Elements of the
Fraud
Advertised Length of Program
The
initial and most important deception was the advertised length of the
program and the graduation rate. The program was advertised as a
self-paced, 30 month program when I began in 1996, despite the fact that
few, if any, persons actually graduated from it at all, let alone in
two-and-a-half to three years. The actual length of the program was 5
to 7 years for those who did complete, as found by the Workforce Board.
Graduation Rate
CRI lied
about their graduation rate to students and to various regulators. The
Workforce Board found CRI's graduation rate to be nothing less than abysmal.
Their last investigation found that over a three year period, July 1998
to June 2001, only 6% of their students graduated. Of that 6%, only 1%
had jobs in the court reporting field 6-9 months later.
(Students
who did manage to graduate were seldom able to pass the state licensing
exam.) By contrast, CRI's literature for the Worker's Retraining
Program reports they had 50 graduates between 1996 and 1999. If you
chose to use only 1998 and 1999 from the CRI brochure, you would be
led to believe that 34 students had graduated in only two of that three
year reporting period. In actuality, the Workforce Board found only 11 out of 600
students in three years graduated. Figures reported to other
agencies were similarly skewed to fit their requirements or keep them
from becoming too alarmed.
Self-Paced Program
The
supposed self-paced nature of the program was used to induce students
into the program and imply it could be completed in 3 years or less. It
was similarly used against students when they took 5 or 7 years to
complete the program. Again, the vast majority of students were unable
to complete the program at all.
Moving Graduation Dates Forward
The Workforce Board
documented this phenomena very well in its
findings as concerns the complaint of Cheryl Paresa who started the
evening program in January of 2000. Her graduation date (3,000 hours
hence) was to have been September 2003. Nearly four years into the
program, December 2003, her progress report indicated she was not
maintaining satisfactory progress, and at that rate, her projected
graduation rate would be May 2006. However, she received favorable
written comments from her instructor. Nearly one year later in October
2004, her projected graduation rate had moved to November 2007, but her
instructor continued to comment favorably on her progress. In June
2005, three months before she withdrew from the program, her graduation
date had moved to December 2008. After spending 4,000 hours attempting
to complete a 3,000 program, she was still nowhere near graduation and
her September 2003 projected graduation date had moved to December of
2008! For two years before she withdrew, she was not maintaining
satisfactory progress. Yet CRI continued to encourage her to stay with
their progress reports, thus costing her thousands of dollars more in
tuition and associated costs.
Poor Equipment, Instruction, Facilities and Instructors
CRI's
catalog and brochures generally used adjectives, such as a modern
facility conducive to a learning environment, fully equipped computer
lab, or "state-of-the-art." In reality, their rental equipment was
outdated, though most students had no idea what modern equipment even
looked like. Later, one student quit and went to Green River Community
College which did have modern equipment. She compared CRI's equipment
to learning to type on an old Underwood typewriter instead of a computer
keyboard. Despite the fact that court reporters were using electronic
equipment by or before the 90s, CRI continued to rent mostly manual
steno machines to their students. Manual writers could not be used to
produce an electronic transcript as is expected in the day-to-day
working life of a court reporter.
The
computer lab for typing transcripts was a maze of broken chairs,
computers, and printers. Despite numerous requests, repairs were seldom
made. The building was dirty and unkempt. As the owner added computer
training schools within the same building in Seattle, not wishing to
lease additional space, rooms were divided into smaller classrooms by
building partitions. This resulted in extreme climactic inconsistencies
since the cold air intake ended up on one side of the wall and the heat
vent on the other!
Space for
court reporting students was constantly given over to the computer
students. Many bathrooms were closed for long periods. The furnace was
broken for a long period one winter and no auxiliary heat was provided.
We were told parts had been ordered from Germany. Similar things
happened to the hot water. In hindsight, its not hard to imagine they
did it to save money in order to increase profits.
Classes
were either self-taught or taught by other failed or currently enrolled
students who would dictate to students out of dilapidated dictation
books. Their turnover rate was extremely high. There were at least 20
different instructors in one 2-3 year period at least one who was nearly
illiterate. There were no court reporters for
instructors, because CRI stated it was impossible to find people who were
making $80,000 a year to work at a school. This was something to reinforce what
I and others had been told in the recruiting office. One student,
who was just out of theory and struggling mightily, was actually offered a
job working as an instructor in a speed building class!
In later
years, the school purchased a radio system that used tapes, called the
Stenowave, allowing students to listen to dictation with
headsets and all work at different speeds. It allowed the school to
further downsize the number of instructors and rooms by jamming more
speed levels together in the same room. The Stenowave was faulty from
the time it was instituted. It was garbled and had terrible sound
quality. Students consistently complained, and were told to be patient
because new tapes were coming. These tapes never materialized, and the
machine was never repaired.
How Students Fell
Victim To The Fraud
Diligent Nature of Court Reporters
In large
part, court reporting tends to attract people who are diligent and
motivated achievers, many with perfectionist tendencies who know how to
discipline themselves and set goals. Because its a skill that cannot
be compared to anything else you learn in life, you must depend upon
feedback from those who already have the skill to determine your
progress, at least initially. Student after student can tell you they
were making fabulous or terrific progress, according to their
instructors and progress reports, as long as there was loan or grant
money available to them, exactly like the Cheryl Paresa example above.
For many students, this was
their first experience with failure. CRI depended on such attitudes and
exploited that susceptibility. When reminded others had finished the
program in three years or less, and one in only a year, students would
question their abilities and redouble their efforts. Additionally,
after spending three years of your life pursing a goal and being told
that you need to invest "maybe just another year it would appear that
one should expend another year rather abandon three years of work.
When four years went by, one more year seemed a better investment than
throwing out four! This explains how so many students spent so many
years pursing a goal which was not attainable with the training and
equipment that CRI used.
Isolation, Intimidation and
Expulsion of Troublemakers
CRI
used isolation and indoctrination to keep students apart and to keep
them from discovering too early how long other students may have been
there. Beginning theory students were usually kept on a separate floor
of the building and away from the higher speed students. In later
years, they were often on opposite ends of the building or took separate
break times. In my class, we were told not to talk to those higher
speed students because either: a) they were diligent students focused
on finishing and would not appreciate the distraction; or b) they were
slackers and losers with attitude and attendance problems and they
didn't want their ways to rub off on us. Evening students were
disdained as lazy and unmotivated or they would be attending day school.
New student start dates were every
few weeks. People were coming and going. If you were to ask an
instructor where a particular classmate was after not seeing them for
some time, the standard answer was they are on a leave of absence or
I have no idea, she may have quit. It caused fear amongst the
survivors. A Leave of Absence was often offered by the school to
students who would complain about a lack of progress. They would be
told that sometimes your brain just needs a little rest from the tedious
work, and after a few weeks, many came back and begin progressing and
passing tests! You relied on what they told you. And because of the
above reasons, it was easy to lose track of who started, when they
started and where they were with progression, and importantly, how long
they had been there.
CRI used
intimidation and poor treatment of students who were deemed
troublemakers, and they were regularly cut out of the herd. The school
had a clause in their contracts that said anyone saying anything that
was not in the best interest of the school could be terminated and that
did happen or they used it as a threat. It kept students from
discussing peculiarities of what was going on amongst them. Student Jan
Danek can attest to that because it happened to her. In fact, CRI's
attorney wrote her a letter threatening to sue her for slander after her
complaint to the Workforce Board was settled. They tried to kick me out after I
had been there eight years. I was an embarrassment they didn't know how
to explain to newer students. More importantly, I wasn't worth any more
money. The higher speed instructor, Karl Beck, regularly took turns
targeting students for humiliation during class time.
By the
same token, they had their favorite students that some referred to as
the "CRI darlings." We all knew who they were, basically little more
than CRI cheerleaders in hindsight. They used them to reinforce that
this was indeed a tough course, not for whiners. The indoctrination started after you had been there awhile and may become concerned with your lack of progress. They reiterated lines the school had already honed: You get
out of it what you put into it; attitude and attendance are the two most
important components of the program; it just takes some students longer
than others so don't let that discourage you. They also used these
students as early warning devices to keep abreast of what students were
saying about the school.
Ignorance of Complaint Procedures
The first
time many people heard of the Workforce Board was when it was published in the
Seattle Times article. I am unaware of when it became a requirement
under the PVSA that it be published. What I do know is that many people
have come forward to say they never received copies of their contracts
or catalogs particularly in the more recent years. I looked back at my
contract and this is what I see: I was asked to initial several things,
and there is information there about the Workforce Board. It is not initialed so
I presume it was given little importance. And as I said in my
Workforce Board
complaint, I was not given a copy of the catalog, though they made me
initial saying I had received one. I was told we would pick it up on
the way out the door. When I reminded them of it at the door, I was
told I could just pick one up when I started school because the new 1996
ones would be out then. (I signed a contract in 1995, and started in
1996.)
Regulatory Failure
CRI managed to fly fairly low
under the radar between the three regulatory agencies for a long time:
Workforce Board, the Department of Education, and the
Accrediting Council for Independent
Colleges and Schools ("ACICS"). They had learned the way
of bureaucracies, and took advantage of the fact that these agencies had
separate jurisdiction. In a ten year period, nearly 30 complaints were
adjudicated by the Workforce Board, and complaints were made to and program
reviews performed by the Dept of Education. ACICS was notified many
times. Northwest Education Loan Association and Sallie Mae were advised,
as were numerous legislators. Governor Gary Locke and Attorney General
Christine Gregoire were informed as well.
NELA and ACICS and the Worker's Retraining Program
Students
also complained to NELA, the loan guarantee agency, who took the side of
the school. They complained to the Attorney General's office, who
forwarded complaints to the Workforce Board. They complained to Sallie Mae, who
said they must repay their loans, and to ACICS, who mostly ignored them.
The
response to one student's complaint to ACICS came one year later in a phone call from Dr. Kathleen Prince, who indicated
that proper
action would be taken against CRI if that student's complaint was substantiated. In
the interim year, calls to ACICS had met with the responses: We do not
give out information about schools. Schools pay us, so we pretty much
take care of them. It would be a conflict of interest to give
out that information. As it turns out, their only stream of revenue is
in the form of fees paid by the member schools.
ACICS did make a surprise visit to the
school. According to Mr. Janisch's attorney, Ron Christian, ACICS found
no problems with the school, despite the fact their court reporting
license had not been renewed, they had a single digit completion and
graduation rate, and a large number of complaints to Workforce Board. During
that site visit, one of the inspectors, using school records, called a
former student and tried to get the student to say CRI was responsible
for her becoming a court reporter. In fact, the student had quit some
time ago, and had only recently become a court reporter through the use
of voice recognition technology, something not even taught at CRI.
Ironically, Mr. Janisch was on the ACICS committee that made site visits
to other schools.
After
confirming that CRI was a State Worker's Retraining program approved
school, I sent the director, Mr. Holloway, a copy of the Workforce Board findings
and requested he remove CRI from their program, which he did do. I have
a document from 1996 wherein CRI states they had a 40% completion rate.
Information from more recent students confirmed CRI had continued to
inflate their number of graduates to that program.
How CRI Succeeded With A Brilliant
Business Plan! Sell Failure Instead Of Success As It Is Much More
Profitable!
Sell a course that's quick, easy, and pays a high wage
Even
today, court reporting is not a well-known or understood field
especially before the internet. The course was sold as a
30-36 month program. Some prospects were told to put their hands on the
keyboard and depress the keys. You're a natural was commonly heard. Golden stories of making $80,000 a year after completing
their course were extolled. Many were told loan payments would only be
$50, and one student had completed the program in one year. Some in the
early 90s were given an admittance test that was completely
irrelevant to court reporting, yet admissions officers lauded it as an
indicator of success. They told students it was a self-paced course, not
mentioning there were certain benchmarks to meet if they were to remain
eligible for student aid.
In
response to questions about why tuition at CRI was many times higher
than their competition, Green River Community College, students were
told it was because their course and instructors were superior, getting
students through the course more quickly, thereby reducing their time in
school. It enabled them to start earning a high wage in a short time,
making it a better bargain for the consumer.
Manufacture satisfactory progress for financial aid eligibility
The
majority of time in a court reporting program is spent in speed
building, where a student strives to attain speeds of over 200 words per
minute written accurately in language that can be translated by computer
software. Testing takes place daily to see if you are ready to progress
to the next speed level.
When CRI
students were in danger of losing their financial aid due to lack of
progress, easy tests were sometimes read at slower than stated speeds,
allowing students to pass, as demonstrated by most passing the same test
on the same day. Students were sometimes suspicious, but took the pass
or would have to start paying tuition out of their own pockets,
according to CRI.
If a
student was still unable to pass, they were told to send a note to the
owner asking for a waiver, telling him why you felt you were not
progressing and what you could do to improve. He alone had the
authority to decide if you had enough extenuating circumstances to merit
that. I remember nervously applying for a waiver early on, and after
fretting about it and hearing nothing for quite some time, I went to the
office to check on it. I was afraid of being put out of school. The
woman working there had never heard the term waiver and told me to
stop worrying as my check had already been received.
Hook students with their own financial aid checks
Repackaging for financial aid took place a couple of times a year.
During a five minute break in classes, you were rushed to the office to
look at papers already filled out by the school. Financial aid
employees would sit across the table from you and point, telling you
where to sign and initial. If you questioned them about taking out the
maximum amount in funds, you were asked if you were prepared for
financial emergencies. As most were hanging by a thread financially, CRI
made you feel it was the only prudent thing to do. The implication was
you might be able to work less, practice more, and get through quicker.
In reality, you were stuck since they knew you couldn't afford
the loan payments if you quit.
One
student started in 1991, the year CRI was first eligible for Title IV
funds. She attended for 7 years, quitting in 1998. Her loan principle
was $35,750. She now owes $50,000 after paying $15,500 already. She is
not an exception – nor is she a court reporter. She wrote a
letter of complaint to Governor Locke. She had no idea the Workforce
Board
even existed.
Use
the students' money and hold it as long as possible before disbursing it
to them
Living
expense checks to students often bounced, particularly in the mid 90s
and early 2000's. CRI eventually made the checks good, but it caused
students embarrassment, inconvenience, and worry the school might close.
In later years, students were prodded to sign agreements with the
school to allow them to dole out living expenses in monthly allotments
instead of giving it to them in a lump sum.
Students
were sometimes issued personal checks by the owner as advances for their
living expenses. He would say it was just between themand he would
just take it back out of their account when their loans or grants
arrived.
CRI
pressed students to hand in practice work done at home, though there was
never any feedback given about it, nor was it returned to them. It was
then used to convert to class hours to keep their attendance at the
requisite 100% levels to meet DOE regulations. It also allowed CRI to
claim attendance that was further along in a financial aid disbursement
period than was actually the case. In turn, that would allow CRI to
keep a full disbursement check if a student quit before the school was
entitled to the entire amount, instead of sending the money back to the
lender or returning it to the student.
Charge the students again if they fail to learn the first time
In early
years, tuition was a finite amount. However, in 1996, CRI added new
charges, dubbed lab and dictation fees. This allowed them to charge
students a second time if they had not finished in their contracted
amount of time. This was said to be an incentive to get students to
work harder and finish quicker. In reality, it added many thousands of
dollars to the student's loan debt and greatly enriched the school. In
1996, day school tuition was $660 a month. After your time was up, you
started paying again - $330 a month exactly half of what you had paid
the first time. This could and did go on for years. By the time CRI
closed, their tuition was close to $1100 a month! Students ineligible
for any further loan money were allowed to sign separate contracts with
the school so they could manage the lab and dictation fees. Later, many
ended up in collections because they either could not or would not pay.
The judge in the bankruptcy suit has abandoned those accounts as assets,
saying she did not want students who had basically been defrauded to be
pursued by a collection agency.
Even though the Workforce Board
eventually made CRI disclose their dismal graduation rates in their
enrollment contracts, students reported the
recruiting office told them not to worry about them. Their students
were so well qualified, they were out there working before they
graduated and making so much money, they were unable to get them back in
to graduate thus skewing the statistics!
Many employees in higher level
positions were members of the Girgus family. However, most students did
not learn of that potential conflict of interest until later because
that information was not disclosed to them. They otherwise may have had
second thoughts if they knew the man painting the bright future in the
recruiting office was related to the person determining your
eligibility for financial aid.
Two of the Girguses signed
enrollment contracts using aliases: Tom Girgus signed as Thomas
Fielding. His brother, Mike Girgus, signed as Michael Stiles. The
Department of Education was notified and said it was okay, as long as
they didn't work in the financial aid department; never mind the fact
they were related to Angela Girgus, who did work in the financial aid
office!
It was not disclosed to
students that to work in the field they would have to make a major
monetary investment in equipment; i.e., an electric stenograph machine,
laptop computer, software, printer, and regular business machines. They
would also have to become notaries. When it was later discovered when
the school had vendor fairs, or by hearing it from a high speed student,
they were told they could use their loan money for that.
Why
Did CRI Defraud Students? Money!
In a
recent
government report CRI was among the Top Ten recipients of
federal grant money, receiving nearly $4,200,000 between 2000 and
2006, despite being a school with enrollment that numbered approximately
175 in Seattle and San Diego respectively, and less in Boise and
Tacoma.
In their
bankruptcy suit, CRI claimed a gross income of $3.8 million a year
before the negative publicity in the Seattle Times and enrollment began
declining. The owner paid himself $15,000 a month, also available in
the bankruptcy filing. Yet they reportedly had only $750,000 worth of
debt, a seemingly small amount for proportionately.
CRI used
the easy availability of loan money to trap people in the system in
order to enrich the corporation. Students had no reason to doubt what
they were told. They were the experts in this little-known field.
Unbeknownst to students, they were simply excellent con people. In fact
the owner was a failed court reporting student himself. Anyone who may
have had experience with a legitimate school in the past assumed they
had the students' interests at heart. But at CRI, the recruiting office was just an extension of the financial aid office.
Even when
the state refused to renew their license for the court reporting
program, CRI was not about to walk away from their lucrative venture
that supported not only the owner, but several branches of the Girgus
family. They not only exercised their right of appeal of the licensure
issue, but they continued to lie to students in an
emergency meeting called by the school after the grim statistics
found by the Workforce Board were reported by the
Seattle Times.
Conclusion
After
continuing to enroll students during the pending appeals hearing, CRI
finally abandoned that appeal in August of 2006, telling Assistant
Attorney General Terrance Ryan they would be filing for bankruptcy and
closing all four schools on August 31. However, the owner and some of
the financial aid personnel continued to occupy the corporate office of
the school for nearly three months after they closed, not filing until
November 27, 2006. Not coincidentally, the filing occurred within days
of John David Terry II, a Federal Way attorney filing a motion to compel
answers to interrogatories in a civil suit that had been brought by
several former students. As a last act of defiance, CRI included the
names of approximately 2,900 students in their bankruptcy suit, listing
them as possible creditors. It was a way to thumb their noses at them
and abandon their last vestiges of responsibility.
CRI
Created Their Own Demise Through a Designed Bankruptcy
Emboldened by many years of successful deceit, Mr. Janisch tried to
deceive the bankruptcy court. However, this time, he ran into trouble.
Students attended the Section 341 meeting of creditors and reported
assets recorded in public records, as well as recent asset transfers to
the trustee in the case of things the debtor had failed to disclose.
This started a sequence of events that led to the court hiring an
accountant to look for more assets, and an attorney to help with
preferential analysis in the transactions disclosed by the students.
Though
CRI managed to look broke for years to all the regulatory agencies, the
bankruptcy accountant has stated they were not broke, and in fact, were
a profitable business. He also said the owner, Alen Janisch, drew
$600,000-$800,000 out of the business during the last six months it was
in operation, writing checks to himself and a friend. Because he
wouldn't cooperate with the accountant or attorney for the trustee, he
was deposed for information about property transfers and the missing
money. New information comes to light almost daily in this case.
For all
intents and purposes, CRI appears to have been little more than a
for-profit business, masquerading as a court reporting school.
Like most private for-profit training schools, their income was almost
entirely dependent on federal and state loan and grant programs. They
relied upon and exploited the fact that the industry is fraught with
oversight agencies that are understaffed, indifferent, or not equipped
to deal with the level of deception practiced by CRI, not to mention an
industry that is dependent on powerful lobbyists.
It has
only recently become known to students that their prospects had indeed
been almost nil for becoming a court reporter at CRI. Many quit years
ago, believing they had failed personally - not knowing until findings
of Workforce Board investigations were published in the Seattle Times they had
been conned. Previously, they had no reason to suspect otherwise
because the school met any questions, concerns, and requests for help
from students with blame and criticism aimed at the student for not
having practiced more, not studied harder, etc. Most have not only
carried the financial burden of their involvement with CRI, but a shame
that never seems to loosen its grip. It was always the student's fault
and CRI owned up to nothing as noted by Peggy Rudolph in some of her
later determinations.
Students,
predominantly women, spent from a few thousand dollars to $70,000 or
more, depending upon the length of time CRI was able to retain them,
most of it obtained from federal and state student loan and grant
programs, debt that will follow many to their graves. There is no
bankruptcy for student loans the schools who took the money from
them know.
Through
the bankruptcy court we have managed to get in contact with some
students in Boise and San Diego. They have had money stolen from them
by CRI - loan, money that was electronically deposited with CRI just
before they closed. This loan money must be repaid by students though
they received no benefit from it. Here is a
letter from of those students. Three students in Boise have lost
$7,500, $9,000, and $5,000, and similar stories are emerging from San
Diego. Because the schools have closed, there is no central
repository for this information and it is almost impossible to track on
a case-by-case basis. It is a safe bet the same thing happened in
Seattle, but we have no way to contact students because of the closure.
Because the amounts of money are not extraordinary if looked at
individually, it has been difficult to get law enforcement to show much
interest. The Department of Education has disavowed any responsibility
except to those who were in school within 90 days of their closure. The
Workforce Board has a statute of limitations of one year from the last date of
attendance. Everyone shirks responsibility. It is simply the
students' problem.
Of the
students who did get something back from the Tuition Reimbursement Fund,
many are still in debt many thousands of dollars because the Workforce
Board did
not award the full amount allowed i.e., interest on loans. It
disproportionately affects students who stayed for 3-8 years in their
attempt to complete the program. Peggy Rudolph has stated she felt we
must have gotten something we could use out of CRI. Though she made
that statement early on and may not feel that way now, it doesn't change
the fact that many of us still face financial ruination because we are
older and don't have the years or earning capacity with which to recoup
those losses because the years of interest will overwhelm us.
CRI was a
colossal regulatory failure. The agencies did not perform their mission
of protecting students. Investigations performed by the Workforce Board were not
thorough or complete. Follow up investigations only came only after
more complaints were made. The Workforce Board knew CRI was misleading and
deceiving students in 1999, yet it took them until 2006 to close them
down, despite 30 complaints during that period. Investigations were
only conducted pursuant to complaints. I started at CRI in 1996, and was
present during at least three investigations and never knew the school
was being investigated; nor was I ever contacted by the Workforce Board. Despite
all the complaints and a shaky financial picture with the Department of
Education, CRI was still allowed to open a new school in Tacoma in
approximately 2004.
|