Capella University abuses and retaliates against students who stand up to their incompetent instructors, such as Diane Stottlemyer (who literally used fake degrees she bought from a diploma mill).
Stottlemyer still teaches at Capella at least eight years AFTER Capella found out about her fake degrees).
One of those students, who demanded all his education records as REQUIRED by Federal Law after Capella threw him out of their degrees-for-dollars school without any due process, is still waiting for Capella University and their unethical and lying shysters to turn those records over nearly than FOUR YEARS after the first request was made. Specifically, those records were first demanded on July 10.
The student has demanded those records MULTIPLE TIMES under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a Federal law that REQUIRES all schools (including scams like Capella University) to produce those records within just 45 DAYS of the request. Again, well over FOUR YEARS have gone by and Capella University continues to violate Federal law.
Why won't Capella University abide by the law? The answer is simple by turning those records over, it can also be easily proven that their sleazy shysters, Greg Thom and Priscilla McNulty, have both lied to law enforcement agencies and have also obstructed justice by doing so. These records also prove, without question, that Capella University actively seeks to throw out students who have done exemplary work in their courses but stand up to incompetent charlatans like Diane Stottlemyer and also show that other unethical Capella University officials including but not limited to: Michael Offerman (Capella's Vice Chairman of External Affairs), Lisa Wheeler (former Vice President), Karen Viechnicki (Provost), Kurt Lindberg (Executive Director and Dean for one of Capella's substandard schools), and many others, have all acted with gross disregard for the rights of students and, indeed, refuse to abide by Capella's ever-changing written policies.
More than a full year ago, on September 24, the United States Department of Education. Family Policy Compliance Office determined that Capella University had violated FERPA on more than TEN different counts, concerning some of the initial demands for records made back in 2004. Michael Offerman was personally told (and this is a direct quote from law enforcement to Michael Offerman) that [Capella] that the University violated FERPA when it did not provide the records outlined below to the Student within 45 days of his July 10 [2004] request. As usual, Michael Offerman and the other unethical liars and lawbreakers at Capella University ignored that fact that their bogus university intentionally violated the law and refused to comply.
Several month later, Priscilla McNulty lied to the Federal law enforcement by stating that All of the documentation referred to in the September 24 letter, including e-mails and notes taken by various individuals, was produced as part of the discovery process in that case. Many of these documents were produced subject to a protective order issued by the Court. Therefore, although [the Student] may not have direct access to or possession of these documents, they are in the possession of his attorney.
It is an indisputable FACT that Priscilla McNulty lied (which will be noted in greater detail below)! Lying and grossly hypocritical behavior is something that Priscilla McNulty has been able to get away with for a very long time. For example, Priscilla McNulty pretends to be a good Roman Catholic and even accepts awards from the University of St. Thomas (a Roman Catholic School): she is a recipient of their Monsignor James Lavin Award.
Priscilla McNulty also supports ripping live babies out of their mothers' wombs and has not only served on the Board of Directors of the Minnesota Women's Campaign Fund (also known as womenwinning [sic and sick]) whose mission is to encourage, promote and expand support for pro-choice women's leadership. Obviously means that Capella's very own goodie-two-shoes devote Catholic Priscilla McNulty also serves in leadership roles for an organization that during its first 25 years directed nearly $2 million to PAC funds of those that support killing babies.
One has got to hand to those who kill babies. According to a news article about the Minnesota Women's Baby Killers Campaign Fund, one of their celebrity supporter proudly proclaimed that in the 1300s, Catholic justices of the medieval church acknowledged that abortion was a personal decision, and a separation of law and religion was required in deciding its legality. Is that great?! Well, by the 1300's the Inquisition was in full swing and Catholic justices of the medieval church were also slaughtering innocent women and children. Could these justices been simply helping woman to take control of their bodies (in order to prevent more witches from being born)? According to another source, Those were dark years for many people, but particularly for the women. Age and beauty did not matter. Even the rich governor's wife could be held for questioning and put to death for practicing witchcraft, if there was another woman involved with the husband, or a jealous previous girlfriend. Children were often held and put to death with their mothers, as all knew mothers taught their children everything. To be stripped, searched prodded and poked by a number of men, and then thrown into a cell without food or water, to await either torture or death would probably have driven many mad.
McNulty isn't the only one from Capella University who has apparently learned a lot from the Inquisitions students abused by Capella also get subjected to inquisitions involving Greg Thom, Kurt Linberg, Michael Offerman, Karen Viechnicki, and many others who intentionally deprive students of all due process rights and conduct Kangaroo Courts. After that, students can then be subjected to endless days of abusive depositions (make that inquisitions) by H. Christian L'Orange from one of Capella's law firms, Drinker Biddle & Reath. Like all those from Capella University, L'Orange also obstructs justice by lying about turning documents over as required under Federal law and actively participates in furthering the their McCarthyism.
As a result of Capella University ongoing refusal to produce records more than FOUR YEARS after they were demanded and in direct defiance of Federal laws and court orders, the United States Department of Education issued the following two letters demanding, again, that Capella University to not only comply with Federal law and has demanded that they submit a statement acknowledging that they understands and complies with the requirements of FERPA.
Capella has also been warned that, no funds administered by the [United States] Secretary of Education shall be made available to an educational agency or institution that has a policy or practice of releasing or providing access to education records, or personally identifiable information from education records without the prior written consent of a parent or eligible student except as authorized by law.
The following letters to Michael Offerman speak for themselves:
United states department of education office of planning. Evaluation and policy development
December 17
Mr. Michael Offerman President
Capella University
222 South 9th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Complaint No. *
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
Dear Mr. Offerman:
This letter is in regard to the complaint filed under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by (Student) against Capella University (University). By letter dated September 24, (enclosed) this Office informed you of our findings in this case and explained that in order to close the investigation of the Student's allegation - that the University denied him access to his education records -the University would need to allow the Student an opportunity to inspect and review the 10 items that we outlined for the University on behalf of the Student.in sum, the Student outlined those 10 items as follows:
1) Item 1 - It appears as if I was discussed in the online course room long after I was locked out.information sent to OCR from the Stottlemyer's "evaluation" from another student indicates this.
2) Item 3 - In Ms. Tamara Kuchar's interview with OCR, she states that she provided "copies of her notes [pertaining to me] to the [Academic Standards Committee] ASC..."
3) Item 6 - OCR's interview notes that Linberg "reviewed" postings I made in the class (prior to July 9) and then shared and discussed the contents of these with "other administrators, the instructor [Diane Stottlemyer], and staff members."
4) Item 8 - OCR did not disclose this person's name but identifies her as the person responsible for "reviewing student petitions for credits for courses taken at other universities", etc. She notes that she [met] with 'the Dean, Faculty Director, Instructor to review and discuss the posting." This 'posting' was apparently made by me at the very beginning of the course (which would place it prior to July 4).
5) Item 9 - OCR's interview notes that this person "[became] aware [of] and looked at a second "posting" made before July 9.
6) Item 14 - OCR notes that this person "recalled that outside the conference call (April) [I] was very vocal about problems [I] was encountering; however [I] was less vocal during the conference call"
7) Item 15 - OCR notes that this person was 'contacted by the Faculty Advisor" who wanted to lock me out of the course room.
8) Item 16 - OCR's interview states that this person had access to "postings in the course discussion board [and] the group [the ASC] was made aware that some of the postings [sic] were also posted on the general discussion board.
9) Item 17 - OCR's materials note that this person stated that the ASC reviewed "all the correspondence and postings."
10) Item 20 - OCR's interview notes that this person stated "a few days
after the course started [he] received a phone call from the Instructor [Diane Stottlemyer] regarding posts I had made on "the course discussion board."
In the University's response dated December 12, from its Counsel, Ms. Priscilla McNulty, asserts the following:
As you may be aware, [the Student] brought legal action against Capella in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. All of the documentation referred to in the September 24 letter, including e-mails and notes taken by various individuals, was produced as part of the discovery process in that case. Many of these documents were produced subject to a protective order issued by the Court. Therefore, although [the Student] may not have direct access to or possession of these documents, they are in the possession of his attorney. The protective order was issued by the Court due to concerns about [the Student's] activities on the internet. Taking into consideration the Court's protective order, Capella believes it has fully complied with all of the action items outlined in the September 24, letter.
On June 26, the United States District Court Central District of California issued a finding that states in part " (6) Within ten days of today's date, Capella will designate documents responsive to the categories identified in the United State Department of Education... September 24, letter and provide them to [the Student's attorney], who may provide them to [the Student]." The Student recently informed this Office that he has not been provided access to the 10 items. On July 2, the same court issued a Notice of Compliance with Order, and in it the University states that it will comply with the June 26 order as follows:
In response to the court's order, Capella is in the process of forwarding those documents believed responsive to the requests expressed in Exhibit A (Exbt. A is our September 24 letter) to Plaintiff's counsel. If that agency requires the courseroom [sic] postings be provided to [the Student], Capella will make them available immediately.
Records that are directly related to a student and maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution are "education records" under FERPA. 34 CFR 99.3 ("Education records.") The term "Record" under FERPA means any information recorded in any way, including, but not limited to, hand writing, print, computer media, video or audio tape, film, microfilm, and microfiche. 34 CFR 99.3 "Record." Courseroom [sic] postings that are maintained by the University that are directly related to students who attend the University meet the broad definition of education records under FERP A. Accordingly, we direct the University to provide the student with access to his education records, outlined as the 10 items, in order to close this complaint. If one of the listed items encompasses a courseroom [sic] posting, that must be provided as well.
FERPA does place certain limitations on a student's right to inspect and review education records.in this regard, FERPA requires that an educational agency or institution ensure that a student has provided written consent before disclosing information from the student's education records. 20 U.S.C. 1232g (b); 34 CFR 99.30. Thus, where education records contain information about more than one student, the student may inspect, review, or be informed of only the specific information about him or her. 20 U.S.C. 1232g (a) (1) (A); 34 CFR 99. L2 (a). A school should accordingly redact the names of, or information which would be personally identifiable to, any other students mentioned in the student's education records before providing the student.in cases where joint records cannot be easily redacted or the information segregated out, the school may satisfy a request for access by informing the student about the contents of the record.
On December 2, Ms.ingrid Brault of my staff spoke with Ms. Priscilla McNulty, Counsel to the University, who explained, that the Student already has in his possession the 10 items listed in our September 24 letter, but that nonetheless the University again provided him access to the items as the University indicates was demonstrated by the July 2, Notice of Compliance with Court Order. The Order does not provide a date on which the 10 items were provided, and does not indicate the manner in which the records were provided, although the University indicates that access is provided to the Student through his attorney.
Under FERPA, no funds administered by the Secretary of Education shall be made available to an educational agency or institution that has a policy or practice of releasing or providing access to education records, or personally identifiable information from education records without the prior written consent of a parent or eligible student except as authorized by law. 20 U.S.C. 1232g (b) and (b) (2). The response from the University indicates that the Student was provided access via his attorney to the 10 items. As recently as November the Student alleges that he has yet to be provided access to the 10 items. Accordingly, in order to close this complaint, our Office needs to receive assurance in writing that the Student has been given access to the 10 items. Please list the item and date on which access to each item was provided.in an effort to assist the University in responding to the Student's request for access to the 10 items he listed, we have placed a clarifying comment in italics for each item:
1) Item 1 - It appears as if I was discussed in the online course room long after I was locked out.information sent to OCR from the Stottlemyer's "evaluation" from another student indicates this. If a record of this discussion is maintained by the University and relates directly to the Student, provide him access; the record of the discussion is directly related to other students, the University can inform the Student of the portions that pertain to him and redact commenter's names.
2) Item 3 - In Ms. Tamara Kuchar's interview with OCR, she states that she provided "copies of her notes [pertaining to me] to the ASC..." These are copies of notes Ms. Kuchar gave to the ASC that relate to the Student. Thus, the University should provide the Student access to portions that directly relate to him.
3) Item 6 - OCR's interview notes that Linberg 'reviewed' postings I made in the class (prior to July 9) and then shared and discussed the contents of these with "other administrators, the instructor [Diane Stottlemyer], and staff members." If the University maintains the OCR interview notes, it should provide the Student access to the portions that relate directly to him.
4) Item 8 - OCR did not disclose this person's name but identifies her as the person responsible for 'reviewing student petitions for credits for courses taken at other universities", etc. She notes that she [met] with 'the Dean, Facility Director, Instructor to review and discuss the posting." This 'posting' was apparently made by me at the very beginning of the course (which would place it prior to July 4). It appears that the Student is seeking access to the posting he made prior to July 4 and any notes taken by the unnamed individual if any exist, related to the posting.
The remaining items look like notes that were either provided to OCR or created during an OCR investigation. If the University maintains any of these notes it should provide the Student access to them. The University must ensure that if the notes are also education records of other students, that the student's names or other personally identifiable information be redacted and in a case where the information pertains to both the Student and another student that the Student be informed of the portions that relate directly to him.
5) Item 9 - OCR's interview notes that this person "[became] aware [of] and looked at a second "posting" made before July 9.
6) Item 14 - OCR notes that this person "recalled that outside the conference call (April) [I] was very vocal about problems [I] was encountering; however [I] was less vocal during the conference call."
7) Item 15 - OCR notes that this person was contacted by the Faculty Advisor who wanted to lock me out of the course room.
8) Item 16 - OCR's interview states that this person had access to "postings in the course discussion board [and] the group [the ASC] was made aware that some of the postings [sic] were also posted on the general discussion board.
9) Item 17 - OCR's materials note that this person stated that the ASC reviewed "all the correspondence and postings."
10) Item 20 -OCR's interview notes that this person stated "a few days after the course started [he] received a phone call from the Instructor [Diane Stottlemyer] regarding posts I had made on "the course discussion board."
In addition to receiving the University's written assurance that the Student has been given access to the 10 items and on which date, the University should provide a statement that it understands and complies with the requirements of FERPA as outlined in this letter. Please provide these assurances within two weeks of receipt your receipt of this letter in order that we can close this complaint.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Brault at (202) 260-3887. Thank you for your continued cooperation with regard to this matter.
Sincerely,
LeRoy S. Rooker
Director
Family Policy Compliance Office
Cc: Student
Ms. Priscilla McNulty
Senator Barbara Boxer
* The second letter to Michael Offerman states:
United states department of education office of planning. Evaluation and policy development
December 17
Mr. Michael Offerman
President
Capella University
222 South 91h Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Complaint No. *
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
Dear Mr. Offerman:
This letter is written in connection to the complaint filed under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by (Student) against Capella University (University) 1) in response to the letter dated December 12, to this Office from University Counsel, Ms. Priscilla McNulty and to the July 2, Notice of Compliance with Order issued by the United States District Court Central District of California; and 2) as an effort to provide technical assistance to the University about the requirements of FERPA.
First, in the letter dated December 12, to this Office from University from University Counsel, Ms. Priscilla McNulty, the University states:
"The larger issue in the finding related to the make up [sic] of an "education record." While Capella is mindful of the fact that the definition includes all documentation retained by an institution, I would like to suggest that in applying that definition consideration be given to the fact that at the time FERP A was written, and the Buckley Amendment passed, higher education was primarily a face-to-face endeavor. This means that most communication was oral, except for official actions of the college or university. These actions included such things as admissions information, billing statements, financial aid applications and awards, transcripts and the like.
"Since the 1980's especially given the influence of electronic communication, there has been a growing trend in institutions offering one or more courses on-line.in an on-line environment, the traditional classroom and oral discussions have been replaced by a virtual course room involving instruction and discussion via electronic text. Literally, every word communicated in an on-line course room captured in writing.
"Discussion strings and other work done in an on-line course room arguably meets [sic] the definition of an "[education] record;" however, it is doubtful that the authors of this law ever imagined this definition could encompass such a large body of work. Written record [sic] for a single on-line course many times contain over 1,000 pages of text. The time and cost of reproducing this information, which includes redaction of identifying information related to other students is very high. Moreover, this information is of little value to the vast majority of students who in most cases merely want information to verify their academic record to a potential employer. Therefore, applying the definition in this broad manner is burdensome to the institution without being beneficial to anyone other than in the most unusual situation.
"I [Priscilla McNulty] think we can all agree that FERPA was passed to provide protection and control over dissemination of personal information relating to a student's academic history. Because of the public nature of the course room, where it would not be unusual to have more than 20 people participating at any given time, the exchanges in that environment could hardly be considered personal in the same sense as the official records of the school.
Because of the burdensome effect of the broad application of the broad definition upon any institution offering on-line instruction, a group that is increasing each year, Capella respectfully requests reconsideration of this part of the decision.By narrowing the definition to encompass only those records that would be traditionally kept by an educational institution, the intent of the law would not be compromised, and the benefit to the student would be preserved."
Additionally, in the July 2, Notice of Compliance with Order issued by the United States District Court Central District of California, the University is quoted as follows [It is believe that the following was written by H. Christian L'Orange from Drinker Biddle & Reath]:
"While doing so, Capella respectfully wishes to draw the court's attention to the holdings set forth in Gonzaga University, et al. V. Doe 536 US 273, where the United States Supreme Court found that plaintiffs had no personal right to enforce the provisions of the statute. It is a virtual certainty Plaintiff will be dissatisfied with Capella's response, and will maintain there are enormous numbers of documents which have yet to be provided to him based on his personal interpretation of what constitutes his educational record.in light of the sentiments expressed by the Supreme Court in the above-captioned matter, Capella, again respectfully, requests any future discourse regarding (the Student's) rights to educational records, as defined by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA), be conducted with the FPCO.
"Finally, Capella's counsel learned on June 30, that the issue of whether courseroom [sic] postings constituted educational records has yet to be resolved. The FPCO office initially ordered their production. On December 12, Ms. Priscilla McNulty, Corporate Counsel for Capella, forwarded a letter, attached as Exhibit B, objecting to the production of these documents.
To date, the FPCO has not responded to Capella's correspondence. Succinctly, these postings encompass 5000 pages. Online dialogue in a virtual classroom is tantamount to having a court reporter in class, and transcribing every comment made. As this is an educational setting, students are encouraged to speak freely, and have done so, most likely not anticipating any of their comments would ever be posted on the internet [sic] and become public record. The release of these documents raises a number of questions that that may pose liability implications for Capella. These include whether the identity of the students can be released under these circumstances whether the release of their online comments produces a chilling effect in the educational process, and whether Capella requires permission from each individual learner to release this information.
"Whether courseroom [sic] postings are educational records currently remains a question unresolved by the FPCO.in the absence of a response, and given the liability implications, Capella plans to delay any production of the courseroom [sic] postings pending the requested determination by the FPCO."
[End of quote by L'Orange]
Under FERPA, "education records" means those records that are:
(a) Directly related to a student; and
(b) Maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution.
34 CFR 99.3 Education records." The term "Record" under FERPA means any information recorded in any way, including, but not limited to, hand writing, print, computer media, video or audio tape, film, microfilm, and microfiche. 34 CFR 99.3 "Record."
As indicated in the enclosed other December 17 letter from this Office to you [Michael Offerman], FERPA does place certain limitations on a student's right to inspect and review education records.in this regard, FERPA requires that an educational agency or institution ensure that a student has provided written consent before disclosing information from the student's education records. 20 U.S.C. 1232g (b); 34 CFR 99.30. Thus, where education records contain information about more than one student, the student may inspect, review, or be informed of only the specific information about him or her. 20 U.S.C. 1232g (a) (1) (A); 34 CFR 99. L2 (a). A school should accordingly redact the names of, or information which would be personally identifiable to, any other students mentioned in the student's education records before providing the student.in cases where joint records cannot be easily redacted or the information segregated out, the school may satisfy a request for access by informing the student about the contents of the record.
Additionally, FERPA requires that postsecondary institutions provide students the opportunity to inspect and review their education records within 45 days after receipt of a request. 20 U.S.C. 1232g (a) (I) (A); 34 CFR 99.10 (b). FERPA does not require schools to create education records nor does it require schools to maintain education records unless there is an outstanding request to inspect and review the records.in this regard, FERPA states that an educational agency or institution shall not destroy any education records if there is an outstanding request to inspect and review the records under this section. 34 CFR 99.10 (e).
FERPA requires that educational agencies and institutions give students a copy of the records if failure to do so would effectively prevent the student from exercising the right to inspect and review the records. 34 cpr 99.10 (d). Thus, if a student does not live in commuting distance of the school, an educational institution must give the student a copy of his or her records or make other arrangements in accordance with FERPA to provide access to the records.
While a school would be required to conduct a reasonable search for education records, it is the responsibility of the student to clearly specify the records to which he or she is seeking access. If a student makes a "blanket" request for a large portion of his or her education records and the student believes that he or she was not provided certain records which were encompassed by that request, he or she should submit a follow-up request clarifying the additional records he or she believes exist. Finally, an educational agency or institution would not be prohibited from requiring a student to put a request for access in writing as per established policy of that agency or institution.
Furthermore, it is important to note that on December 9, the revised FERPA regulations were finalized (http://www.ed. Gov/legislationlFedRegister/finrule-41120908a. Pdf.) As you can see, the regulations do not carve out an exception that would allow educational agencies and institutions to deny a student access to education records maintained electronically or due to their excessive volume. FERPA does not, however, require that any education records be maintained. If the on-line course has ended and the student's have been assigned a grade based on the courseroom [sic] discussions and the University elects to no longer maintain the postings, there would be no FERPA implication.
Finally, while FERPA does exempt certain types of records from the definition of education records, neither the statute nor the implementing regulations specifically provides for denying a student's right to inspect and review an education record based on attorney-client privilege or work product privilege grounds. Nonetheless, an educational institution may deny a request to inspect and review on these grounds in certain circumstances.in particular, an educational institution's ability under FERPA to assert the privilege against a student seeking access to education records may be inferred by the institution's need to obtain confidential legal advice in certain circumstances. That is, when an educational institution needs to obtain confidential legal advice, and in so doing creates "education records, " the institution may decline to permit inspection and review of those records, or portions of those records, on attorney-client privilege grounds, provided that all of the below conditions are met.in order for an attorney to invoke the attorney-client privilege for his client, he or she must establish that:
1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client;
2) the communication is between a client and a member of the bar, or his or her subordinate, who is acting as a lawyer in connection with the communication;
3) the communication relates to facts disclosed by the client to the attorney for the purpose of securing either an opinion of law or legal services, and not for the purpose of committing an illegal act or tort;
4) the communication is in fact confidential and not made in the presence of anyone outside the particular attorney-client relationship; and
5) the privilege has been claimed and not waived.
For each document which an educational agency or institution believes is subject to the attorney work product doctrine, the agency or institution must show that each such document is a:
1) document or tangible thing;
2) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial;
3) prepared by or for a party to the litigation for that party's representative.
I trust that the above is helpful in explaining the scope and limitations of FERPA as it relates to the definition of education records under FERPA providing access to education records under FERPA. If you have any questions, please contact Ms.ingrid Brault of my staff at (202) 260-3887.
Sincerely,
LeRoy S. Rooker
Director
Family Policy Compliance Office
Cc: Ms. Priscilla McNulty
Senator Barbara Boxe
0 comments