Something concerning Oregon ODA

[J]

Redlyne Racer first posted this reference in another forum, and I think it's worth bringing to the table here.

http://www.expertwitness-on-education.com/benton.html

An extract from the article, which is extremely interesting throughout:

On March 7, 2000, during media frenzy over a visit by George Bush to Bob Jones University (BJU) in his campaign for the presidency, Melinda A. Benton, teaching at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, was notified (as was Umpqua’s president) by Alan Contreras, Administrator of the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, that it was illegal to use her B.A. and M.A. for any purpose in Oregon, or even to talk about them without a demeaning disclaimer, since they were conferred by BJU, an unaccredited institution. (BJU had never been denied accreditation, but had consistently refused, for religious and other reasons, to seek it.)

It was established in the ensuing court case that Contreras disliked both Bush and BJU.

Contreras threatened to fine Benton $25,000 each time she was caught mentioning one or both of her BJU degrees, and said she might go to jail if she persisted. Despite laudatory reports on her teaching by supervisors and students, Benton lost her Umpqua position for a time, was embarrassed by the widely publicized attack on her competence, and worried that her family would be unable to pay its bills. She considered taking several years of redundant courses in an accredited institution to qualify once again for a teaching position. After an outstanding attorney agreed to fight for her, she alleged in a federal district court that her constitutional rights had been violated (Benton v Svejar/Contreras, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Case Nos. 00-61771-HO and 02-7070-HO, 2003.)...

Benton won her case, by the way.

[J]

Away from the purely ODA matters in the article, these words from Professor Erickson caught my eye:

If “student outcomes” are what matter above all (I would certainly say so), why not judge competence in teaching and other endeavors by evidence pertaining to it, rather than judging the student (or graduate) by the estimated quality of the institution and then backing up, with even more slippage, by attempting to judge the institution by what its students and graduates know and can do? If we cannot ascertain what individuals know and can do, we certainly cannot ascertain the adequacy of institutions by peering at student knowledge and skill. If we can ascertain the knowledge and skill of individuals, that should be our basis for hiring and placement.

Worse still, as in the Benton case, accreditation reinforced by federal and state statutes and regulations harnesses public power to the likes and dislikes of government bureaucrats.

[Bill Dayson]

It sounds as if Mr. Contreras was simply performing his duty as Oregon state law directed him to do.

It's conceivable that the ODA didn't originally have a procedure in place to approve degrees from relatively credible American out-of-state non-accredited schools, since the wording of the statute doesn't seem to address them. And it's also possible that the court in this or some other case directed the ODA to create such an approval process.

But the whole thing might simply have been moot if the ODA already had its approval process in place.

If the ODA had a procedure in place that was willing to consider approving BJU, BJU couldn't very well decline to be approved just because that would mean submission to worldly powers or something, and then turn right around and demand that those very same worldly powers recognize their degrees.

Here's the actual text of the relevant Oregon Revised Statutes.

ORS 348.609 reads:

No person who has been warned by the Oregon Department of Student Assistance Commission through the Office of Degree Authorization to cease and desist shall claim or represent that the person possesses any academic degree unless the degree has been awarded to or conferred upon the person by a school that:
(a) Has accreditation recognized by the United States Department of Education or the foreign equivalent of such accreditation; (b) Has been approved by the Oregon Department of Student Assistance Commission through the Office of Degree Authorization to offer and confer degrees in Oregon; or (c) Is described in ORS 348.594 (2).

The Oregon Student Assistance Commission College Opportunity Board shall adopt, by rule, standards and procedures for responding to complaints about degree claims and for validation of degree claims. Failure of a person to provide documentation of a claimed degree shall be prima facie evidence that the claim of such person to such degree is a violation of this section.

ORS 348.594 referred to above reads:

'School' includes a person, organization, school or institution of learning that confers or offers to confer an academic degree upon a person or to provide academic credit applicable to a degree.

'School' does not include: (a) An Oregon community college; (b) A state institution of higher education within the State System of Higher Education listed in ORS 352.002; (c) The Oregon Health Sciences University; or (d) A school that meets the criteria and procedures to obtain a religious exemption adopted by rule by the Oregon Student Assistance Commission College Opportunity Board and offers only degrees with approved titles in theology or religious occupations.

[Robert J.]

Bill, I used to have your exact same opinion of Mr. Contreras and even stated the same opinion here in the Sorbon thread somewhere. I found his few public posts fair and sincere and acting in good faith with what little Oregon gave him. After reading Dr. Erickson's account of the BJU example, although my opinion hasn't officially changed yet, it does leave me doubts as to maybe his opponents were not so wrong afterall. I found especially the "34 seconds" research on finding the validity of BJU pretty damning, and it's not as if the case happened instantly, I'm sure it took months to prepare and in the meantime the DA and Contreras could've withdrawn their lawsuit after doing more research on BJU. I favor the court's decision for Ms. Benton over Contreras and the State of Oregon and it looked like a horrible case where even the Judge critisized the State Attorney. I often hear complaints about the ODA lacking funds, well if I were an Oregon tax payer I'd be pretty mad that the very people complaining they are underfunded and "overworked" are wasting time and money on cases like these.

I still have a link to the ODA on Degreeboard's main website but if any more facts like these come up again I may take it down and no longer support the ODA as a credible source since I cannot trust their judgement afterall perhaps.

[Redlyne Racer]

Redlyne Racer first posted this reference in another forum...

Thanks for the attribution, but I got it from a post by "Dr. Latin Juris" on the other other forum.

[Redlyne Racer]

One (of several) interesting aspects of that article is the implication that Contreras is using his office for political--and specifically anti-Bush--purposes and not for anything that has any bearing on the protection of the citizens of Oregon.

I made this point elsewhere relative to the inexplicable inclusion on the first version of the ODA list of the original, WASC-accredited West Coast University. Not coincidentally, Bush had appointed Peter S. Watson to lead the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Watson holds many prestigious credentials, including a masters in international business from the original WASC-accredited WCU. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010228-2.html)

As we used to say in karate class when a punch "accidentally" connected, once is a mistake. This makes at least two incidents (that we know of) that look suspiciously like they are politically motivated.

[Bill Dayson]

Bill, I used to have your exact same opinion of Mr. Contreras
I didn't really express any opinion of Contreras. I just pointed out that the warning that Ms. Benton complained about was what the Oregon law directed his office to issue.

After reading Dr. Erickson's account of the BJU example, although my opinion hasn't officially changed yet, it does leave me doubts as to maybe his opponents were not so wrong afterall. I found especially the "34 seconds" research on finding the validity of BJU pretty damning,
BJU's 'validity' was determined in 34 seconds? By whom? How? I don't know how that could possibly have been accomplished.

And what does 'validity', however that's defined, have to do with the Oregon law which simply outlaws the use in Oregon of degrees from non-accredited institutions?

and it's not as if the case happened instantly, I'm sure it took months to prepare and in the meantime the DA and Contreras could've withdrawn their lawsuit after doing more research on BJU.
I don't believe that it was their lawsuit. The title of the case was 'Benton v Svejar/Contreras' and normal court practice is to name the petitioner first and respondent second. Erickson said something about Benton winning damages of one dollar, which also implies that she was the petitioner and had brought the suit. But it isn't entirely clear what she was praying for. (Civil complaints contain a section called a 'prayer' in which the petitioner tells the court how she (in this case) wants the court to rule.) We know that she wanted damages, but it isn't clear if she wanted additional relief up to and including the ODA being declared unconstitutional.

And I still fail to see the relevance. The facts seem simple enough. It's illegal to use non-accredited degrees in Oregon. Bob Jones isn't accredited. What more do we need to know?

All Contreras would need to do is determine those two facts and he has satisfied his burden of proof as set out in the Oregon statute, as far as I can see.

So why would the state attorney have to discuss this 'validity' thing at all? That kind of issue would only come up if Benton weren't really after Contreras, but was after the law itself. (That's probably why an activist like Erickson got involved.)

Perhaps somebody could make a good argument that the statute should have been written differently, so that degrees from 'invalid' as opposed to non-accredited schools were outlawed. But that's not really Contreras' concern. He goes with what the state legislature gives him, not with what he or anyone else thinks it should have been.

I favor the court's decision for Ms. Benton over Contreras and the State of Oregon and it looked like a horrible case where even the Judge critisized the State Attorney.
You seem to have access to information that I haven't seen. I'm not sure what the the precise issues were in this case. It isn't clear why the case was brought before the court in the first place. I don't know what the judge's ultimate ruling was. (Though I did speculate in my last post that the judge may have directed the ODA to put in an approval process for non-accredited schools located out of state.) Obviously the Oregon law remains on the books and the ODA is still enforcing it, so it wasn't overturned or found unconstitutional. I certainly have no access to the court transcripts and have no idea what the judge actually said to the state attorney.

But I do suspect that Erickson's account isn't entirely objective.

[Robert J.]

As someone who worked in the Greenville South Carolina area on a project for several months I find it hard to believe a case such as this Oregeon BJU one got as far as it did. Half of Greenville/Spartanburg seems to have graduated from BJU and that school is an anchor of higher education in that tri-state area. Why on earth the Oregon ODA didn't consult with South Carolina authorities about the validity of BJU is beyond me. A compelling argument Dr. Erickson provided was how there were hundreds of schools in Oregon that ODA could've focused on instead of BJU from all over the globe. Unlike the other forum yokels that post everywhere (me included), Dr. Erickson's credentials in higher education are impeccable and his testimony is accepted as fact and expert in courts of law and accepted as such in this Benton case. I would caution anyone trying to suggest otherwise.

Bill: I can't do your homework for you, you need to find out the facts on your own, thanks.

[Jay2]

If Contreras was ignorant enough to think Bob Jones an example of a poor school, he is too ignorant of the subject (DL) to hold his current position. Perhaps if he spent less time sniffing around at degreeinfo he might have time to actually evaluate schools before he judges them. Obviously he knew so little about BJU that he thought it a danger to the sovereign state of Oregon. A federal judge apparently had little trouble in correcting the ignorance of Contreras. Now if that judge could do the same for our friends at degreeinfo, naaah, too much for any one judge to shovel out.

[Dennis Ruhl]

Has Contreras ever won a court action? The State Attorney General refuses to take his cases against unaccredited degree users to court and he seems to have lost to everyone who has sued him.

[Dave Hayden]

...
But I do suspect that Erickson's account isn't entirely objective.

Hi Bill

Ain't that the truth! His BA is from BJU and he is an an expert on accreditation? That seems very strange to me. Also the page seems like a cross between an ad for him as an "expert witness" and an attack on Alan. Over all, it is extremely interesting but I find it raises more questions than it answers.

Dave

[Dave Hayden]

Has Contreras ever won a court action? The State Attorney General refuses to take his cases against unaccredited degree users to court and he seems to have lost to everyone who has sued him.

Hi Dennis

How many cases have there been? I am aware of this one and the current one in which K-W has asked to settle. Is there another? Thanks.

Dave

[Dennis Ruhl]

Hi Dennis

How many cases have there been? I am aware of this one and the current one in which K-W has asked to settle. Is there another? Thanks.

Dave


What about the Berne U guy, Dean Darris? He still lists his degree.

[Dave Hayden]

What about the Berne U guy, Dean Darris? He still lists his degree.


OK, your helping my hazy memory, but was it suit or a civil action of some kind? And, who lost? I notice Darris is no longer using the unaccredited degree. http://depts.clackamas.cc.or.us/socsci/faculty/darris/darris.html

[Neil Hayes]

If Contreras was ignorant enough to think Bob Jones an example of a poor school, he is too ignorant of the subject (DL) to hold his current position. Perhaps if he spent less time sniffing around at degreeinfo he might have time to actually evaluate schools before he judges them. Obviously he knew so little about BJU that he thought it a danger to the sovereign state of Oregon. A federal judge apparently had little trouble in correcting the ignorance of Contreras. Now if that judge could do the same for our friends at degreeinfo, naaah, too much for any one judge to shovel out.

I corresponded several times with Mr Contreras - before he decided he did not wish to discuss unaccredited schools with me. As I've discussed elsewhere, I believe that the whole ODA list of unaccredited schools is seriously flawed and is totally lacking in most areas. Without spending a great amount of time on 'the list' I have found over 20 series omissions of major 'degree-mills', a number of the missing mills being the world's largest and most successful. On top of that there are numerous educational establishments that should not be in the list, and the ODA website is riddled with a number of the 'links' that either don't work or are seriously out of date.
In the real world of industry and commerce (or even education) Mr Contreras would not survive more than a few days. His ability to carry out simple investigative work to determine whether a school is a '...mill' or a real school is very noticeable by its absense, and as a public information site the ODA website serves no useful purpose and is totally lacking in any sort of credibility.
I'm sure we will see a number of schools litigating against the ODA and Mr Contreras. Such costs should not be born by Oregon tax payers, but should be be paid directly out of the pocket of Mr Contreras.

[Dave Hayden]

I corresponded several times with Mr Contreras - before he decided he did not wish to discuss unaccredited schools with me. As I've discussed elsewhere, I believe that the whole ODA list of unaccredited schools is seriously flawed and is totally lacking in most areas. Without spending a great amount of time on 'the list' I have found over 20 series omissions of major 'degree-mills', a number of the missing mills being the world's largest and most successful. On top of that there are numerous educational establishments that should not be in the list, and the ODA website is riddled with a number of the 'links' that either don't work or are seriously out of date.
In the real world of industry and commerce (or even education) Mr Contreras would not survive more than a few days. His ability to carry out simple investigative work to determine whether a school is a '...mill' or a real school is very noticeable by its absense, and as a public information site the ODA website serves no useful purpose and is totally lacking in any sort of credibility.
I'm sure we will see a number of schools litigating against the ODA and Mr Contreras. Such costs should not be born by Oregon tax payers, but should be be paid directly out of the pocket of Mr Contreras.

Wow! That is a whole lot of opinion there. First the list suposedly has "20 seris (sic) errors", but Neil doesn't list them so others could verify his accuracy and judgement. As to who should and shouldn't be on the list, that may very well vary with the on looker. A person with a SRU degree, for example, would likely argue for his "alma mater" while those with clearer heads may see more accurately.

Personally, I see Mr Contreras doing an admirable job which has been recognized both in other States seeking his advice and the Federal government using him as a resource. The K-W case itself is extremely intersting. While K-W has asked to settle it seems the ODA is not very quick to accept their offer. My guess is K-W will settle this out of court no matter the conditions required by the ODA to limit their losses. As to other degree mills pressing cases, that seems very unlikely considering both their borderline existence and focus on profits.


Dave

[Neil Hayes]

Wow! That is a whole lot of opinion there. First the list suposedly has "20 seris (sic) errors", but Neil doesn't list them so others could verify his accuracy and judgement. As to who should and shouldn't be on the list, that may very well vary with the on looker. A person with a SRU degree, for example, would likely argue for his "alma mater" while those with clearer heads may see more accurately.
Personally, I see Mr Contreras doing an admirable job which has been recognized both in other States seeking his advice and the Federal government using him as a resource. The K-W case itself is extremely intersting. While K-W has asked to settle it seems the ODA is not very quick to accept their offer. My guess is K-W will settle this out of court no matter the conditions required by the ODA to limit their losses. As to other degree mills pressing cases, that seems very unlikely considering both their borderline existence and focus on profits.
Dave

I did not mention anything about degree-mills litigating against the ODA! And in respect of K-W you really need to do some homework Dave - and on the 20 glaring omissions! But your reply is pretty much what I would expect from an RA fanatic who has now got bored with that other forum and commences the same tired ritual here. Pretty naive and poorly informed I'd say, just like the Dave of old.

[Dave Hayden]

I did not mention anything about degree-mills litigating against the ODA! And in respect of K-W you really need to do some homework Dave - and on the 20 glaring omissions! But your reply is pretty much what I would expect from an RA fanatic who has now got bored with that other forum and commences the same tired ritual here. Pretty naive and poorly informed I'd say, just like the Dave of old.

Neil

Respectfully-what are these 20 errors? I have asked you before at another site and you would never actually name any. Please lets use reason and logic not emotion. Thank you.

Dave

[J]

Wow! That is a whole lot of opinion there. First the list suposedly has "20 seris (sic) errors"...
Dave

Dave
We are not the grammar police. Everybody typos - including you (but I will forbear from pointing it out).

I do remember the most recent of Neil's identified "non-ODA-list-mills", Trinity Southern. I can also think of several unaccredited US schools that do not appear on the list.

[Dave Hayden]

Dave
We are not the grammar police. Everybody typos - including you (but I will forbear from pointing it out).

I do remember the most recent of Neil's identified "non-ODA-list-mills", Trinity Southern. I can also think of several unaccredited US schools that do not appear on the list.

Hi J

OK. So if the criticism is that the list isn't 100% complete, I would point out two things. No list is 100% complete. Also, I believe schools are added to the list when an inquiry is made concerning a school. If no one inquires about a mill it may not be added. I see that as a total non-issue.

Dave

[Bill Dayson]

As someone who worked in the Greenville South Carolina area on a project for several months I find it hard to believe a case such as this Oregeon BJU one got as far as it did.
If Benton and her attorney were unwilling to withdraw their lawsuit, and if their intention was either to compel the ODA to act in violation of Oregon law in this one instance or else to overturn that law entirely, it probably had to go forward.

Half of Greenville/Spartanburg seems to have graduated from BJU and that school is an anchor of higher education in that tri-state area. Why on earth the Oregon ODA didn't consult with South Carolina authorities about the validity of BJU is beyond me.
Perhaps that question was irrelevant. The Oregon law addresses use of degrees from non-accredited institutions. It doesn't mention 'validity' or local reputation or anything like that.

There are quite a few non-accredited schools that have considerable value. Some of these receive quite a bit of recognition in localized or specialized communities. For example, CA-approved San Francisco Law School prepares students for the California bar exam and its graduates include a former Governor of California, a former Lt. Governor, a former President of the California State Bar, state legislators, judges and attorneys. All of that certainly suggests 'validity'. Yet when you move outside California, recognition of SF Law drops way off and most states don't recognize it or its graduates because it isn't ABA, or less importantly in this instance, RA or NA.

So the fact that Bob Jones receives a lot of local recognition in the Greenville SC area doesn't compel Oregon to accept it, any more than the recognition that SF Law receives in the Bay Area compels the New York bar to admit SF Law graduates.

A compelling argument Dr. Erickson provided was how there were hundreds of schools in Oregon that ODA could've focused on instead of BJU from all over the globe.
Is there any reason to believe that Benton was the only individual in Oregon who received a warning letter from the ODA?

Unlike the other forum yokels that post everywhere (me included), Dr. Erickson's credentials in higher education are impeccable and his testimony is accepted as fact and expert in courts of law and accepted as such in this Benton case. I would caution anyone trying to suggest otherwise.
The point of being "expert" is that one is better able to provide sound reasons for one's opinions. It doesn't suggest that reasons are no longer necessary and that critical thinking is out of place. That's just an appeal to authority.

Often court trials are a succession of dueling experts, each one contradicting the one that went before. Judges and juries have to retain a little common sense.

[Neil Hayes]

Neil
Respectfully-what are these 20 errors? I have asked you before at another site and you would never actually name any. Please lets use reason and logic not emotion. Thank you.
Dave

There was no emotion Dave.
Just to put you on track with 'the list', I'll provide a few examples - there were/are five Trinity College & Universities (largely unrelated), the main TCU USA version changed its name some months ago and the one in Spain has now taken over as a 'leader', Trinity Southern University, Chancery International, Canterbury University, Almeda University (formerly Almeda College & University and one of the most successful with 100,000 degrees issued). And then when you've found all the other blunders (I'm sure you will easily find a lot more than 20) you could try the Australian newspaper 'link'.
In the end - if you are honest - you will at least agree that the ODA list is not well researched. And we all know that it was a brief communication between your friend RCD and Contreras that ensured Knightsbridge was added to the list. Had they, you, and others in 'the gang', looked at the world of DL seriously you would all agree that adding Knightsbridge was a serious blunder, just like it was with K-W, only worse!

[Robert J.]

Let's keep the discussion on the merits of the ODA losing the Benton case and not about the ODA list or Contreras himself outside of his involvement in the case. You can start an "ODA List" thread if need be, I know this is a touchy subject and people are beginning to get into their corners, but lets all remember civility must prevail.

Thanks all.

[Neil Hayes]

Let's keep the discussion on the merits of the ODA losing the Benton case and not about the ODA list or Contreras himself outside of his involvement in the case. You can start an "ODA List" thread if need be, I know this is a touchy subject and people are beginning to get into their corners, but lets all remember civility must prevail.
Thanks all.

Regarding BJU, this university has been on the ODA Approved list for some time. Hence BJU + K-W (soon) = 2 = ODA nil, with more nil successes to follow!

[Dave Hayden]

Regarding BJU, this university has been on the ODA Approved list for some time. Hence BJU + K-W (soon) = 2 = ODA nil, with more nil successes to follow!

I think the fact that the ODA has an approval process for unaccredited schools is a strength of the ODA process. I don't think the ODA will be adding K-W to the approved list at all. I would be surprised if they even removed the degree mill label, although that at least is possible. Remember it is K-W that is asking to settle. It would be silly of the ODA not to consider letting K-W settle if the terms are acceptable. The key, of course, are the terms. They will tell if there is a winner/loser or if the situation is a draw.

[Redlyne Racer]

Nice to see that Contreras has reached sufficient rank that he now has two tsukebito to attend him. If they keep up the good work, maybe some day he will let them use paper.

[Dave Hayden]

Nice to see that Contreras has reached sufficient rank that he now has two tsukebito to attend him. If they keep up the good work, maybe some day he will let them use paper.

Nice personal attack. That sure adds to the conversation.

[Neil Hayes]

Nice personal attack. That sure adds to the conversation.

But Dave, we studied under the masters of personal attacks at DegreeInfo, remember - ACADEMIC FRAUD, LIAR, THIEF, UNEDUCATED BUFFOON? (just to mention a few of the more distasteful ones). What Redlyne had to say was very polite and gave due recognition where it was deserved!

[Robert J.]

And I guess civility didn't prevail. Thread closed.

[Robert J.]

I was reading some old threads and after a yr and half, has the landscape changed here at all with regards to unaccredited schools, the ODA, classifications, lawsuits ? etc. ?

[Franz]

I am generally in favor of government supervision of education (at least as far as authorising awarding degrees- as in the UK). However, the actions of the Oregon ODA strike me as absurd. Does it mean they will have to 'check' everone's qualifications? It would be literally impossible (especially considering the difficulty of checking overseas universities, which may work in completely different regulatory environments).

[Neil Hayes]

I was reading some old threads and after a yr and half, has the landscape changed here at all with regards to unaccredited schools, the ODA, classifications, lawsuits ? etc. ?

The ODA list of unaccredited schools has certainly changed dramatically over the past twelve months, thanks to lots of serious pressure being applied! IMO it still lacks any real credibility and appears to be is of little value to anyone. Degree mills are the problem and most are well known, but no one is prepared to list them!

[Dennis Ruhl]

Degree mills are the problem and most are well known, but no one is prepared to list them!

I am no fan of degree mills but one state considering degrees awarded in another state as illegal is strange, especially when some states such as California scrutinize degree programs every bit as seriously as Oregon.

[Jay1]

I am no fan of degree mills but one state considering degrees awarded in another state as illegal is strange, especially when some states such as California scrutinize degree programs every bit as seriously as Oregon.

It does seem funny when you think about it. One state's version of state approval, ODA, refuses to accept state approval from another state. I suppose using this logic the unaccredited schools in Oregon, ODA APPROVED, are fair game by all other states.

The ODA version of state approval is still state approval, no more or less. If accreditation is the main point, then the ODA would fall just as short as any other form of state approval. It's not another type of accreditation, it's just the ODA, underfunded and too few employees, added to opinion and bias.

[Neil Hayes]

It does seem funny when you think about it. One state's version of state approval, ODA, refuses to accept state approval from another state. I suppose using this logic the unaccredited schools in Oregon, ODA APPROVED, are fair game by all other states. The ODA version of state approval is still state approval, no more or less. If accreditation is the main point, then the ODA would fall just as short as any other form of state approval. It's not another type of accreditation, it's just the ODA, underfunded and too few employees, added to opinion and bias.

I'm lead to believe that the Oregon approved unaccredited schools are those that have threatened the ODA with legal action - or have taken legal action.

[Dennis Ruhl]

So does Oregon license schools and then require their students to use a disclaimer that says their degree is so much crap? I have the feeling that the ODA is sadly in need of an administrator instead of a crusader.

Perhaps there is another hundred student accredited residential school in Eastern Europe that Mr. Contreras is going to attack on behalf of Oregon taxpayers.

[Jay1]

While I don't know, I bet that the ODA has a separate set of standards for their own "Exempt" colleges. Most people seem to like their own bastards. :rolleyes: And if the ODA does let them slide on the disclaimer, or use a milder form, well, that seems a bit iffy to me. God save us from all the people trying to save us. There are just too many of them these days. I wonder if I can still scratch without a license? :o

[Neil Hayes]

While I don't know, I bet that the ODA has a separate set of standards for their own "Exempt" colleges. Most people seem to like their own bastards. :rolleyes: And if the ODA does let them slide on the disclaimer, or use a milder form, well, that seems a bit iffy to me. God save us from all the people trying to save us. There are just too many of them these days. I wonder if I can still scratch without a license? :o

Whilst New Zealand is still a great place to live, it has, since the present Labour Government came to power eight years ago, become full of bureaucrats. In fact the number of bureaucrats has risen from 30,000 to well over 50,000. If you can imagine around 4 million people being governed by 50,000 of the ilk of ODA official, that's what it is like. We have District Councils, Regional Councils, City Councils, far too many government departments to list (the worst ones being - Occupational Safety & Health, Environmental Risk Management Authority), numerous quasi-governmental groups, numerous bio-security groups, numerous educational groups, huge numbers of 'self-styled experts', etc., etc., etc. With none of these groups, or 'experts', making any contribution whatsoever to the productive, welfare and success of New Zealand. Of course, the majority of NZ individuals switch off completely from it all, and simply ignore it - like a friend of mine, who never watches TV, never reads a newspaper and never listens to the radio, unless there's some good music on it. It so happens that this friend is a well educated American!

[Dennis Ruhl]

Neil, you think New Zealand is bad? Our newly minted Conservative government is doing some housecleaning. They are saving $4 million yearly by getting the government out of the marijuana business. Count on the government to eff up drug trafficing.

The first batches they grew were so low in THC that they couldn't give it away. They also sold pot on credit and are now suing half their customers. The Conservatives have decided to leave medical marijuana to trained professionals. After all, it is the largest agriculural commodity in British Columbia.

[Jay1]

In the States if they give you back a freedom, they must first create a commission to construct the wording and define just who is to have this freedom returned. Then they create a government agency to regulate and control this returned right, and then, it's so expensive they have to take it away "again" becuse we can't afford it or some group is afraid it might be abused.

"Beware of government bureaucrats or politicians who wish to protect you, or, God forbid, make your life better." :cuss:

[Timothy Jensen]

Whilst New Zealand is still a great place to live, it has, since the present Labour Government came to power eight years ago, become full of bureaucrats. In fact the number of bureaucrats has risen from 30,000 to well over 50,000. If you can imagine around 4 million people being governed by 50,000 of the ilk of ODA official, that's what it is like. We have District Councils, Regional Councils, City Councils, far too many government departments to list (the worst ones being - Occupational Safety & Health, Environmental Risk Management Authority), numerous quasi-governmental groups, numerous bio-security groups, numerous educational groups, huge numbers of 'self-styled experts', etc., etc., etc. With none of these groups, or 'experts', making any contribution whatsoever to the productive, welfare and success of New Zealand. Of course, the majority of NZ individuals switch off completely from it all, and simply ignore it - like a friend of mine, who never watches TV, never reads a newspaper and never listens to the radio, unless there's some good music on it. It so happens that this friend is a well educated American!


He possibly can't understand your excent?

[Neil Hayes]

He possibly can't understand your excent?

Could well be; but he can understand 'Kiwi music' as he was a full-time professional musician with the NZ Symphony Orchestra for 36-years.