03/25/08: Students have rights and protections under the FERPA, Family Educational Rights and Protections. Among these rights are: 1) the protection of your financial and medical information; and 2) the obligation of the college to give you a hearing concerning academic disputes—if the dispute is not resolved favorably, the inclusion of an explanatory letter by you with your records. These rights are "described" by the college in its policy handbook. However, you have 180 days from the date you should have known of any FERPA violations to file a complaint with FERPA. If you have a grievance and if you follow the college handbook grievance procedure, you will exceed the 180 days and FERPA will dismiss your complaint. The college knows this.

Write to FERPA as soon as you suspect a violation. Trying to reconcile a complaint or following the college's policy handbook may result in your losing protections under FERPA. Write:

Family Policy Compliance Office
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-5920

I was never offered a hearing by the college when I appealed the academic discrepancies in my transcript. Further, I asked for a meeting (I asked Dr. Garvey, President, I asked Mr. Michael Rooney, the college's attorney and an education law specialist, I asked Dr. Corey, CEO), but my requests were ignored or rebuffed. To exhaust my options, to wait politely for a response, meant that my FERPA complaint was dismissed on the basis of being untimely. Don't let that happen to you. File as soon as you suspect a violation.

"Institutions which violate the Act can be faced with a withdrawal of Federal Funding. This however has not occurred since the inception of the Act [1974]. Typically complaints are fielded then corrections made" American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO).

General Descriptions and additional links: US Dept. of Education, National Academic Advising Association, Wrightslaw, AACRAO.

 

04.16.08 I wrote Dr. Corey, COO, Prescott College, asking again for a meeting 04.08.08 and 04.14.08. He read the first letter 9 times, and forwarded it to Sacks Tierney twice. He read the second letter 3 times. He has not responded to me in any manner. However, my web stats show that following those two letters: 1) Sacks Tierney looked at these web pages; then 2) my web host provider, GoDaddy, started looking at them. Based on previous actions by the college and its attorneys this probably means that they are accusing me again of "malicious defamation," and trying to get these pages removed, without a court order. Sacks Tierney did this a year ago to ActiveHost, my previous webhost provider, falsely saying that there was pending legal action against me for defamation, defaming me concerning the nature of my complaints, and lying about the status of my complaints (Rooney & Armstrong). Unless this is a coincidence, Dr. Corey is responding to my sincere requests for a meeting by trying to have these pages removed, while bypassing the courts. These pages, or pages like them, have been on my site since the end of 2005 (see cached pages on Google), more than enough time to get a court order for their removal. Based on their letters and interviews with the college by the ASBPPSE, rather than resort to facts, they accuse me of claiming I was a spy and the people who might vouch for me are dead, that I am out of touch with reality, that I wrote nonexistent books, that I took nonexistent classes, which they were happy to bill me for: The Honor Conscience is essentially an unwritten commitment to act with honesty and integrity, and to treat others with respect.

When the Dr. Burkhardt and Mr. Shorb appeared at their ASBPPSE interview, they brought "thousands and thousands and thousand of pages" of coursework, contracts, evaluations, etc.; but the "vast bulk was reprints of my website" according to Mr. Rooney (he did not dispute the quantity). The Prescott College pages on my site totalled 85 (in big print) at the time, so I presume they had printed out the entirety of my site, which violated my copyright, and the copyright of others. I asked about these pages and for their return, but was ignored. Is this what they are doing now on this site without a court order? See my terms and conditions, written by Mr. Mark Goodman, esq. my attorney at the time. Although he gave me advice regarding a billing problem, when he found out that it was in regard to Prescott College he told me that he represented the college, and he ceased being my attorney. The college agreed to my terms and conditions, but violated them, and probably continues to. This is how the collegeinterprets their Honor Conscience:

From http://www.prescott.edu/student_services/conduct.html:

Honor Conscience

Community life and a successful experience at Prescott College depend on a commitment to a sense of responsibility for oneself and to other people. This commitment is shown through the Honor Conscience.

While rules must be observed, they do not convey the nature of one’s personal involvement in the community. The Honor Conscience is essentially an unwritten commitment to act with honesty and integrity, and to treat others with respect.

Prescott College has not decreed an exhaustive set of regulations since these may actually inhibit the development of self-discipline. Only the most necessary rules are made explicit (see below). While the objective is to implement this behavior code through voluntary acceptance, all members of the Prescott College community are expected to act according to the Honor Conscience.

Faculty, administration, employees, and students need to recognize their responsibility in being continuously available to lead and guide new students in matters pertaining to the Honor Conscience.

While we believe in allowing students to develop their own self-discipline, should a student fail in doing this and exhibit behavior(s) that display disrespect for others and for the Honor Code, the College may hold such students responsible for their behavior.

It is my documented experience that this Honor Conscience is by the College honor'd more in the breach than the observance.

If, as the college asserts, they are 100% correct, ethical, and correct, why not meet with me? Why not show me their evidence and put this matter to rest? Why spend what must be hundreds of thousands of dollars being deceitful and dishonest? Simple questions. Perhaps there is a simple answer.

Terril Shorb suggested to the ASBPPSE that maybe I was out to "scam" the college all along. Scam? I am an average guy, who worked very hard as a student—if I was going to do college coursework, I intended to learn the most I could—and my coursework was evaluated glowingly. In 2005, I had three simple complaints: I was wrongly billed despite explicit contracts for an approved curriculum; I received credit for three courses I did not take or need to take; my transcripts showed credit awards .25 to .50 what I was in fact awarded. In July, 2005, when I appealed to Dean Jeanine Canty, I wanted credit for the work I did; I did not want credit for what I did not do; and I wanted a refund for the erroneous billing: those were my "scam." Instead of reconciling this in a few minutes, instead of meeting with me about the academic discrepencies, I was threatened, lied to, and defamed.

 

Prescott College Update:

The College's Lack of Candor and Truth

I allege:
 

 

I edited out the words “lie,” “fraud,” and “defame” from most of my site and PDF’s of complaints, and removed fully documented and complete explanations of my complaints, at the request of Mr. Michael Rooney, attorney for Prescott College, hired to deal with my complaint. I did so thinking that a resolution can only be achieved by crossing the threshold: that is, given that the college has never talked with me (and, to quote Mr. Rooney, "The college will never talk with you"), which it did in violation of federal law (FERPA, for example, §99.20-§99.22) and college policy; given it has gotten my complaints (US DoE, ASBPPSE) dismissed without offering one piece of paper, at the time I removed those words, I had just offered again to meet with the college to discuss the issues, and with the removals I thought I had shown a good faith effort. However the defamations and lies remained uncorrected, on the record, and effected the outcome of my complainst. Looking at the website stats and emails and strange phone calls there seems to be a positive correlation between pages like these, where I have shown explicit examples of college misbehavior, and any sort of response. Therefore, I have added more in the hopes of either some kind of resolution or as an abject lesson to other students with complaints.

I have a degree I cannot use without committing fraud, and I have a student loan.

The college has never discussed with me any of my allegations regarding academic irregularities and discrepancies (Mr. Rooney and Dr. Corey claim it has discussed this with me and made offers to me, but they cannot tell me when or with whom--I have asked). My complaints were dismissed as "imagined"by the college before I filed my complaint: although they are fully documented. Federal law (FERPA) requires that the college offer me a document dependent hearing--it has never offered it. I have requested it in writing, but each request was ignored. The college has had my complaint dismissed by various agencies, not because of the college's evidence--the college has none--but based on fraud and defamation.

Dr. Burkhardt, Dr. Corey and Mr. Rooney all claim that the college takes student complaints very seriously: this is, perhaps, the only thing that they have said that is unquestionably true. As the record shows, their efforts to avoid their legal, ethical, and fiduciary responsibilities has been consistent from my first request to look into the errors in my transcripts to today--not only did no one ever ask to meet with me to discuss the issues, but every request by me to meet has been ignored or rebuked (Examples: Corey Example, Rooney-see page 88).

I have taken classes at eight different colleges and universities over the last 35 years; and from those experiences, I believe that my complaints in 2005 could have been resolved in half an hour if the college had wanted to or had adhered to both college policy and FERPA law. Instead, the college hired an expensive lawfirm--after it had breached its contracts with me, violated FERPA and college policy, lied to the HLC and the ASBPPSE, and had consistently, orally and in writng, maintained that it is "100% right," with "no error in process or judgment." They had a lot to protect when they hired Sacks Tierney. Although I have fully documented each and every complaint, I have never said I am 100% right or that each and every allegation is of equal seriousness. Instead of reconciling relatively easy issues, the college's tactic has been to maliciously defame and lie. The college or its insurer, has spent large amounts of money for Sacks Tierney's counsel, something that a half hour would have avoided three years ago; and had things been reconciled, I would have continued on at Prescott College to get my Masters, which had been my intention, discussed with core faculty, and would have meant tuition payments to the college. One wonders what was said to their insurer to sustain coverage.

These pages are what is left to me, long and rambling; because: 1) the college made what were a few simple complaints complicated and convoluted; 2) Mr. Rooney wrote me implying that the college will sue me for defamation, so I have to be thorough and careful; because a true statement cannot be libelous, I have included hypertext links to examples that show some of what supports each of my allegations--college records, letters emails, etc. 3) the college has used all but two of the local attorney/firms that I have contacted over six months, thereby conflicting them out. Briefly:

Dr. Corey, COO of Prescott College, made knowingly false statements of fact in at least one letter that was sent to a state agency (see below).

Dr. Garvey, President of Prescott College, personally and knowingly released my joint IRS 2002 Tax Form 1040 (a document explicitly protected from almost any disclosure--usually requiring either permission or a court order--when it was provided at the request of the US DoE for validation purposes), personally and knowingly violated federal law (FERPA) and college policies releasing protected financial aid document; and he approved false statements that he knew to be false (see below, example, complaint). Dr. Burkhardt, Dr. Canty, and Mr. Shorb reviewed the protected disclosures and permitted them (responses and declarations).

I allege that Messrs. Michael Rooney and James Armstrong, Sacks Tierney PA, made knowingly false statements of material fact to state and federal agencies, and Mr. Rooney made knowingly false statements of fact to me (see below).

Dr. Burkhardt, Dean, and Mr. Terril Shorb (see him, hear him) have discredited my complaints and allegations--not with documents--but by maliciously defaming me by falsely attributing actions and words to me that mischaracterize me as a paranoid, anti-social, manic, schizophrenic, recluse (see below, see examples).

Don't take my word for anything, listen to Mr. Shorb's fabricated, follow-up, "fact-finding interview" interview with Dr. John Nixon.

According to ASBPPSE records, the college never responded in writing to November 2006 Comlaint or May 9, 2007 Report; the college's responses to my complaint to the US Department of Education were oral only Rooney Exhibit 16, pg 97. By having nothing in writing, a FOIA request is of no value. This is, I am sure, a legal strategy to prevent me from knowing what was said and thereby being unable to respond. Legal, yes, ethical, no.

The Prescott College Board of Trustees appear to have approved the actions of the college and its attorneys to discredit, degrade, and destroy my name, credibility, and reputation with malicious defamations (see below).

I wrote the Trustees saying that this Ripoff Report, could be revised and updated assuming that they made some effort to resolve thing. After four weeks, no one has contacted me: I assume from this that they really don't care about their fiduciary duties. Shame on them.

 

Why these pages, see below.

Here are a few examples--out of perhaps a hundred or more that are documented elsewhere on this site--of the College's weak sense of honor, morality, truth and candor:

 

I.

Paul Burkhardt, Terril Shorb, and Jeanine Canty all assert that Mr. Mendelson did not, was unable or unwilling, to submit life experience documentation . . . therefore [Jeanine Canty] did not approve his application. He appealed this academic decision to Dean Walters who granted exceptions to requirements. . . . He would later see these accommodations as breach of contract. Full explanation with links
Except:
 aI sent life experience documentation on June 23, 2004, to Terril Shorb
Except:
 aI sent life experience documentation twice on July 20, 2004, the second time by certified aemail, to Terril Shorb
  aaaaaaaaaaHe read it 2 times--readnotify.com record
aaaaaaaaaaHe forwarded it to Reader 2 who read it 11 times--readnotify.com record
  aaaaaaaaaaHe forwarded it to Reader 3 who read it 1 time--readnotify.com record
  (The email was read/opened 14 times and forwarded 2 times: however, it could have been read a hundred times in a preview pane without opening and triggering a record, and it could have been printed to be read or made a part of the College's records.)

Except:

 

 aWithin a day, Shorb sent me an email using the reply button, with my life experience adocumentation email on it, including the certified number. He could not have done this unless ahe had received and opened my email.
Except:
 aI asked Shorb if he wanted my application:
  aaaaaaaaaaJune 8, meeting--he did not
  aaaaaaaaaaJune 22 meeting--he did not
  aaaaaaaaaaJune 23 email--he did not
  aaaaaaaaaaJuly 20 email--he did not

Except:

 

 

 aI appealed nothing to Dean Walters because there was nothing to appeal. I did not submit an aapplication because the College did not want it--I have no idea why. There was nothing to areject, so nothing to appeal. As I noted in my complaint, I had no contact or acommunications with aDean Walters (Sadly, he died in October, 2004, and they keep adragging him into this matter, which as far as I can tell, he had little to do with.)

 

The College produced no documentation to refute my allegations. Rather, they have offered time and again a false narrative to explain away my complaints: because Mr. Mendelson did not submit life experience documentation we therefore had to reject his application; Mr. Mendelson appealed this academic decision to the Dean [who died October, 2004] who granted exception upon exception to policy--exceptions Mr. Mendelson later alleged in his complaints were breaches of contract and policy.

"She [Dr. Canty] also says that Walton Mendelson was unwilling or unable to provide documentation and so she said that there was no way that his application could proceed and without providing that documentation that would provide a context within which these products could be submitted," Paul Burkhardt. Dr. Canty knowing lied: I sent documentation to Terril Shorb ("Your faculty advisor gets your documentation," Dr. Canty, May 18, 2004); he forwarded it to two people, presumable Dean Walters and Dr. Canty. If she did read it, perhaps 11 times, then she lied when she said I was "unwilling or unable" to submit it. If she did not read it, then Terril Shorb had withheld that information from her, and she was not in a position to know whether I had or had not submitted it: therefore she lied.

She also could not have stopped my application because when explicitly asked, Terril Shorb did not want me to submit it--and I did not submit it.

I did submit life experience documentation three times. I did not submit an application because Shorb did not want it: therefore it could not have been rejected. I made no appeals to Dean Walters because there was nothing to appeal. I never asked for any exceptions to published policy, not of Shorb, not of Dean Walters, not of Dan Garvey.

Shorb himself said that "We have a very flexible and forgiving system, but we have to be very careful with all credit-for-life processes, as they are always scrutinized by our accreditation team." (As far as I can tell, Terril Shorb is the faculty committee, the accreditation team, and the research paper committee.) In addition, both the ASBPPSE and the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) have standards and requirements that do not permit haphazard or whimsical exceptions to policy. Nowhere in the College's responses did Paul Burkhardt include any documentation related show these apparent exceptions to policy.

Paul Burkhardt did not have any first hand knowledge of this because he was not affiliated with the College while I was a student. Either Paul Burkhardt made up these lies, or, Terril Shorb and Jeanine Canty did. Not only did Shorb and Canty know that these statements were false, but Shorb and Canty signed false declarations attesting to their truth. Terril Shorb and Paul Burkhardt repeated them a dozen more times in their interview with the State.

Mike Rooney, Sacks Tierney PA, the College's attorney, has seen these documents that show explicit evidence that the College had lied. He attested that there was no evidence that the College had ever said or done anything improper, and he permitted the College to repeat these falsehoods over and over, in writing and in recorded testimony for a year and a half.

 

 
 

 

II.

On April 11, 2007 Terril Shorb and Paul Burkhardt were interviewed by Dr. John A.Nixon, the independent investigator hired by the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education (ASBPPSE). (Is it competent or impartial to have interviewed both Shorb and Burkhardt at the same time together: Shorb works under Burkhardt, who was the author of the College's responses and who often completed Shorb's sentences during the interview?) The Complaint Committee moved to have an investigation January 22, so Shorb and Burkhardt had months to prepare. These are a few examples (page and line numbers refer to the court reporter's transcript) of their "prepared" answers--no specifics, no documents, but equally remarkable "candor" (for additional examples click :Shorb/Burkhardt Interview):
Terril Shorb and Paul Burkhardt
Comment

Shorb said (page 7, line 1), "He and I were meeting weekly that first quarter"

untrue

We met: April 19, May 03, May 13, June.08, July.22, August 02: that averages exactly one meeting every 21 days, or once every three weeks.

As a requirement for a class Shorb "taught," students were expected to keep note of their meetings, certainly, he knows from his schedule of meetings when we met. More importantly, Shorb made up meetings and discussions during his interview: meetings and discussions that not only never happened but which are directly contradicted by emails, several of which were sent certified.

 
- - -

Shorb said (page, 23, line 3), "He hadn’t been back to college fora 35 years"

 

untrue

Within the last 35 years, I've taken classes at:

McGill (Shakespeare seminars, flute master class)
Cleveland State (business classes)
Cleveland Engineering Society (misc. engineering and statistics)
Cleveland Music School (composition, flute classes)
Oberlin (Baroque Performance Institute)
University of Michigan (photography master class)
Visual Studies Workshop (master class)
Yavapai College (Photoshop, cinema—most recently 2003- 2004; one of those classes is on the College transcripts that Shorb has probably seen.)

I had mentioned these classes to Shorb and I had put some on various applications, documents, etc. I did not take them for credit, and I did not try to get credit for them, so a detailed list was unnecessary.


- - -

Shorb said (page 23, line 4), "hadn’t been in a work setting with people for 15 years."

untrue

I taught in the Adult Literacy Program, administered by Yavapai aaaaCollege, for 3-4 years, and was on their payroll.I Iavolunteered time, and curated and judged art shows with the aaaaPrescott Fine Arts Association.
When I worked on Conspiracy of Silence, I wrote and did aaaaresearch for 3 weeks, then spent a week working with aaaapeople in Cleveland, for 2 years.
When Frederick Sommer was alive, I worked with him, with aaaawriters, photographers.
I worked with galleries and publishers for my art work.
I served as a board member of Hassayampa Mountain Club; and I served on the Frederick & Francis Sommer Foundation board

I mentioned most of these jobs during discussions with Shorb because I explained my experiences relative to my desire to teach and to specific chapters in my program.

 
- - -

Shorb said (page 18, line 18), "with the exception of 3 coursesa he had done at Prescott College 35 years before,"


untrue

My transcripts show 14 classes I took at the original Prescott College.

Shorb had copies of the original, 1967-1969 transcripts in April, 2004 pursuant to my enrollment. We discussed them because they had to be reorganized to meet current curricular requirements. All 14 classes are listed on the current 2004-2005 transcripts.

This lie was intentional.

- - -
Shorb said (page 46, line 18): I think there is confusion on his part, in part of submitting these things, and mind you, we're talking thousands and thousands and thousands of pages, many of which, ultimately, I didn't even evaluate because they were just. If I show you these, they were way out there.
In total, I submitted 1400 (rounded off) pages for 17 courses, that's 82 pages per college level course.
These "thousand and thousands of pages" of coursework were in a box brought to the interview, and were the only material documents referred to in their transcript that were produced for a "documents-dependent" interview.
Burkhardt and Shorb presented these "thousands and thousands of pages of coursework" as material evidence during their interview.
If these pages were written by me, then they are of my authorship and I hold the copyright: therefore I requested that whatever they were, they be returned to me. Mike Rooney, Sacks Tierney, the College's attorney said: "The college does have a paper prepared by you and a book entitled “Sometimes in Shadow” and it will be mailing these items to you. The comment that the college has “thousands and thousands of pages” is a bit of an overstatement because the vast bulk of those pages are reprints from your website." June 6, 2007, email. Therefore:
aaaRooney said the overstatement was not the quantity of pages aaaaaabut the content. I have no idea what that content really is. aaaaaaThere are other people's work on my site, and it could be aaaaaatheirs.
aaaShorb and Burkhardt knowingly misrepresented the contents aaaaaato the State during an official, transcribed, interview;
aaaThe attorneys knew of this deception and permitted to be on aaaaaathe public record;
aaaIf there were "thousands of pages" which are reprints of my aaaaaawebsite, this is infringes my copyright and the Terms and aaaaaaConditions of my website (terms written by Mark aaaaaaGoodman, my attorney at that time, who is also the aaaaaaCollege's agent).
aaaBecause a book and a short story were returned by the aaaaaaCollege from this box, the State was not in possession of aaaaaaevidence introduced by the College as material.
aaaI asked Sacks Tierney for the return of these "thousand and aaaaaathousands and thousand of pages": all five written aaaaaarequests, sent certified, have gone unanswered except for aaaaaatheir sending the book and short story.
aaaWho has these pages? What, in fact are they? Were they aaaaaaaltered to misrepresent my site or my work? Why aaaaaathousands of reprints?
 
 

 

If my original complaint about significant errors in the transcript were incorrect, why hasn't the college offered any consistent and material evidence--evidence that is not contradicted by other College documents, evidence of supposed meetings, discussions, agreements, alterations to policy, etc.--to refute my allegations?

Why do Shorb and Burkhardt libel and defame me, instead of offering simple documentary evidence?

Mike Rooney, Sacks Tierney, the College's attorney, was aware of these defamations and libels. He allowed them to remain on the public record.

Mike Rooney was also clearly aware that Terril Shorb and Paul Burkhardt had misrepresented a box of papers to the State and that those papers infringed my copyright. He permitted it and did not correct the public record.

Ignoring these requests regarding the box of "thousands of pages" is exactly the same behavior as the College's ignoring my initial requests to reconcile the discrepancies between my actual coursework and the transcripts--they all appear to be hiding something.

 

 

III.

Paul Burkhardt offered this explanation for giving me credit for a course I did not take: "Ecocritism, 5 UP credits." He offered that twice, March 30, 2006 and April 11, 2007. Both Jeanine Canty and Terril Shorb attested to the absolute truth of the March version in separate, signed, declarations submitted to the State, April 3, 2006. Terril Shorb and Paul Burkhardt offered the second one at their interview, recorded by a court reporter:

 
1) March 30, 2006, Paul Burkhardt:
2) April 11, 2007, Paul Burkhardt:

 

“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

“Based upon a submitted work of environmental fiction, Mr. Shorb gave credit for the work itself

 

the core faculty granted credit for this work under a course entitled ‘Ecocriticism’” [emphasis added]

 

and for the environmental literacy general education competency requirement.”

 

Therefore Burkhardt is saying:

 

Therefore Burkhardt is saying:

 
1) I did not do a chapter on environmental literacy (writing etc.)aaaaaaaaaaaaa 1) I did one grouped together chapter on environmental writing contrary to the March explanation;
2) I was given credit for “Ecocriticism” because I had not submitted a single chapter on environmental writing. 2) I was given credit for “Ecocriticism,” because I had submitted a chapter on environmental writing.

 

 

 

Note: Contrary to Terril Shorb's interview, I had no discussion of any environmental requirement with him (nor, as I showed above did I meet with him weekly--the meetings and the discussions never happened). However: I did submit a "grouped together," "one chapter": "Environmental Writing." I also submitted a 200-page research paper on environmental issues, and my Liberal Arts Seminar project was environmental. That is, I did three environmental works. Shorb evaluated this glowingly and awarded it 10 academic credit hours. For reasons only Shorb can know, he then reported it to Dean Canty as a 5 credit hour class ("there are no discrepancies"). Regardless of the award, both Shorb and Canty knew this explanation for the made-up course "Ecocriticism" was false and material and wrote and signed false declarations.

 

 

Note: There is, however, no "environmental literacy general education competency requirement."* And there is no policy to grant additional and individual College level course credits, distinct from coursework itself, for work that simply meets general curricular requirements: unless the College is in the habit of giving college level credit for doing nothing--provable if all students got credit separate from course work for meeting non-existant requirements.

A real "ability and interest" was demonstrated not by a single chapter, but by an LAS project "Thomas Moran: a Portfolio," and a not-for-credit 200 page research paper that applied a variety of literary analysis methodologies to an environmental screed. Both of these were submitted in July, 3 months after Shorb had created his credits and courses awards.

 
 

* Burkhardt claimed this is the actual policy: "The course will provide the academic and procedural foundation for all future programs . . . including . . . the ability and interest in developing environmental and multicultural facets," from the evaluation form for "Critical Issues and Applications": it is not only vague and stated as an "interest", it is not a policy: it a course description, and it is not contained in any policy handbook.

 

The March explanation is false, and despite signed declarations to the contrary, Terril Shorb and Jeanine Canty knew they were false, because Terril Shorb had read and given credit for a single, grouped together chapter on environmental writing, and Jeanine Canty as Dean had that award transferred to my transcript under her signature. They both know that I had also done two other environmental works. Therefore Paul Burkhardt, Terril Shorb, and Jeanine Canty lied about this.

Paul Burkhardt's April explanation is false and directly contradicts his March explanation. It contradicts Shorb's and Canty's false declarations. The quoted policy, is not a policy it is a course description written by the college, and I am unaware of any policy that grants college level credit for simply meeting a general requirement ("interest")--or does the College routinely grant every student extra courses/credits on their transcripts for work not contracted for, for work not listed on their approved curricula, for work not done: however, that would violate another College policy, "Prescott College does not award credits free of charge," Paul Burkhardt, March 30, 2006.

Mike Rooney, Sacks Tierney PA, knew this because the documents that contradict each other and are each false are College documents refuted by other College documents, and because I made these discrepancies clear, with documentation, in writing to him on several occasions. Nonetheless, he permitted the College to make these falsehoods and allowed them to remain on the public record.

 

 
   

IV.

Mike Rooney, Sacks Tierney PA, said on the record before the Board of the ASBPPSE, that "The College offered Mr. Mendelson many many times to pay his tuition, but he did not accept," May 24, 2007.

excepta
 When I told Mr. Rooney that he had never made such an offer, he replied: "In a technical sense we may not have had an offer on the table to refund the sums you paid in settlement of your claims," Mike Rooney, May 25, email
excepta
 "I haven’t offered you anything," Mike Rooney, April 27, 2007, email. (And nothing in any way was offered, suggested, or hinted at between that email and today.)
excepta
 "The College will never talk with you," Mike Rooney, January 26, 2007.

 

No such offer was ever made to me by the College or any agent of the College. But the College through its attorney, Mr. Rooney, claimed that it had many times (to the ASBPPSE, the HLC (I believe), and the US DoE).

Later, Mike Rooney admitted it was not true, but did not correct the record.

Attorneys do not act independently of their clients. Both Mike Rooney and the College knew this was a lie.

The only possible offers that I am aware of were: 1) an offer to "reopen the dialog" February 12, 2007 memorandum by Mike Rooney. I first saw the memorandum April 26, 2007. I responded that afternoon saying "I am more than willing to talk, discuss, reconcile, compromise." Mr. Rooney's response, giving the lie to his offer, "I haven't offered you anything." 2) In his June 6, 2007, memorandum to me, he suggested that he might be able to have Paul Burkhardt conduct an investigation of my complaint. Inasmuch as Paul Burkhardt is the author of a series of false statements (see above), of misrepresentations, of conflicting, mutually exclusive, explanations, of bogus policies: I felt that this was a litigious offer, and it was not in my best interest.

 

 

 

V.

The College sent the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education (ASBPPSE) my 2002 IRS Tax Form 1040. This is a violation of my privacy rights by law and by College policy itself. I was never asked if it could be made public. It is now in the public record. It is not protected from redisclosure. It is just the sort of thing that leads to identify theft.

My tax form has nothing to do with any aspect of my complaint. It is immaterial to any reasonable response. The ASBPPSE asked Dr. Garvey, personally, for my "academic records only." I believe that releasing it along with the defamatory and libelous statements made in their interview, for example, was intended to discredit, embarrass, and degrade me before any State or Federal agency.

Releasing it to the ASBPPSE, contrary to law and policy, was approved by Dan Garvey, President, Dean Paul Burkhardt, Interim Dean Jeanine Canty, Terril Shorb, Core Faculty. It was seen by College staff in preparation of their responses, and possibly by the College trustees and agent.

It was also seen by staff, investigators, and board at the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education. And, it can be seen by anyone on request.

 

And inasmuch as Mr. Rooney would have reviewed carefully all complaints and responses, I can only assume that he approved the release of my IRS Form 1040 and all other protected information. To my knowledge, as of January 8, 2008, despite bringing this issue to the attention of Mr. Rooney six months ago (Express Mail), and to Dr. Corey's attention 2 months ago (Certified Mail), the financial information and tax form remain on record. No action by either Mr. Rooney or Dr. Corey appears to have been made to remedy this violation of law.

   

 

 
Additional information: Acknowledgments thank you to the hundreds and hundred of visitors.
  Shorb/Burkhardt Interview, Part 1-Nixon John Nixon quotes from the interview (with link to PDF)
 

PDF of Shorb/Burkhardt Interview John Nixon's interview with Shorb & Burkhardt (with link to PDF)
  April 11, 2007, Presentation made to John Nixon and left, with 100 exhibits, 438 pages, with the ASBPPSE (less the exhibits). (Link to PDF)
  Evidence: this page links to my May 9, 2007, request for a fair and impartial investigation, with explicit examples of College statements made to the ASBPPSE and the HLC by Dean Paul Burkhardt and Faculty Advisor Terril Shorb in 2007 that are contradicted directly and explicitly by their own previous statements made in 2006, statements by Burkhardt and Shorb directly and explicitly contradicted by their own documents and contradicted by other documented evidence.
  The ADP Story a few examples of College documents showing typical discrepancies in transcripts and credits.
  Education Issues Links Links to educational issues

What is Libel? (The American definition)

When an injurious false statement is made about an individual, the individual is *defamed*. Defamation can occur in two forms: libel or slander. Libel occurs when there is a written statement injuring an individual, and slander occurs when there is an oral statement that injures an individual. Since on-line is considered to be written material, on-line defamation is considered to be libel.

Libel occurs when a false statement is written which injures an individual by disgracing him. The statement must be about an individual and the readers must be aware that the individual is the subject of the false statement. Furthermore, the defamatory statement must not be an opinion, but rather one of fact. *This is true because . . . only false statements are actionable, and the Supreme Court has held, under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas.* (Internet and the Law, p. 162-163.)
<http:// www. law.buffalo.edu/Academics/courses/629/computer_law_policy_articles/CompLawPapers/holland.htm>

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

<http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/fraud.html>

Defamation
Definition - Noun
1 : communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person

<http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/defamation.html>

 

This is the Prescott College I've known for 3 years.

 

To see actual examples of errors in College documents, click The ADP Story

 

 

Corey, Garvey, Rooney, et. al.

 

 

Dr. Steve Corey, COO of Prescott College, asserted that “Through attorney Michael Rooney, the College has attempted to resolve your dispute. . . . It is my understanding that you were not satisfied with this offer. In fact, you have apparently taken the position that Prescott College never ‘officially’ made this offer” (October 4, 2007, letter—the only communication made to me regarding my complaints by the college between filing them in December, 2005, and Dr. Corey’s October, 2007, and a letter that was sent to a state agency).

In fact, no offer was ever made to me. Not by Mr. Rooney, not by Drs. Corey, Garvey, Burkhardt, or Canty, not by Mr. Shorb. Not by email, letter, phone, discussion, whisper, or thought-wave.

(It should be noted, that Mr. Mark Goodman, esq. emailed me "As a friend (and not as your former lawyer and not as the College's lawyer), I tell you the following: I hope you can resolve your dispute(s) with the College. While I want to stay out of the dispute(s), I am willing to do the following. If you truly want to resolve the dispute(s) and you are willing to go to mediation with the College, I will suggest to the College that they participate in mediation with you. . . . I am looking forward to many more Sunday brunches at your home, which I cannot attend until you and the College have resolved your dispute(s)" (March 20, 2007 email). Is this offer, Dr. Corey's "attempt to resolve"? Is this Mr. Rooney's "he has ignored three recent and separate attempts on my part to enter into discussions [Mr. Goodman wrote 3 emails to me March 20, 21, 22]," April 2, 2007, letter to Ms. Teri Candelaria, Executive Director, ASBPPSE? Neither Mr. Rooney nor anyone from the college, except Mr. Goodman, contacted me in any way between January 22, 2007, and April 26, 2007. Did Mr. Goodman violate ethics rules and contact me representing the college, or just as a friend and alum? Is this Mr. Rooney's explanation for his lie to Ms. Candelaria? Or, were the "three recent and separate attempts" in addition to Mr. Goodman's emails, two strange phone calls around the same time from Judge Hanshen, a friend and alum, and from Daniel Morgenstern, a friend whose wife is on the board of the College of the Atlantic, a sister school? I declined Mr. Goodman's offer for several reasons: 1) It was not made by the college or with their authority--it was speculative. 2) It was for mediation and not arbitration, therefore I could go through the trouble only to have the college walk out: mediation is like family counseling and not binding. 3) I had submitted a second complaint that explicitly documented that Dr. Garvey, Dr. Burkhardt, Dr. Canty, Mr. Shorb and Ms. Mary Trevor had each lied to the ASBPPSE, and pursuant to that complaint the ASBPPSE had authorized, January 22, 2007, hiring an expert investigator. 4) It would cost me thousands of dollars to get counsel, if I even could, see below. 5) The college was legally obliged under FERPA to offer me a document dependent academic hearing, which Mr. Rooney had rebuked, but which I hoped might happen given the pressure of a forthright investigation. I believe that like so much--we offered to repay his tuition, we offered to reconcile, we made exception after exception to policy, we worked with him in good faith, we constructed a curriculum because he was unable to--Mr. Goodman's offer was much more about appearances than resolution: after all, only a few weeks early, Mr. Rooney said "The college will never talk with you.")

Mr. Rooney said to me, when I tried to initiate a discussion of the issues, “The college will never talk with you” (January 22, 2007, my first communication with Mr. Rooney, a witnessed conversation). “I haven’t offered you anything” (Rooney, 04.27.07 email) “We may not have had an offer on the table to refund the sums you paid” (Rooney, 05.25.07, email). “I told Mr. Mendelson that the college had no interest in re-opening these issues” (Michael Rooney, September 10, 2007, letter). These are not words made with an “open minded and a spirit of compromise and cooperation.” They are firm, deliberate, unequivocal, and mean.

No one at the college or the college attorney made any attempt to “resolve” my dispute between July 2005 and today, January 4, 2008—no letters, no emails (Mr. Shorb emailed to say I had “imagined” higher awards, and that “there were no discrepancies”), no phone calls, no meetings, no hearings. Dr. Corey, COO of Prescott College, made a knowingly false statement of fact.

“Mr. Rooney was authorized to offer to return all of the tuition you paid to Prescott College,” Dr. Corey. As noted above, no such offer was ever made by Mr. Rooney, in fact, exactly the opposite: but how persuasive to the ASBPPSE, the HLC, the US DoE.

I believe that Dr. Corey made these false statements, which given the context of the communications, Mr. Rooney’s actual words in writing, solely to protect Mr. Rooney during an investigation into his ethics and behavior.

Because I am unaware of any attempt to reconcile by the college or to repay my tuition, I asked Dr. Corey who made those offers and when. He replied, “We understand your point about the existence, or lack thereof, concerning prior offers. Again, we disagree. Yet again, we remain interested in an amicable resolution and are willing to agree to disagree on this point” (Corey, October, 15, 2007, (letters).

If a serious offer had been made, wouldn’t he know by whom and when? But what does "we . . . are willing to agree to disagree" mean? I believe that this is the perfect examle of Prescott College ethics.

Under Federal law (Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, FERPA), the college (any college under FERPA) is legally obliged to offer me a document based hearing of the issues. No hearing was ever offered. Many times, I requested an issue by issue, hearing, and it was refused: “The college will never talk with you” (Michael Rooney, January 22, 2007); “I told Mr. Mendelson that the college had no interest in re-opening these issues” (Michael Rooney, September 10, 2007, letter).

On November 13, 2007, by certified mail, I tried again to initiate an issue by issue hearing: Dr. Corey ignored my effort. Dr. Corey, Dr. Garvey, President, Drs. Canty and Burkhardt, Deans, all violated FERPA by not offering me a hearing, which is also college policy. Dr. Corey and Mr. Rooney (an education law specialist) actively and willfully violated FERPA by refusing to hold a hearing , even when asked for.

I am adding these examples because Mr. Rooney, who requested that I either remove my pages or excise various words, himself made knowingly false statements of material fact to state and federal agencies. Without the benefit of discovery, here are a few of several dozen examples:

1) Falsehood: “The college has offered over and over to repay his tuition but he has refused each time” (Rooney, 05.24.07, to the ASBPPSE); “I repeatedly . . . specifically asked if Prescott College paid Mr. Mendelson back 100% of the tuition that he had paid” (Rooney, September 10, 2007, letter to the SBoA). No offer was ever made by anyone (until October 4, 2007); rather Mr. Rooney said “The college will never talk with you” (Rooney, 01.22.07). “I haven’t offered you anything” (Rooney, 04.27.07 email) “We may not have had an offer on the table to refund the sums you paid” (Rooney, 05.25.07 email). Mr. Rooney does not say when or how he or the college “offered over and over,” or, let alone, even one time. I believe "The college will never talk with you," and "I haven't offered you anything," are explicit and mean exactly what they say: speaking as the college, Mr. Rooney said to me no offer of anything had ever been made.

2) Falsehood: “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 apparently made to the US Department of Education” (Rooney, 09.10.07 to the SBoA). However, “The College’s attorney mentioned, however, that the college would be willing to pay your student loan as a remedy to the matter . . . Michael Rooney was the attorney” (Gayle Palumbo, US DoE, 02.17.07 and 09.17.07 respectively). Therefore, Mr. Rooney is implying that either the US DoE lied to me, or I forged emails to commit a fraud.

3) Falsehood: “I was hired to provide general business advice for Prescott College” (Rooney, 09.10.07, to the SBoA). Given that the college seems to have used nearly every local attorney for general business, why would they go a hundred miles away for a higher priced education specialist for general business? The answer, however is “This law firm represents Prescott College with respect to a student complaint that Mr. Mendelson made with the State Board. . . I look forward to working with the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education” (Rooney, 07.25.07 to the ASBPPSE).

4) Falsehood: “I have never seen anything [from or by the college] . . . untruthful in any way” (Rooney, 09.10.07, to the SBoA). However, Mr. Rooney himself described how Mr. Shorb and Dr. Burkhardt were untruthful (“a bit of an overstatement”) to the ASBPPSE when they asserted that the box they had with them contained “thousands and thousands and thousands of pages” of “drafts and drafts” of coursework and curricula, transcripts, etc., but, Mr. Rooney said later, “the vast bulk was reprints from your website” (Rooney, 06.06.07 memorandum). After describing material evidence in the box, Mr. Shorb and Dr. Burkhardt left the interview with it. They made a misrepresentation to the investigator then removed all evidence of that misrepresentation: Mr. Rooney acknowledged both unethical acts. (Needless to say, Mr. Rooney saw all the documents used to support my complaints, and read the college's responses: all of which show dozens of statements by the college that were untruthful.)

5) Falsehood: “I have never seen anything [from or by the college] . . . untruthful in any way” (Rooney, 09.10.07, to the SBoA). Mr. Rooney saw, read, and heard me read (04.26.07) Dr. Burkhardt’s lie “Mr. Mendelson was unwilling or unable to submit life experience documentation,” from his 1.18.06, 03.30.06, 09.28.06 responses, asserted as truthful in false declarations by Mr. Shorb and Dr. Canty, signed 03.30.06: but I showed him, sent him, and described to him the certified emails (readnotify.com) sent to Mr. Shorb with 9 pages of life documentation, which was read by Mr. Shorb and two other people 14 times, and which Mr. Shorb attached to an email to me, including the certified number—but which Mr. Shorb, Dr. Canty, and Dr. Burkhardt denied ever receiving. More generally, Mr. Rooney saw and read all of the documents within my complaints (see AZ ER 1 regarding the meanings of "knowing" and "reasonably knew" as well as the obligations of an attorney to his client and tribunals, ER 3, 4, 5, 8). He read the college responses. He read the recorded and transcribed interviews by Mr. Shorb and Dr. Burkhardt.

6) Falsehood: Mr. Rooney said to the ASBPPSE on September 28, 2006, "I think its outrageous. Um the allegations of fraud, extortion, a theft, forgeries, while they may be privileged in a limited context in the in in the in the proceedings such as this are absolutely illegal per se and that is our problem but I want you to know about that." (Mr. Rooney appears to have admitted that the college had committed something “illegal per se” and that “is our problem.”)

I never accused the college of theft. In his 09.10.07 letter, Mr. Rooney said that I had talked with him ("In at least one conversation . . . Mr. Mendelson used the word 'theft' in our conversations" emphasis added) several times prior to the 09.28.06 ASBPPSE Complaint Committee meeting (he claims he was at the "April 2006" meeting: but my complaint was not discussed at the April 2006 meeting and I was not there) and that I had accused the college of “theft” of art work: except I had never seen or heard of Mr. Rooney, or of Sacks Tierney P.A., until he stood up to speak at the 09.28.06 meeting, introduced himself, used my name (putting it on the public record) in violation of state statute about which we had been advised minutes before, and he said I had accused the college of theft. I never accused college of theft, nor had I discussed the art and its return with anyone—I mentioned it only once, and that was in my official complaint in answer to the ASBPPSE's question, what do you want if your complaint is upheld: “I gave the College $3000 of art work—I would ask for its return.” My first communication with Mr. Rooney was a January 22, 2007, witnessed conversation four months later.

Mr. Rooney made a knowingly false statement of fact regarding my saying “theft” and his explanation is a knowingly false statement of fact. The accusation that I accused the college of theft, an accusation by an ethically responsible, officer of the court, is persuasive--and it intentionally fits the intentionally defamatory mischaracterization of me by the college. His one page explanation--when he could have said, "I misspoke," or "I believe what I said was 'threat,'" or "the tape is not clear at that point"--makes it clear that it was a intentional defamation, which he rationalized with falsehoods, suggesting we could have talked at the April 2006 Complaint Committee meeting, the minutes of which show I was not in attendance.

7) At Mr. Rooney's request, Mr. James W. Armstrong, an attorney with Sacks Tierney, P.A., wrote two letters dated January 30 and February 20, 2007, stating that "the ASBPPSE . . . carefully investigated and rejected . . . Mr. Mendelson's complaint against our client in its entirety." However, on January 22, one week before the first letter, the ASBPPSE voted to hire an investigator to review my complaints. Mr. Armstrong made a false statement of fact.

If Mr. Rooney told Mr. Armstrong about the status of the complaints, then Mr. Armstrong made knowingly false statements of material fact. If Mr. Rooney reviewed the letters written in behalf of his client, then he permitted Mr. Armstrong to make false statements.

The result of Mr. Armstrong's falsehoods about the investigation and findings and his defamations (he accused me of making "blatantly false," "pernicious," "malicious campaign," "libelous," statements against the college, however see examples for college documents that explicitly show that my complaints were explicitly true) was that my web pages were removed without notice and labeled "Forbidden. Read access forbidden." In this day of being rerouted to pornographic pages on the Internet, of websites that espouse hate and violence, of readily available web instructions on bomb making, what is worse than "Forbidden"? Despite having to move my site to another webhost, those pages remain cached in Google searches.

Mr. Armstrong claims that whatever the harms, they "are in no manner the responsibility of either myself or my law firm." Because he was acting at the bequest of Mr. Rooney and the College, they too have no responsibility in this.

8) Mr. Armstrong was chastised by the State Bar of Arizona. In his August 10, 2007, response, he wrote "I had not been informed of those actions [that the ASBPPSE had rescinded their dismissal of first complaint based on new evidence, had combined that complaint with one based on a FOIA, and hired a investigator--Mr. Rooney was at that meeting, sitting next to me, so he certainly knew] and was otherwise not aware of them at the time I drafted and sent my January 31 and February 20 letters. . . . Indeed, I have never been personally involved and have had no direct or indirect role in handling any of the disciplinary proceedings before that licensing board" (emphasis added).

But four months before Mr. Armstrong's supposed first and only involvement with Mr. Rooney's client, he wrote a 20 page letter in behalf of the college, to Network Solutions, dated "September __, 2006" which was part of the ASBPPSE's "Investigative Report, Complaint #06-S008 Complaint Committee Meeting September 28, 2006": a disciplinary proceeding before a licensing board. Mr. Armstrong made a knowingly false statement of material fact to a tribunal.

The SBoA bar counsel found not probable cause.

("Thus, it is a separate professional offense for a lawyer to knowingly make a misrepresentation or omission in connection with a disciplinary investigation of the lawyer's own conduct. . . . We expect and demand candor in disciplinary proceedings, particularly because attorneys are officers of the court. . . Lying during such proceedings is one of the most serious ethical violations an attorney can commit, and absent mitigating circumstance, warrants the ultimate sanction of disbarment" (citation). And AZ ER 3.3: "A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal [by definition the ASBPPSE, the SBoA, and possibly the US DoE] or fail to correct a false statement or material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer . . . offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. . . A lawyer who represent a client in an adjudicative proceeding [the ASBPPSE, possibly the US DoE] and who know that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measure, including, if necessary disclosure to the tribunal . . . even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected."

In Dr. Corey’s October 4, 2007 letter, the college “will return to you all of the tuition that you paid in exchange for you withdrawing any pending complaint that you may have before any entity and giving the College a complete release of any claim that you may have. . . . please contact Michael R. Rooney.” So, for about half of what I owe in a student loan, I will drop all past, present, and future claims against the college, and I will work this out with Mr. Rooney whose words and actions appear less than honorable in this matter. Despite the risks of future problems:

President Dan Garvey’s willful and personal violation of FERPA law by personally disclosing my IRS Year 2002 Form 1040, which was protected from any and all disclosure by the college according to FERPA, the US Dept. of Ed.(when it was requested as part of a validation process), and college policy.

(The ASBPPSE wrote to Dr. Garvey, 02.28.06, requesting the “student’s academic record only.” Dr. Garvey had to specifically authorize the release of protected documents, because the law defaults to non-disclosure, without, for example, a court order. Not only were the financial documents explicitly protected by both FERPA and college policy, but they were irrelevant and immaterial to my complaints, and explicitly not asked for. Dr. Garvey reviewed the released documents in the 03.30.06 response, and sent it out under his signature, April 4, 2006. (Mr. Shorb and Dr. Canty gave false declarations to the ASBPPSE with this response.) Given Mr. Shorb and Dr. Burkhardt’s malicious defamations (see examples elsewhere on this page), published and distributed by the ASBPPSE, my tax form showing no personal income for 2002—art sales ended abruptly with 9/11/01—plays into their mischaracterizations. What other purpose than to hurt, embarrass, and discredit me could the release have served? In reviewing, approving and sending out the 03.30.06 response, Dr. Garvey approved statements regarding Dr. Steve Walters that he knew to be false.)

Despite Dr. Garvey’s willful and personal violation of FERPA and college policy by releasing protected financial aid documents.

Despite defamations by Terril Shorb and Paul Burkhardt that are on the public record.

No one but a fool would agree to those terms, certainly not without counsel, but after some six months of looking, I cannot find anyone who would represent me: the college has conflicted out virtually everyone I’ve called. I have gotten estimates that if I could find a lawyer, it would cost me at least $14,000, regardless of any settlement.

The financial records, including my IRS joint filing are on the public record--Mr. Rooney maintains that under ASR §32-3058, §41-1347 and §41-1351 "the file is not a public record document"; but those sections refer to academic records, not the IRS Tax Form 1040, or the financial aid records. Those documents were protected under explicitly FERPA and under the review and validation authorization process by the US Dept. of Ed, which did not prevent disclosure or redisclosure. According to crime information, much identity theft comes from public records. The college's offer was for me to sign away any and all rights regarding any possible harm, to be negotiated between me and Mr. Michael Rooney, who himself not only knew of and permitted the FERPA violations, the protected disclosures, the deceptive, misleading, and false statements made by the college to stand, uncorrected on the record (his ethical obligation under AZ ER 3 was to correct these even if it violated client confidentiality, but it would not have), but had made knowingly false statements of material fact that harmed me.

The libels by Dr. Burkhardt and Mr. Shorb are not an educational record, so they remain on the public record. They are not protected.

Excerpted from recorded interviews of Mr. Shorb and Dr. Burkhardt with Dr. Nixon, for the ASBPPSE: “[A] Mendelson claimed he worked in national security, but that [Mendelson said] is classified . . . this stuff comes out of his head . . . [B] he [has] never been independently published, it is a pattern of his life . . . [C] he carried on a crusade against the publishing industry . . . He’s done this against the nursing industry . . . [D] hasn’t been in a work setting with people for 15 years . . . he hasn’t been back to college for 35 years . . . he only did three classes being a full time student between 1967-1969 . . . he doesn’t get out of his house . . . [E] blizzards of stuff . . . duffle bags of manuscripts . . . thousand and thousands of pages . . . [F] mad professor . . . [G] he said ‘I will not work with her [Dr. Canty]. I will not work with her. . . [H] there was some kind of intention to purposely set us up.” (What did Mr. Shorb and Dr. Burkhardt say when they were not being recorded by a court reporter, when they were off the record?)

A) Who would listen to or believe anyone who claims to have "worked in national security but that is classified. This stuff comes from his head"? No one. But this is what I actually said to Mr. Shorb about my work history:

[In answer to, “you must address the fact that you have no ‘witnesses’ to your accomplishing various ‘products’ of your artistic and other work,” Terril Shorb] “I have or had witnesses. Betty Ford was on the board of directors who hired me to write Conspiracy of Silence, based on samples of my writing; I will not, however, intrude into her life to ask her if she remembers this from 10 years ago. Goodyear published International Advertising Campaigns; I have no idea if anyone is still at Goodyear who would remember the book; Goodyear International no longer exists; Goodyear Tire and Rubber has a policy to say nothing about current or previous employees. I took a master class from Jean Pierre Rampal, which he more than witnessed, but he died a few years ago. I worked with Frederick Sommer in visual arts, writing, and music for thirty years: he died in 1999. My work is hardly secret and is not unwitnessed. Regarding any comments from those people most intimate with my visual and musical work, please consult my attorney, Mark Goodman, 445-3230” (June 23, July 20, 2004, emails). My resume submitted as part of my enrollment application, and my resume submitted as part of the graduation requirements are consistent with this.

Mr. Shorb knew the truth and lied. The only reason to lie was to discredit and hurt me.

B) "He [has] never been independently published, it is a pattern of his life." ). As Mr. Shorb knew that I had been independently published because he saw my portfolio, we discussed many of my works, and we discussed publishing and printing because he has a small press, Native West Press, nativewestpress.com. I have books published by Nazraeli Press, Goodyear, Spectrum, and Masquerade, music published/recorded by Columbia Records, Sire Records, Straight Bizarre Records, Nazraeli; art published by Nazraeli, Oxford, and Epilogue. I have had stories published Bloc, Arizona Literary Magazine.

Mr. Shorb knew the truth and lied. The only reason to lie was to discredit and hurt me.

C) "He carried on a crusade against the publishing industry . . . He’s done this against the nursing industry." Mr. Shorb claimed that he had evidence of this, and suggested that it was in the box of "thousands and thousands and thousands of pages"--evidence of a "pattern of his life," but after saying it, he and Dr. Burkhardt left the interview with the evidence. However, Mr. Rooney said Shorb and Burkhardt had misrepresented the contents, which were reprints of my website. There is no evidence unless Mr. Shorb altered pages purportedly from my website--and he has materially altered documents before (example.)

Mr. Shorb made assertions of true fact that are false. I have never carried on a crusade against the publishing industry or the nuring industry, there is no evidence of that on my website or any other website that I am aware of. The only reason to lie was to discredit and hurt me.

D) These are dealt with above.

E) "Blizzards of stuff . . . duffle bags of manuscripts . . . thousand and thousands of pages." The total number of pieces of paper submitted by me for 14 LEP Portfolios, a research paper (2 drafts), the CIA and LAS classes, was 1,700 pages. Total. That’s 94 pages per college level, upper division, course. Most of my course work was Art Alternative Portfolio (APA), Life Experience Portfolios (LEP) portfolios that are, in essence, a teaching outline for each course. Other than submitting a first draft of my research paper, all my work was submitted complete, final, and each at one time only in one binder. I do not own a duffle bag, nor anything like one. I submitted 19 projects/courses/chapters. No more.

None of Mr. Shorb's written evaluations, nor any of his emails, responses etc., nor any of Dr. Burkhardt's responses, from August 2004 to September 2006, say, let alone suggest or even hint at, my having submitted "draft after draft" of anything, no "blizzards," no "many versions" or that I had "imagined" it was any better than average. In fact, his evaluations describe me and my work as exceeding the quality and breadth of college level creative writing, of organized and thoughtful submissions, of a professional competence and understanding.

Ninety-four pages per class does not seem out of line for upper division coursework. And, in every case where my submission exceeded 20-25 pages, I either selected 20-25 pages for Mr. Shorb's review (he was not only my Core Faculty Advisor, but my Evaluator, Reader, Mentor, Research Paper Committee), or I prepared a synopsis. In other words, for 19 projects/courses/chapters, he had only to read a total of less than 400 pages. I have every submission, every evaluation, every written comment and email (digital with original header information and paper).

One class I did not do, Mr. Shorb described in September, 2006, how I had submitted a complete, separate, distinct, novel and treatment entitled To Serve the Devil, for which he gave me separate credit for a novel and for a screenplay (although he claimed I did not submit it). However, I did not write or submit anything entitled To Serve the Devil, and Mr. Shorb did not write an evaluation of any work with that title. Then, in April, 2007, Mr. Shorb's story changed, To Serve the Devil was not another book that I had submitted, but it was an unfinished draft, one of "many drafts," that I brought to him in a "duffle bag," but that when I realized that I had "broken copyright law" by using someone else's title, I changed it. Every explanation by Mr. Shorb for the To Serve the Devil credit is a lie, and is contradicted by his own contemporaneous evaluations. But the lie ties in nicely with the fact that by April, 2007, I had spent 4000+ hours trying to protect my name and rights. I had filed detailed, completely documented, complaints. When Dr. John Nixon asked me to bring all of my documents for his "document dependent" investigation, I walked in with three banker's boxes of documents--"blizzards of paper." I fell for Mr. Shorb's (Mr. Rooney's?) apparent strategy.

Mr. Shorb knew the truth and lied. The only reason to lie was to discredit and hurt me.


F) "Mad professor," all of my answers address this.

G) "He said ‘I will not work with her [Dr. Canty]. I will not work with her." This is part of Mr. Shorb and Dr. Burkhardt's effort to characterize me as unreasonable and perhaps even racist. They assert I said that throughout both recorded interviews. But it is a lie. I asked Mr. Shorb to help me work with Dr. Canty at two meetings, June 8 and July 22, 2004. I asked him for help because I expected that I would work with her in 5 emails: May 18, June 8, June 23, and 2 on July 20, 2004 (the second email was sent certified, it was read 14 times by 3 people): "It will be she I have to work with [May 18]. I still have to work with Jeanine [June 8]. I will be working with her, and she will be reviewing and judging much of my work [June 23, July 20]."

Mr. Shorb knew the truth and lied. The only reason to lie was to discredit and hurt me.

[H] "There was some kind of intention to purposely set us up," how well this fits with "When you look at the documents from this part of his life, I see a lot of the same language . . . collusion . . . More worrisome . . . in one of his documents, which I have here [the box of "thousands and thousands and thousands of pages"] he talked about that same sort of conspiracy and academe that there was this hint that academe engages in activities bordering on the criminal. I remember having a bit of a chill at that point. . . . This stuff comes out of his head."

I filed an appeal with Dean Canty on July 28, 2005, saying that I had found some discrepancies between the work I had done and her awards. Rather than following college policy, she referred me to Terril Shorb, who said I had "imagined" higher credit awards, higher credit awards he had, in fact, made in writing. Dozens of knowingly false statements of material fact were made to me; knowingly false statements were made about me, in writing and orally, many of which were printed and published, that mischaracterize me in a way that damages my reputation, character and good name; despite explicit signed contracts, monies were paid by me when the business and registrar's offices put a hold on my account preventing any possibility of graduation until such monies were paid), altered documents were used to justify the billing, I was told that if I appealed (regardless of the outcome) my "hours would be removed and you will have to start over."

Drs. Corey and Burkhardt have asserted that "the college takes student complaints very seriously." And, clearly, they do.

I worked hard and submitted very good work. I can show that 45-60 upper division credits were ultimately removed by Terril Shorb from my official transcripts although originally awarded by Terril Shorb; I received credit for 3 classes I did not take; the official transcripts contain two documents which say "Lower division credits awarded" for my course work.

But all of this is somehow something I've perpetrated against the College as a set up. The college responses have consistently taken the position that I abused the college's largesse, generosity, and tolerance. "Walton insists 'I don't need no stinkin' mentor . . . we'll try to honor whatever sort of ridiculous complaint comes our way so we can take it up to God. . . it's about the facts--simply because he calls a fact and signs a paper that says I agree the foregoing is forgery, under penalty, blah, blah, blah, doesn't make it fact. . . . It just seems like karma gone crazy. But the people you make special accommodations for tend to be the ones who tend to create problems in the future. . . . Like finding a dead body in the back seat of your car. . . . I'm really praying. This has been an ordeal for my family and me. May God be with you as you put this together." "Thank you, he usually is," Dr. John Nixon.

(As yet another example of the college's lies, while Mr. Shorb and Dr. Burkhardt insisted that I refused to do any mentored learning, my approved curriculum shows one mentored class for the second term for statistics. I didn't design in other mentored classes because I didn't need to as Mr. Shorb and I conceived my curriculum. It was Mr. Shorb, in March, 2005, who said I did not need to take the second term.)

I sent my fully documented complaint to each of the Prescott College Board of 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) on July 11, 2006. I sent them a link to a fully documented complaint that Drs. Garvey, Burkhardt, and Canty, Mr. Shorb, and Ms. Mary Trevor has all made knowingly deceptive, misleading, and false statements of fact to the ASBPPSE and the HLC, on February 6, 2007. I sent them (including new trustees David Meeks, and Suzanne Pfister) a link to a more general summary, including the FERPA violations personally committed by Drs. Garvey, Burkhardt, and Canty, and their attorney Mr. Rooney.

Attorneys do not act without their client's consent. Mr. Rooney's falsehoods have to be seen as approved by the college. If the college's attorney Mr. Mark Goodman, esq. gave the Trustees the same advice he gave me regarding the fiduciary duties of a trustee, they are each responsible for the actions of the college. They certainly knew the substance of my complaints and had seen the evidence--college emails, letters, contracts, evaluations, curriculum, etc. Therefore, I assume that ultimately they approved the actions of Messrs. Rooney and Armstrong, and of Drs. Corey, Garvey, Burkhadt, and Canty, and Mr. Shorb—including the release of protected financial information, the defamations, the misrepresentations, etc.

 

 

Why These Pages

Most simply:

My transcripts show some 40-50 percent error. I wanted credit for the work I did, and I did not want credit for work I did not do. Following my appeal to the Dean—in which Dr. Canty violated federal (FERPA) policy and college appeal processes—Mr. Shorb told me that I had "imagined" higher awards: but, for example, Mr. Shorb's own evaluation of "Environmental Writing, states: "Full requested credit of 10 upper division units are hereby given"; but the transcripts show "5."

I did not not "imagine anything. Mr. Shorb lied. Now, three years later, the college claims I misunderstand the "methodology" and I do not agree with the "evaluative results." However, 10 does not equal 5, and in all the words from the college in response to my complaints, they have never addressed this. Never.

I was proud of the work I did, and the contemporaneous evaluations were embarrassingly glowing (. And, I worked hard. For example: By the time I took the Liberal Arts Seminar, for 3 credit hours, I was apprehensive of Mr. Shorb and Dr. Canty, so I kept track of my hours. Using the college's formula of 30 homework hours for each credit hour, I could have expected to spend approximately 90 hours completing the coursework. Not including the prerequisite work (reading a book, which I read twice at the time, and had read several times before, and keeping a diary), or the seminar itself, I spent 365 hours, and according to the faculty, my work was impressive by any standard. That is the attitude and work ethic I brought to all my coursework. Since mid-2005, I am ashamed of my involvement. I am ashamed I tried to get a degree. I feel the work I did is tainted.

I had planned with Mr. Shorb's advice to take two terms to get my BA, then to enroll in the college's graduate program. Although the college graduated me after only one term (Mr. Shorb's idea, not mine, and this was contrary to the curriculum we had drafted and which was approved and contracted for), even before my complaint, the behavior of Dr. Canty, Dr. Burkhardt, Dr. Garvey, and Mr. Shorb made enrolling in the graduate program impossible.

Instead of meeting with me and attempting to reconcile the errors, the college denied any and all error, defamed me, refused to meet and discuss the issues (violating federal law, FERPA). Reading and listening to Dr. Burkhardt and Mr. Shorb's interviews, it is now apparent just how malicious their defamations were to the ASBPPSE from the beginning and to anyone else looking into my complaints.

The longer version:

I attended Prescott College 1967-1969. I did not finish my degree. As a student then, I performed two concerts that raised money for purchasing a magnificent concert grand piano, which the College lost when it went bankrupt. I worked a year for the College to protect property it used in the Tonto National Forest. I performed a third concert for their 25th anniversary. As board member of the Frederick & Francis Sommer Foundation, I recommended that the Sommer house be used for a student residency scholarship-which is, to my knowledge, still ongoing. I knew many alumni, faculty, board members, their agent, and several previous presidents. So when in 2003 I decided to complete my degree and get a Masters, it was natural for me to apply, with letters of recommendation from a previous board member and the College's agent, to the Prescott College Adult Degree Program.

But the quality and morality of the ADP faculty and administration appears to have changed from what I knew to what I experienced:

I allege, and I have some one hundred supporting documents, that show: I was given a degree that is based on transcripts that are 40-50% wrong (giving credits for coursework I did not do, and listing credits that are as little as 1/4 what was originally awarded in writing); I was billed for extra enrollment hours despite explicit contracts to the contrary (contracts for an approved curriculum that I successfully completed with no more and no less work than approved, and explicitly showing the approved enrollment-hour credits paid for); the College altered documents to "prove" I had contracted for additional hours; I was told that if I pursued a grievance "we will remove the hours from your record and you will have to start over" whether I won the grievance or not; most of the College's answers to my documented, issue by issue complaints, were second-hand hearsay, fabricated stories, and personal attacks; the release of confidential tax information; vicious defamations; made up policies, etc.; the College (Terril Shorb, Jeanine Canty, Paul Burkhardt, Mary Trevor, Dan Garvey) and its attorneys (James Armstrong and Mike Rooney, Sacks Tierney PA) made knowingly deceptive, misleading, and false statements to State and Federal agencies (See April 11 presentation, College Responses, May 9 part 00, May 9 part 01, May 9 part 02, May 9 part 03, May 9 part 04, May 9 part 05, May 9 part 06, May 9 part 07, May 9 part 08, May 9 part 09, May 9 part 10,