardt and Mr. Shorb offered a different, contradictory answer: "Based upon a submitted work of environmental fiction, Mr. Shorb gave credit for the work itself and for the environmental literacy general education competency requirement," (April 26, 2007 summation, emphasis added. That is: Because I did the coursework.)

2. G) Forgetting the March explanation, 2.C), Dr. Burkhardt and Mr. Shorb are saying that the college has a policy that grants two credits for coursework: one for the work itself and one for meeting a requirement. I met other requirements but this "policy" was not applied. It is contrary to all the college handbooks, HLC and ASBPPS standards and codes.

2. H) Dr. Burkhardt and Terril Shorb said "the environmental literacy competency requirement" is to be found in a course "Description" in the course "Evaluation" for "Critical Issues and Applications": The course will provide the academic and procedural foundation for all future programs, mentored or life experiences documentation, including study and research techniques, time management skills, interdisciplinary approaches and the ability and interest in developing environmental and multicultural facets." This is a course description. We never discussed it. It was in a boiler plate evaluation form that we were to use by filling in student name, address, etc.

2. I) I never discussed this with Mr. Shorb or any other person at the college. It is not in any policy or course handbook. It is not in the goals or objectives, but a description, and at the end of a long list of things it is simply an "interest."

2. Conclusion: I received college level credit for work I did not do. Only after I pressed this specific issue at an ASBPPSE Complaint Committee Meeting did the Dr. Burkhardt and Mr. Shorb invent two policies, unique to me: 1) an interest became a requirement; and 2) in meeting that interest/requirement the college gives additional credits. Neither policy existed in writing at the time I was a student. But whether these existed or not, they are directly contradicted by Dr. Paul Burkhardt, Dr. Jeanine Canty, Dr. Dan Garvey, and Mr. Shorb in their March 30, 2006 response. Both cannot be true--and, in fact, both are demonstrably false. The college's representative lied to the US DoE.

3. Curriculum and Contracts

3. A) Over a period of six months, I drafted five or six curricula. Students draft their own curricula, which must meet both academic and enrollment requirements, and be approved by both the core faculty and the faculty committee. My curriculum was approved by Terril Shorb early in August, 2004, and approved by the faculty committee a few days later. A copy of it was in my August 26, 2004 Critical Issues and Applications binder, which was submitted to Mr. Shorb, and was reviewed and evaluated by him. (See example)

3. B) My contracts were drafted only after the approval of my curriculum. The contracts were written at Mr. Shorb's direction and instruction, following models he gave me. The contracts relate specifically, by explicit language to my approved curriculum. Mr. Shorb reviewed and signed the contracts.

3. C) I did all the work listed in my approved curriculum: no more, and no less.

3. D) In order to explain away the 40-50% discrepancies between my approved curriculum and the actual coursework I did against false transcripts, Dr. Burkhardt called the approved curriculum "an advising document for program planning."

3. E) "He kept coming back with these different incarnations of possible curriculi . . . I realized Walton was not going to be able to produce a independently a curriculum document that would any hope of being approved by the faculty. . . . So I reconfigured some of that. We made a curriculum documentation which I felt had some chance of securing approval by the full faculty. That ultimately was submitted to the faculty and was approved," Terril Shorb, April 13, 2007. Terril Shorb is claiming he and other faculty members drafted my curriculum: one I never saw, knew of, approved, etc., and that it was contrary to my signed contracts. This is fraud.

3. F) "All the interim documents somewhere Walton states in his complaint that that Terril Shorb approved my curriculum and that the faculty approved. He was speaking of his interim curriculums which were never approved by anybody. And have no no standing until the full faculty approves" Terril Shorb, April 13, 2007. Therefore, to justify discrepancies, Terril Shorb confirms that he and other faculty drafted the "ultimate curriculum" after the approval of my curriculum and the signed contracts, August 26, 2004, and at least into if not after all my course work was completed, reviewed, and evaluated. But most significantly Mr. Shorb said, and Dr. Nixon accepted, that a student's curriculum can be changed at any time before or after coursework is submitted and evaluated. At any time, without the student's knowledge or consent. At any time contrary to signed contracts.

3. Conclusion) This maybe the only issue that might reflect methodology: despite signed contracts, approved curricula, etc. the college can at any time alter or change the curriculum unbeknownst to the student and contrary to any and all other documents, including financial aid commitments. If this is the methodology represented to the US DoE, it is fraud: as describe by Mr. Shorb himself.

"Methodology and Evaluation" are the fourth, fifth, or sixth, generations of explanations. The college has no documentation to support this. They've just kept trying out explanations until one seems to work. This is fraud. Because the Dr's. Burkhardt, Garvey, Canty, and Corey, Mr. Shorb, Messrs. Goodman, Rooney, and Armstrong, and the Trustees are fully aware of these matters, I can only assume that this is approved policy by the college, by the Trustees, by the attorneys.

I have offered to meet with the college to discuss the academic issues. I have offered in writing and orally. Such a meeting is a federal legal requirement (FERPA). Mr. Rooney rebuked my offers, for example. I wrote to the COO, Dr. Steve Corey by certified mail November 13: he has never responded. The trustees are aware of this and they (as of this writing 01.10.08 have done nothing that I am aware of).

According to Ms. Gayle Palumbo, US DoE, "The College's attorney mentioned, however, that the college would be willing to pay your student loan as a remedy to the matter," February 17, 2007, email.

No one from the college or representing the college ever offered to refund my tuition (see see page notes). Between my first communication with Mr. Rooney, January 22, 2007, and my last June 6, 2007, Mr. Rooney represented the college this way: 1) "The college will never talk with you" (witnessed conversation January 22. 2) "I haven't offered you anything," April 27. 3) Rooney did "not have an offer on the table to refund the sums paid to you," May 25, email. 4) "I told Mr. Mendelson that the college had no interest in re-opening these issues," September 10 letter to the SBoA. Those are unequivocal and explicit statements: there was no offer, not many times as Mr. Rooney asserted to the ASBPPSE and the SBoA, not even once.

To the SBoA, Mr. Rooney wrote, "'Mr. Rooney seems to have made similar statements to the US Department of Education and the Higher Learning Commission' . . . Mr. Mendelson is imputing facts and statements that never occurred. I have never drafted, reviewed or participated in any response to the complaints that Mr. Mendelson has apparently made to the U.S. Department of Education or the Higher Learning Commission," September 10, 2007.

I emailed Ms. Palumbo (quoted in its entirety), "The college's attorney says that he has 'never drafted, reviewed, or participated in any response . . . to the U.S. Department of Education' Can you please tell me who you talked with by name." She replied 7 minutes later: "Mike Rooney was the attorney. It was a conversation over the phone. They did not issue anything--nor were they requested to do so - in writing."

Mr. Rooney made a knowingly false statement of material fact to a federal agency. Mr. Rooney made a knowingly false statement of material fact to an disciplinary tribunal.

Fraud: Definition - Noun
[Latin fraud- fraus]
1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage
specif
: a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby
b : the affirmative defense of having acted in response to a fraud
2 : the crime or tort of committing fraud <convicted of securities ~>
see also misrepresentation
A tort action based on fraud is also referred to as an action of deceit. [lawyers.com]

Trustees: Richard Ach, Betsy Bolding, Dan Boyce, Dan Campbell, Anne Sterling Dorman, Chris Hout, Jan Nisbet, Rebecca Ruffner, Jerry Secundy, Paul Sneed, Judy clap, Asha Stout, Alan Rubin, David McCarthy, Karen McCreary, Suzanne Tito, and later David Meeks, and Suzanne Pfister.

© 1982-2003 Walton Mendelson. All rights reserved. Use of this Website constitutes acceptance of the Terms and Conditions

Home | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions| Pricing Policy | Site Map | Contact